Sociologists study the first generation of “free” Ukrainians
Problems relating to the establishment of a civil society in Ukraine appear to have the highest priority. They were discussed at a round table titled The Current Status of Civil Society in Ukraine: Problems and Prospects recently held in Kyiv. Alas, the topic turned out markedly unpopular with the media, as evidenced by the handful in attendance, thus questioning the need to hear expert opinions.
Meanwhile, some of the papers read at the round table seem worth mentioning, even if in abstract format. For example, the representative of the Federation of the Trade Unions of Ukraine described his baby as a real bastion of that civil society, informing those present that unions currently boast a membership of 16 million (almost 33% of the population). Suppose we refrain from challenging this statistic (it is most likely official). This author was also a member of a student trade union, in 1995- 99 to be precise — all of us were “strongly recommended” to join it — so I know what such unions did nothing to defend our rights. In fact, the number of those considering themselves full-fledged members is more important, of course, than the number of membership applications submitted. This year’s poll, carried out by the national academy’s Institute of Sociology in collaboration with SOCIS Gallup, points to a mere 4% of such members, taking into account those of conventional and untraditional trade unions, as well as farmers’ associations. The bulk of the respondents (84%) stated they were not affiliated with “any volunteer or political organizations or movements.”.
Yet, this trade union representative sounded quite optimistic at the round table, citing the turnout of another poll, according to which almost 90% of the Ukrainian population believe that they do need trade unions and that they trust them more than the state officials. He admitted, however, that sociologists register a rather negative public attitude toward how existing unions operate.
A woman representing an organization defending children’s rights began by saying that the members of the future civil society were formed within their respective families. She then quoted the State Statistics Committee as saying that over 456,000 children working, rather than studying, were registered in 1999-2000, of whom 61% worked steadily throughout the academic year. Among the main types of child labor exploitation, she mentioned all those minors toiling in the agrarian sector, industries, shadow family business, in the street, in the most adverse weather conditions and in an unfavorable social environment. Naturally, living and working in this way, our children could never be encouraged to become members of a progressive civil society. Moreover, a society faced with this problem could by no means be described as a civil one, because the latter implies protection of all social strata, including the minor’s right to an a normal childhood.
The results of polls focusing on civil society and youth proved the most interesting at the round table. One of them, carried out by the Institute of Sociology in collaboration with the Intellectual Perspective Foundation, focusing on the curreut status of civil society, showed that most respondents did not know exactly what civil society meant or its underlying principles. Considering the respondents’ definitions of civil society, they were divided into those favoring democracy (41%) and authoritarianism. Among the institutions in a civil society supposed to exert a degree of influence on the government machine, the respondents singled out financial-industrial structures, political parties, and the media. Trade unions, creative unions, and interest groups were described as having very little such influence. The respondents’ knowledge of their civil rights and liberties was equally lamentable. 15% stated they knew nothing, 48% said they knew something, 25% felt sure they knew all they needed to know, and 3% claimed they knew all there was to know. The poll’s findings show that the results reflected the actual status of the citizenry being prepared to protect their civil rights and freedoms, and that it was a hallmark of modern public conscience: tolerance. One-third of the population showed no response to any social infringements. Over half believe that mass actions of protest would be impossible in their respective regions under any circumstances, be it a deepening economic crisis or the violation of constitutional rights and freedoms.
Another picture emerged from a joint project carried out by leading polling agencies in the field, titled The First Free Ukrainian Settlement: Who are They? The respondents, people born in 1968 and later, with the selection criterion being that such people had come of age just as the Soviet Union began to experience democratic transformations and assumption that such people would be the most important members of civil society in Ukraine. The poll presented a picture of the average statistical Ukrainian aged 18-34. According to the Kyiv’s International Institute of Sociology, such an individual is mainly apolitical, although given to Social Democratic ideology; the largest segment of them (11% respondents) voted for SDPU(O), 10% for Our Ukraine, and 8% for the Greens during the last parliamentary elections. Under 34% believed that a political leader should be “tough, uncompromising, and capable of straightening out this country.” When asked what model of political system they preferred, 41% of young Ukrainian respondents pointed out that political power should be divided among the president, parliament, and independent judiciary. This average statistical Ukrainian believes that the development of our society is impeded mostly by corrupt bureaucrats at all levels (35% of respondents) and top officials (13%). Of the most pressing problems, in the eyes of the current rising generation, 71% of the respondents mentioned the living standard, 29% pointed to crime, and 23% to corruption.
The Democratic Initiatives Fund and SOCIS Gallup’s poll shows that the young Ukrainian in the street is far more in favor of the market reform than the older generation (36% of the respondents said they wanted a market economy, the sooner the better; 37% favor a cautious, gradual transfer). Markedly fewer, compared to the older generation, favor the idea of Ukraine joining the union of Russia and Belarus.
The Razumkov Center’s poll points to most young Ukrainians being interested in foreign political events ( 61% of respondents) and support Ukraine’s EU and NATO membership (65% and 42%, respectively). 32% believe that Ukraine will catch up with the developed EU countries in the next twenty years.
The poll carried out by the Institute of Sociology of the Ukrainian National Academy of Sciences jointly with the Social Monitoring Center shows that twice as many younger respondents feel dissatisfied with their current way of life than the older generation. Experts believe that this testifies to a higher level of social adjustment to current socioeconomic conditions among younger Ukrainians.
The Institute of Sociology poll also indicates the younger generation’s higher living standard, in terms of various social indicators. Young families, as well as young men and women living separately from their parents, are markedly better off in all respects. Most have their own housing, 90% have refrigerators, 80% have color televisions, 74% have cassette recorders and washing machines, 50% have good furniture, and 35% have video and stereo equipment. They earn an average of 200 hryvnias per family member compared to 150 hryvnias in older families.
When asked about civil society in Ukraine, most younger respondents said that it is already here. Although only 3% believe it is an adequate one, 32% are convinced that it is inadequate, and 28% insist that we only have the rudiments.
