What do “influential people” influence?

A New Year without old problems and the chance to start with a clean slate: that is what both ordinary people and those in power really want. But it is futile to expect external changes without making radical changes inside, whether in private or public life. No miracle has occurred this time, and Ukrainians have stepped across the threshold of 2008 with their old social ills: 43 percent of Ukraine’s population wants a strong leader; more than one-third continues to react sharply to political colors; people support the idea of private property when they can expect something for their own benefit and oppose it when that something belongs to others. All told, our public conscience remains very contradictory.

Proof of this is found in the results of a nationwide poll carried out in late 2007 by the Institute of Social and Political Psychology at the Academy of Pedagogical Sciences of Ukraine. Below psychologist Pavlo FROLOV, the head of the institute’s laboratory for social and psychological technologies, comments on the trends being studied by sociologists in Ukraine.

According to your findings, 56 percent of Ukrainians claim to support their government even if it imposes restrictions on freedoms and democracy, so long as it can secure law and order. What does this trend mean?

Popular support of tough governance means that people are prepared to accept authoritarianism. A number of sociological services have talked about this phenomenon in the past several years, considering that this readiness is growing, albeit slowly. It manifests itself not only in these kinds of questions but also in the popularity of personalities like Stalin and Putin. The reason is the absence in Ukraine of a center of power that people can feel confident about. Other factors include misunderstandings among the political leadership. In observing two branches of power pouncing on each other, people subconsciously conclude that it is better to have one, no matter which. The White-and-Blues have their leader and the Orange ones have theirs. This division is clearly seen in Ukraine, although authoritarian moods are characteristic of the Regionals.

FRIENDS AND FOES

The poll shows that 36 percent of Ukrainians describe the performance of Viktor Yanukovych’s government as the “most effective in the history of independent Ukraine.” An equal number has precisely the opposite opinion.

“What we have here is a polarized attitude to noted personalities in regard to the same questions; if something is said by their leader, they receive it well, but they won’t accept it from the leader of another political force. It is a well- known fact that it is not important what is being said but by whom.

What is behind such an uncritical attitude?

Underpinning it are the emotional mechanisms of perception and assessment. A rational attitude requires a detailed analysis and understanding of what is actually happening. Many people have neither the time nor desire to do this. That is why everything happens in accordance with simpler patterns, of which the most sophisticated one is the friend-or-foe principle. Regrettably, starting in 2004, every election has polarized our society according to this principle. When something wrong is done by a “friend,” this is regarded as a “mistake” (when entirely different explanatory patterns apply). When something negative is done by the other side, this is regarded as a deliberate act.

Forty-three percent of Ukrainian respondents believe that President Putin of Russia is a man whose example should be emulated. What makes them think this way?

Putin is given to sharp statements and demonstrations of power. People like this sort of thing; it sparks admiration in them, especially in Russians. However, if you study the findings of the Public Opinion Fund, which has followed public attitudes to power in Russia throughout Putin’s tenure of office, you will encounter an interesting phenomenon. People are asked, “What has Putin accomplished? Has he solved problem number one, problem number two, problem number three?” They reply that he hasn’t solved any. The next question is, “Do you believe that Putin will solve these problems?” And the answers are in the affirmative. And this has been the case for a number of years; people still believe in him. There is a similar trend in Ukraine: people fail to correctly identify themselves in political terms. For example, a person says that s/he has socialist views, but will vote for the communists because they have more expressive and attractive slogans. That is how political awareness is extremized.

Have you spotted any trends indicative of the formation of a civil society in Ukraine?

These days, unfortunately, people do not believe they can influence events in their country; in fact, such people constitute the majority - over 60 percent of Ukrainians doubt they can bring about any changes. Few believe differently: three percent at the most. Be that as it may, our polls show that public activity is on the rise in Ukraine, even though the rate remains low. Proof of this is the growth of membership in civic organizations and political parties.

Sixty-six percent of Ukrainians believe that Ukraine cannot overcome bribery and corruption because the political leadership shows no political will. Is this proof that people are stripping themselves of responsibility because they themselves are giving and taking bribes?

We have carried out various kinds of surveys about bribery and have arrived at the conclusion that people tend to brand individuals who are far up the social ladder as bribe-takers/givers. In other words, the more important a post one occupies, the heavier the charges of corruption, and vice versa. Any “friendly” acts - or those by people who are part of the milieu - are received with understanding. Here we have a case of double standards. People also believe that the bribes we are taking are not actually bribes because they are insignificant. Big bribes that are given to important people are acts of bribery. When it comes to political will, people mean: “First, you people have to put things in order, but we won’t help you.” This is probably the biggest psychological problem in overcoming corruption in Ukraine. It is impossible to fight on a single front because the moral condition of our society and the methods of assessing acts of people in power and our own must change as a whole.

LET’S THINK THE UKRAINIAN WAY

According to the results of your survey, 52 percent of respondents believe that “the status of the Ukrainian language has improved in the years of independence and the spheres of its application have expanded.” The reality is different, isn’t it?

This is an eloquent example of how mass and individual consciousness does not always accurately reflect objective realities, but tends to respond to what is being created in the information space. For example, there is a shortage of data on book publishing in Ukraine, as a limited number of persons are interested in literature. Instead, there is talk about some forcible Ukrainization and the Russian language being elbowed out. If this information keeps being puffed up, people eventually become convinced that positive changes have taken place in the situation with the Ukrainian language during the years of independence. Here, too, one comes across controversies, considering that roughly the same number of people support the idea of Russian being adopted as an official language, and Ukrainian as being a language that requires protection in Ukraine.

Controversies are also found in the issue of private property: 64 percent of respondents believe that large enterprises do not have to be privatized because they will yield big profits for the state; 41 percent are certain that the government must encourage people to acquire private property. Ukrainian consciousness often reveals contradictory attitudes, where everything depends on the context and situation; where any attitude can be actualized if need be. When it comes to big businesses, the crux of the matter is, “I can’t own them, so I am opposed to anyone else owning what our grandparents built.” On the other hand, you have this attitude: “I want to have my own business, I want to obtain my own share,” so the latter approach is found among a considerable number of respondents.

Do you believe that Yulia Tymoshenko will maintain her rather high ratings thanks to the kinds of decisions she is making at the moment?

It is possible to assume that the people who cast their ballots for her still believe that she will keep her promises. In fact, the number of supporters of the prime minister may increase, since Ukraine has always had people who are prepared to believe that whatever the government does is the right thing. These people are invariably government-minded. However, the problem is that our politicians formulate messages to the people without first checking possible public responses. People have their own understanding of what can or cannot be done (like increasing salaries, refunding savings bank deposits, and so on). And so people will believe that the coal miners will indeed be paid hourly wages, while maintaining a more reserved attitude toward savings deposit refunds. To this end, the extent of public support of the current government will depend largely on political colors: the miners may refuse to accept Tymoshenko because she isn’t on the “friendly” side, which means that there is something up someone’s sleeve.

How can this friend-or-foe division be overcome?

The Voters’ Committee of Ukraine must carry out public explanatory work. Our politicians must also stop the war they started against each other. For example, BYuT leaders often resort to hawkish language, saying that someone is an enemy of someone else. The stronger the rhetoric of this division the slimmer the chance of changing the situation. Naturally, it may well become aggravated during elections, but in all other periods our politicians must determine the general goal and use healthy criticism.