Dnipropetrovsk: cradle of revolution?

The Day wrote extensively on the Maidan phenomenon in the winter of 2004-05. A number of interesting ideas were raised, both in the form of brief remarks and in-depth analyses (e.g., the April series of articles “The Ripening of the Orange Revolution” by the noted historian Stanislav Kulchytsky). Our authors and experts are still answering the question, “What exactly happened?” After 10 months the discussion has been joined by members of an academic council held recently in Dnipropetrovsk. In analyzing the nature of revolution, the scholars referred to what happened on the Maidan and pondered ways to help society learn how to live after revolutions.

The international conference “Revolution and Society” took place at the National Mining University’s Institute for Humanitarian Problems. The conference in Dnipropetrovsk gathered sociologists, historians, philosophers, and political scientists representing Ukrainian and foreign institutions of higher learning and academic centers. In his opening address Viktor Pushkin, a professor of history and director of the institute, told the conference that, although the idea to hold this scholarly gathering was first conceived in conjunction with the approaching centennial of the 1905-1907 revolution, the stormy political events in Ukraine — the presidential elections and the so-called Orange Revolution — changed these plans. Even though the objective of the conference remained the same — a retrospective analysis of revolutions as a social and historical phenomenon — most of the participants, even when they were discussing events dating back a hundred years, referred time and again to modern realities. The living connection between past and present was especially felt during roundtable discussions, during which the scholars pondered the specifics of the revolutionary process, revolution as a sociocultural phenomenon, or its contemporary manifestations. “There is no denying the topicality of these problems,” noted Prof. Pushkin, adding, “There have always been two ways to transform a society: by reform or revolution. Reforms may become a means of protecting society against revolution, or they may cause one. Launching reforms has always been fraught with danger, but stopping them is even more dangerous. There are more than enough examples in our history.”

The conference noted that in the 15 years since the Soviet Union’s collapse studies of revolutions as a social phenomenon have receded into the background. The very term “revolution” has practically vanished from modern encyclopedic dictionaries, and where it is still present, it is interpreted in an oversimplified manner. Perhaps not coincidentally there are many mistaken notions in Ukrainian society as to what can be regarded as revolution. Discussions on this subject began in scholarly circles only after the events on the Maidan. However, even now there is no uniform opinion in Ukraine concerning the Orange Revolution.

Prof. Yuriy Surmin, from the Academy of State Administration attached to the President of Ukraine, focused on “color” revolutions in Eastern Europe and the CIS, singling them out as revolutions of the postmodernist type. He believes that assessing the actual importance of these events is difficult at the present time, because the historical distance is too short. However, in the case of Ukraine, the Orange Revolution was most likely a good campaign project, and the previous elections reflected the conflict of generations in the Ukrainian political realm, between the Communists and Komsomolists to be exact. The Komsomolists turned out to be more advanced and succeeded in turning public opinion their way, using mass actions and skilful work with the media, and crowding out the old post- Soviet nomenklatura generation. Surmin is not enthusiastic in his assessment of the results of this victory; just like in the past, “there will be no action [from the Komsomolists], there will only be talk about action.” Interestingly enough, Surmin traces the roots of the Orange Revolution to Dnipropetrovsk, which has produced many representatives of the old nomenklatura, ranging from Brezhnev to Kuchma, as well as young, headstrong individuals of Yulia Tymoshenko’s generation. He does not rule out the possibility of sad consequences if the revolutionary moods in this society (something like modern Trotskyism) continue to mount.

Prof. Mykola Shulha, deputy director of the Institute for Social Studies at the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, agrees with many points raised by his colleague. In his opinion, the Orange Revolution was triggered by a rift in the Ukrainian elite and a confrontation of various oligarchic groups struggling for power, using modern political technologies. In the mind of the electorate, they transformed what happened on the Maidan into a real revolution. In his paper entitled “Internal Elite Coup or Revolution?” Shulha drew the audience’s attention to the fact that Gorbachev’s perestroika campaign was a genuine revolution, since the fall of the USSR led to a change not only in the political regime but also in property relations in Ukraine. This scholar believes that the privatization process resulted in the merging of the old nomenklatura with shadow business, thereby producing a nomenklatura-style oligarchic elite. The struggle for property ownership within this elite was accompanied by a split along regional, cultural, and geopolitical lines, which is traditional for Ukraine. During the elections all this created the veneer of a revolutionary conflict that perfectly fit the moods of “the majority of the population that has been robbed clean.” According to Shulha, prior to the presidential elections, 53 percent of the electorate were dissatisfied with their living standards and 69 percent felt helpless in the face of the government’s arbitrary rule. Under the circumstances, the Maidan was an outburst of protest moods, and this was skillfully manipulated by politicians who, with the help of the media, live broadcasts, created the effect of involvement in historical events.

Other scholars at the conference also do not consider the events on the Maidan a true revolution. “Revolution marks an essential transformation within a society,” stressed V. Britan, a Ph.D. candidate in history, who analyzed the nature and specific features of revolutions that have taken place in Ukraine in the past hundred years. He believes that the Orange Revolution failed to spark a change in the social system, even though it was supported by millions of voters who are dissatisfied with their lives.

Yuriy Narizhny, an associate professor at the Interior Ministry’s Academy of Ukraine, believes that the events on the Maidan should be regarded as a moral revolution, a phenomenon akin to the emergence of Christianity or the Reformation in Europe. He sees its sources in the group of shistdesiatnyky [sixtiers] and the dissident movement: “The Maidan is a moral rebellion against cynicism that has overwhelmed our society.”

The political situation in Ukraine was also assessed in technocratic terms during the conference. Volodymyr Prysniakov, member of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, delivered a paper entitled “Mathematical Models of the Revolution.” Using charts and formulas, he explained the process of growing dissatisfaction among the electorate and its behavior during and after the Orange Revolution. The academician’s mathematical calculations show that a social outburst occurs “with the level of injustice increasing by a mere 30 percent,” and that it is possible to forecast not only conflict situations in a society but also the electorate’s behavior during elections. “By and large, it is possible to build a model of the next elections even now. And it’s not even necessary to hold elections; it is enough to carry out an exit poll and learn the electorate’s choice on the Internet or via mobile phones,” noted Prysniakov, adding, “I am convinced that in the nearest future elections in their current format will no longer be required.” He believes that social cataclysms and revolutions may well become a thing of the past. However, most of the learned sociologists at the conference treated his prognosis with a noticeable degree of skepticism.

Parallel to the conference “Revolution and Society,” National Mining University hosted a book exhibit featuring scientific and popular publications dealing with the humanities, including books from The Day’s Library Series, among them the latest publications: Day and Eternity of James Mace and Klara Gudzyk’s Apocrypha. The official launch of these books will be held at National Mining University’s Institute for Humanitarian Problems in late October. The books from The Day’s Library Series have already found interested readers in Dnipropetrovsk.

Prof. Serhiy SVIETIYENKO, professor and chairman of the History Department at Dnipropetrovsk National University:

I first became familiar with the books from The Day’s Library Series two years ago. Of course, these editions are meant not for professional historians but rather for intelligent readers. But they contain many interesting articles written by specialists who are known in Ukraine and beyond its borders, who have expressed their views on the pages of The Day.

It is generally believed that periodicals “live for just one day,” but your newspaper has some very interesting articles, so it was a good idea to put them together and publish them, thereby preserving this intellectual capital. I think the books in The Day’s Library Series will be especially interesting to schoolteachers, for whom it is especially important to make their pupils interested in the history of Ukraine. This is especially true of debatable — or so-called blank — aspects of our national history. It’s no secret that the history of Ukraine is mythologized in many respects, so conveying to students the truth about the lives of their forefathers, demonstrating the heroic past, is a noble goal indeed. It is important not to talk about love for Ukraine, but to do work for the good and enlightenment of its people on a daily basis.

Prof. Hanna SHVYDKO, professor of history at National Mining University:

Quite recently National Mining University hosted a presentation of two Ukraine Incognita books launching The Day’s Library Series. And at the end of the summer two more books in this series just came off the presses, one after the other. They differ in content but are united by the truthful force of journalism, by the pain from Ukraine’s long- suffering historical past and present.

Day and Eternity of James Mace is a book that leaves one emotionally overwhelmed.

I remember two public appearances by this American scholar and journalist at the dawn of our independence; I will never forget them. Professor Mace’s contribution to Ukrainian history, as well as his unique personality, must still be analyzed and evaluated at greater length and depth. The Day made the first step in this direction by compiling his diversified autobiography in a book, along with his articles, notes, speeches, and recollections of those who knew him. The result is a collection of data dealing with both the author and the problems to which he dedicated his life, most importantly, his study of the 1932-1933 Holodomor in Ukraine.

Klara Gudzyk’s Apocrypha is a collection of articles that this journalist wrote for The Day. They deal with a variety of topics, ranging from ancient history to the present day. We’ve read some of them in The Day and missed some. This book contains all of them. They are thematically arranged, so they are perceived somewhat differently. In the foreword to the book editor in chief Larysa Ivshyna correctly notes that this book means the return of our history, the inclusion of Ukrainian culture in the broad Ukrainian context. The author’s intellectual acumen, profound thoughts, beautiful literary style, and passion make her a joy to read. Such books are badly needed by our society to compel it to think and act.