How can a nation become successful?

A major topic of articles and debates today is in which direction Ukraine will go and what awaits us, given the recent developments. In reality, all we need to know is the nature of the rulers and that of the subordinated — in other words, the mentality of both. Likewise, the people’s mentality should be taken into account whenever a development strategy is being mapped out. Larysa Vitenko, a research associate at the International Institute of Socionics (a science that studies exchange of information between man and his environment), believes that “economic wonders can only emerge in the world if the leadership of a successful country has created proper conditions for the development of national specifics… But many do not even know that these specifics are part of the social domain.” In terms of mentality, Ukrainians are ethical intuitive introverts, sometimes referred to as the “Dostoyevsky type.” The position “a bad peace is better than a good war” is typical of this character, as is being highly critical of oneself and tolerant of other people’s weaknesses. Psychologists say that “it is very difficult for such people to implement a conflict-free system of relations in a world full of contradictions.” Such people are very laborious. To stand up for himself, an ethical intuitive introvert has to make quite an effort; he is very loath to use force and often withdraws; as a rule, he is in the shadow… Are we like this? Our interview with psychologist Larysa VITENKO focuses on the “Ukrainian” character in us, the way this character will shape our “exchange of information” with autocratic authorities, and the likely development of the current leadership’s relations with Europe and Russia.

Ms. Vitenko, what Ukrainian national features should the government take into account in order to promote development?

“Ukrainian people are emotional, not logical. But one should not equate logic with reason, for reason is an integral idea. Emotions are a more powerful mechanism of world perception and reactions to the surroundings. That we are illogical does not mean we are limited in something. Here is a medical fact: if a child has had the cerebral hemisphere responsible for logic removed (the last-resort step, when it is a life-or-death issue), the child survives and learns to speak thanks to the compensatory potential of the other hemisphere — the one not responsible for logic. But there has never been a case when a child, who had the hemisphere responsible for emotions removed, survived. Because of our lack of logic, the developed ‘lo­gical’ countries are afraid of us and do not understand us, for their development is based on the cultivation and application of business logic, the lo­gic of result. It is said that one can be clever either in mind or in heart. We are the latter.”

What does “afraid of us” mean? Rather, we are disliked and we have a negative image…

“We are incomprehensible for them: hence we have a bad image. And incomprehensible means unpredictable, with all that this implies. We do not fit in with their life pattern. But we still have a plus: we are more creative as we perceive things and respond to the surroundings figuratively and emotionally. We are more ­po­werful.”

But, unfortunately, we are only powerful enough to eke out an existence and wriggle out of a quandary instead of doing something constructive, innovative, and scientific… Will we be able to find a common language with Europe some day?

“It is our leadership — political, economic, oppositional, and other — that should be logical. This is necessary for us to be able to speak with the surrounding world and to be protected in a greater number of ways. Emphasis should be put on business ­lo­gic. Unfortunately, we have not yet had a leadership like this. Indeed, Europe cannot understand us and, therefore, is largely avoiding cooperation with us.

“Our advantage is creativity and the fact that the inner spiritual components of life-energy are beginning to be studied. This is a very powerful feature of ours, which, incidentally, plays a major role in business activity. In Ukraine, business should be guided by love, no matter how odd this may sound, because all the rest will be of foreign and will not be part of national heritage. Why? Because society will not understand it, it will be just copying, and copying cannot be creative. Our business should learn to understand that it must be based on the love of the producer for himself and for the consumer. This is an extremely powerful thing. Yet, with due account of our undying stereotypes, it is possible, albeit extremely difficult, to do this.”

But the ultimate goal of today’s people is to survive and earn a living rather than to be kindhearted, do something useful for somebody, or make somebody happy…

“This is too bad. We must rouse the people. In what is the emotional component of reason more powerful than the logical one? In that if positive things are to be cultivated, this will result in a positive explosion… Why are people dying out here? Because they are unsure of today, let alone yesterday. As for men, they are totally maladjusted because men usually realize themselves through socially useful work. The picture is a bit brighter for women because of the family and children. As the woman shoulders the main burden in the family, she survives and lives longer.”

Besides, Ukrainians do not love themselves…

“This is because of stereotypes that never cease to be created and cultivated. Look: TV screens, newspaper pages, etc., keep supplying information about a stereotype of a successful person. The Americans admit that they teach their children in a way other than we do: they teach them from a very early age to be enterprising. They focus on this. They teach them to follow the suit of successful people. As a result, a high percentage of children developed cardiovascular diseases. They compared this to the way children are brought up in Japan, where a child is compared not to another person but to the same child yesterday (what you were and could have done yesterday, and what you are and can do today). We are bound to teach children, sooner or later, differently, but love is the main thing. But still love is a matter of the future. ‘Tenderness, not wrath, is our forte,’ Olena Teliha used to write.”

You say the government should be logical. But it is elected by illogical people.

“The grassroots will not elect a leader they do not understand. The political programs of parties seem to have been copied one from another. But, depending on which politician has put it across to the general public, one obtains high political dividends and then nothing. Once a person begins to speak, they will speak the way they see it appropriate. Do you remember the laughter over the ‘heavy blunt objects’ thrown at Yanukovych during the 2004 election campaign? Can you remember the way he acted it out and the way society reacted to that? As a result, he was laughed at. But everybody believed Yushchenko, for he is reciprocal [reciprocal relationships are the best relationships, the relationships of psychic complement and complete mutual understanding. – Author]. Moreover, somebody maligned reciprocals, and this triggered the Orange Revolution.”

And what type is Yanukovych?

“By the first function, he is black sensorial, i.e., full of strength. He is illogical and irrational, but he has a great sensorial power. He is now idling away, but in general he is going to paddle his own canoe through force. As for Azarov, he is a total control freak. He is certain to rev up the system of simplified taxation.”

Nobody has infuriated students and all other educationists more than Tabachnyk. What can you say about him?

“I did not inquire about him for some reason. He is very dependent and is always adjusting himself to somebody. To ‘see through’ him, you must enter into a direct contact with him.”

And what does the Cabinet look like in general?

“Azarov is a tough manager who strives to exercise total control over not just all entrepreneurs but also anything under his jurisdiction: either you fall in line or go away. This may only give some minimal positive results, for, unfortunately, he is guided by force. Let me give an example. I spoke to Volodymyr Lanovy [Doctor of Economics, permanent representative of the President of Ukraine at the Cabinet of Ministers. – Author] who, incidentally, never tackles problems in a strong-arm manner and is thus defenseless before this type of managers. So when Yanukovych held the office of prime minister for the first time, he told Lanovy that it was necessary to close loss-making coal mines but there was no money to pay to the laid-off miners. Lanovy, a kindhearted man, said one should establish a fund and deposit money onto a specific account. What did Mr. Lanovy hear in reply? Yanukovych opposed this — I have not yet seen a sensorial strongman who would voluntarily part with money. The people now in power mean total control. This means ‘us’ and ‘them,’ force, and lack of compromise.”

If Yushchenko was and still is a reciprocal for Ukraine, why did he so abruptly cease to be respected?

“The point is Yushchenko was doing almost nothing. People elect the most comprehensible politician of all, and what was done in 2004-05? The president saw his powers cut down. In fact, this country was then ruled by Tymoshenko and, for some time, by Yanukovych. Yush­chenko did not even have a great desire to work, all the more so that people like him work very well in stable, well-adjusted systems. But he was helpless in 2005, when the situation in Ukraine could change several times in a day. Incidentally, I often visited the Presidential Secretariat at the time, and my hair stood on end when I saw five official advisors to the president sitting and chatting idly: Yushchenko decided that he was forced to solve some difficult problem and, instead of making a decision, he said he would be away for 10 days. As a result, nobody knew what to do, everybody was afraid to do something wrong. This would seem funny if it were not tragic.”

Can we claim that the Ukrainians elected Yanukovych to allow him to establish order in this country, for he shows force?

“The Ukrainians elected Yanu­ko­vych to punish Yushchenko. Otherwise, the Ukrainians would not have elected Yanukovych because we perceive him as not so much undemocratic as non-liberal, autocratic. But the Ukrainians feel very strongly about Yushchenko. They have laid the blame for all the problems and governmental miscalculations at his door.”

Anti-governmental feelings are now on the rise in Ukraine. Can this trigger mass protests?

“Azarov is a powerful logic, a force. This means Ukrainians will be forced to do what they do not want to. But, in the short term, we can only expect the government to rob us of things and redistribute them among themselves. This will undoubtedly lead to conflicts. But we have so many times been forced that we will be shirking, pretending, sabotaging, and wriggling out — Ukrainians are very good at this. As for protests, they may only occur under certain conditions. There will be resistance as well as strong-arm ways of ruling until a critical mass is achieved. I asked the opposition, namely, Taras Stetskiv, to launch a website of the united opposition. I said to him: OK, let it be even without a leader, let rally around an idea. But he failed to find a common language with anybody: they rejected the proposal, for each of them thinks he or she stands a chance to win on their own.

“We are going to lose in the nearest future. It is too early to discuss long-term prospects. We are going to be in Russia’s orbit in the next few years, although Russia itself is beset with problems. Naturally, this will not be a USSR-type format, for you cannot enter the same river twice. Yet Ukrainians will cling to their neutrality until the end. Europe will conti­nue to be afraid of us and restrict our presence in the EU. I think the following words of Lina Kostenko are a good illustration to the situation in Ukraine: ‘All humankind is well ahead, and we are still at the start…’.”