Protecting Banderites from Soviet interpretation

Ex-President Viktor Yushchenko’s edict conferring the Hero of Ukraine title on Stepan Bandera caused stormy debate.

People in any country can get emotional when discussing certain disputable matters, but few if any will tolerate any acts humiliating their national dignity, national symbols, or self-respect. Mature nations achieve mutual respect under their able leaderships.

Heroes and enemies of the state are determined by the people and powers that be.

The avalanche of website responses to Yushchenko’s edict illustrates the differing views on Bandera and antagonized concepts of Ukraine’s present and future. Any visitor to these websites can tell between the motivated, albeit polarized, approaches, and statements of undisguised hatred for Ukraine, scornful attitude toward the people of Galicia (Halychyna), and lack of respect for one’s fellow countrymen — above all, there is every sign of a large-scale offensive being launched against the basic principles of the Ukrainian state.

It has been a long time since we last witnessed such aggressive anti-Ukrainian manifestations.

Our national independence is 19 years old. Needless to say, this is too short a period for overcoming the consequences of all that large-scale communist and Ukrainian stateless upbringing and brainwashing. Besides, the next election campaign appears to be uppermost in the mind of some of our leading statesmen.

This debate on the ex-president’s edict could divide Ukraine in terms of attitude to Bandera, but it was meant to rally all political parties against anti-Ukrainian, chauvinistic, Nazi statements.

This kind of debate poses no threat to the unity of our state. What actually threatens it is the fact that people who live in Ukraine have been raised and educated in different ways. Add here political parties’ speculations — you can laugh out loud, watching capitalists actively using communist views.

Our task is to form a solid nation, made up of individuals with varying political and other views, brought up in different ways, and having varying past experiences. Forming a political nation is a time-consuming social process, but some of the problems involved could be resolved, here and now.

During the latest presidential campaign, Ukrainians heard that this edict of Yushchenko would be “another move aimed at splitting Ukraine even more.” Also, we heard that the head of our state should take care of entire Ukraine, rather than a part of it.

The Party of Regions issued a statement that read: “We must make every effort to bring [our] regions and people closer together, rather than cause them to drift apart.” A noble idea that should unite our politicians, but canceling Yushchenko’s edict would be a serious move in the opposite direction. After all, what we had was another presidential campaign, not a coup d’etat.

It is common knowledge that Catherine II of Russia and Stepan Bandera are interpreted differently by people who live in various regions of Ukraine. For the residents of Halychyna, Bandera is a hero, but certain other Ukrainian citizens regard him as a Nazi hireling. For a great many residents of Odesa, Catherine II is a prominent state-builder, but for the Cossack descendants she is the one who made every effort to destroy everything relating to Ukraine. Such is our history, such is our state, and such is our people.

What do we have to change? Our history? Our state? How about tolerance and mutual respect?

During the presidential race the Bandera issue was uppermost on each team’s agenda. They launched a debate which continues on websites — and here one finds comments that can hardly be described as such. These comments are anonymous. Do we have to rely on such anonymous enemies of the Ukrainian state in forming our attitude to the issue?

Until recently, we didn’t need a nationwide debate on the Banderite issue. Some kept silent, others couldn’t voice their views on the matter, and still others kept pondering the matter — the way we’d done under the Soviets. Some of us believed that this issue would resolve itself with the passage of time. Under the circumstances, what we need is unifying factors.

Ex-President Yushchenko’s edict gave rise to issues of national import. What had to be done about all those verbal wars, about all those glaring discrepancies in public views? How could one persuade the warring parties to adopt a peaceful attitude to the presidential edict? How could one serve the good of either party? But perhaps one should serve the good of Ukraine — in other words, the good of all of us, considering that, put together, we are the Ukrainian state?

There was Soviet propaganda concerning Stepan Bandera. The man was portrayed as the worst enemy of the people. Today, every country faces the same task of integrity — and the key to it is the unity of ideas harbored by every national. In Ukraine, we have never had an opportunity of publicly discussing the Bandera issue on a scholarly basis. Now is the time to have scholarly consultations, considering the situation that has developed with regard to Yushchenko’s edict.

This issue should not mark a field day for our leading channels’ Svoboda (Liberty) talk shows. This is what our society badly needs. We have to teach our children to discard Soviet concepts and encourage them to take a closer look at our national history. There was no love for Ukraine under the Soviets.

If and when this debate starts, the floor should be given to our scholars, archivists, and [surviving] eyewitnesses in the first place. We must learn the truth, instead of Soviet propaganda stuff, considering that the government monopolized the media for so many years. Some privately owned channels should be involved in this project.

Afterward, our mutually respected scholars and public figures should resolve this issue by setting a reconciliatory course for our society.

What we badly need is an atmosphere of peace and quiet in Ukraine.

Inviting any guests from abroad should be out of the question. This is our internal matter, a matter involving national interest. Sorry, this is an indisputable clause.

Whoever would take part in this serious debate should start by agreeing on respecting Ukraine’s national dignity, language, regions, and people representing various ethnic communities, WWII veterans — and encouraging Ukrainian citizens to follow suit.

We will soon mark May 9 as yet another anniversary of the Soviet Union’s victory over Nazi Germany. The debate in question is not a campaign linked with the celebration of a certain anniversary. May 9 is a self-sufficient, significant day for the Ukrainian people. We should not rush things here.

Unless we resolutely protect all national values, we will have no respect for Ukraine.

Therefore, the current President of Ukraine should stop any anti-Ukrainian campaigns here and now.

Any disputable matter can be pursued by means of in-depth studies, and we are in a position to revise our joint history with Russia, so let us combine efforts in building a Ukrainian nation-state on a solid cultural and spiritual foundation.