Facilitating Nation Building in Ukraine

Twenty years ago Ukraine gained its independence and started its path towards a free market economy and democratic governance. Where is it now after the change of four presidents and the Orange Revolution? According to the Freedom House Annual Report in 2011, on a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 representing the highest level, civic society in Ukraine scored at 2.75, democracy scored 4.61, and corruption scored 5.75. The Report further states that national political power in Ukraine is consolidated in the hands of President Yanukovych, who regained control over the cabinet, the security service, and the prosecutor general after the restoration of the constitution in October 2010 to its pre-2004 state. Despite President Yanukovych’s pledge to increase the autonomy of local governments, his actions and policies resulted in the strengthening of centralized political power. The Freedom House Report also emphasized anti-democratic trends that impact civic society and freedom of the media including political pressure, arrests, and administrative detentions of NGO activists and journalists. According to Pew Forum research, approval of the change to democracy in Ukraine dropped from 72% in 1991 to 30% in 2009, a decline of 42% -the biggest fall among all post-Soviet countries. Approval of the change to capitalism also declined from 52% to 36%, positioning Ukraine in the fourth place from the bottom after Hungary, Lithuania, and Bulgaria. Moreover, 69% of respondents prefer a strong leader over democratic government (20% respectively), again the biggest gap in Europe. The preference of having democratic leaders declined from 57% in 1991 to 20% in 2009. Fifty-five percent of Ukrainians disapproved of democracy (the biggest disapproval rate in Europe) and Ukrainian respondents declared that economic prosperity was more important for them than democracy (74% vs. 50%).

During the summer of 2011, with the support of the Ebert foundation, I conducted research interviwing people who represent the “1.5 diplomacy” level: scholars, political leaders, and journalists who are active in the political sphere and have an impact on political discourse. The final sample consists of 58 interviewees, including 53 in Kiev and 5 in Simferopol, Crimea. The analysis of narratives identifies major factors that lead to the current situation in Ukraine. One of the major sources of the current Ukrainian situation is that its independence was a result of the fall of the Soviet Union—not of a mass conscious movement for independence. People who had fought for Ukrainian independence for centuries prior were inspired by the idea of sovereignty, but did not have a comprehensive concept of Ukraine. Thus, in 1991 there was no common notion of a Ukrainian nation or nation-state. The Communist Government either did not understand the need for a new concept or were afraid of radical changes. To preserve their power, they did not initiate any serious public discussions and did not make any serious efforts to define Ukrainian nationalism and forge a common identity. Thus, the Soviet ideology continued to penetrate the society due to (a) deprivation of property rights that has led to a paternalistic dependence of the people upon the State and a prevalence of the state oppressing the society and (b) absence of Government accountability, civic responsibility, and collaboration between the Government and the public.

It was believed that the creation of a market economy would result in wealth for all and thus a democracy, but instead, it created a perception of Ukraine as a trophy territory that could be stolen and squandered and a perception of the concentration on economic well-being as a common national idea. A lack of understanding of the need to change and alter the Soviet consciousness inhibited the development a culture of democracy. The Orange Revolution failed to build civil society with civic responsibility and community agency. Instead, it deceived the public with false interpretations of democracy, including the idea of power of majority without rights for minorities. The formation of a common national identity was also impeded by the diverse cultural and historical characteristics of the regions that obstructed critical (re)thinking and assessment of the Soviet heritage, as well as by ongoing influences from neighboring Russia. This ethno-cultural divide, sharpened by the zero-sum thinking, is actively used by political leaders to draw attention away from economic problems. As a result, on its 20th anniversary of independence, Ukraine is still a country in transition, deeply rooted in its Soviet past and deficient of a national idea, a common national identity, and any objectives for development. Despite the apparent peaceful character of past developments, Ukrainian society is characterized by structural violence, relative deprivation, weakness of state, and communal (ethnic) conflict.

The analysis of interviews with Ukrainian political and intellectual elites has also revealed six consistent narratives: (1) a dual identity; (2) being pro-Soviet; (3) a fight for Ukrainian identity; (4) a recognition of Ukrainian identity; (5) a multicultural-civic narrative; and (6) the Crimean Tatars’ narrative. Each narrative is characterized by three main features: (1) a coherent structure with strong internal logic and justification of its legitimacy; (2) a connection with a specific conception of power and morality; and (3) an opposition to other narratives. The mapping of narratives shows that five out of six narratives rest on a primordial ideology and employ ethnic concepts in the development of the national idea. Only one narrative, the “Multicultural-Civic” represented by 16% of respondents, is based on a liberal ideology and civic meaning of national identity. Nevertheless, this narrative recognizes the ethnic diversity of Ukrainian society. Thus, findings indicate that the intellectual landscape of Ukraine is deficient in civic liberal ideologies that define society as a community of equal citizens independently of their ethnicity, language, or religion.

All of these features lead to the perception of the society as a zero-sum game where one narrative should prevail over others' narratives. At the same time, all of these features ensure that there cannot be an overwhelming victory of one narrative over others, or a satisfying compromise between them. The realization of this fact is very important for the opening of a real dialogue in Ukranian society. Only through systemic dialogue can common ground be established and a cohesive national identity be developed—one based on unifying ideas, including ideas of civic society and a civic concept of national identity, human rights, and equality of every citizen independent of his or her religion, ethnicity, and language.

The absence of a national idea and common national identity was mentioned by all experts as a major source of the current problems. This crisis of attempting to unify disparate national conceptualizations results in an absence of a clear vision for the transition and the final outcomes, slowing the processes of transformation and increasing economic deprivation. The absence of a nationally conscious elite, corruption, and growing ethno-cultural and class divides contribute to the crisis. Most of the experts emphasized the “black and white” mentality, an absence of inter-community and government dialogue, a search for an enemy, and the development of zero-sum approaches to Ukraine’s national identity among the different groups. Thus, a national dialogue on a common national idea, national identity, and visions of progress can reduce the effects of structural violence, relative deprivation, weakness of state, and communal (ethnic) conflict.

Salient national identity resulting from an emerging common national idea will increase cohesiveness in the society and motivate people to contribute to the national well-being. This, in turn, should contribute to the development of civic society and better democratic governance. The finding of a common national ideology is the mechanism for the development of democratic society. The increased civic participation and civilian agency should lead to a rise in government accountability and a decline in corruption at all levels, resulting again in the reduction of the effects of structural violence, relative deprivation, weakness of state, and communal (ethnic) conflict. A national dialogue will also help to ensure that a common national identity incorporates democratic values, thus increasing a culture of democracy in the society. Democratic development is one of the major factors that impede the effects of structural violence, relative deprivation, weakness of state, and communal (ethnic) conflict.

The development of a civic based national narrative is threatened by the “Pro-Soviet Narrative” that masks under the idea of a common identity of citizens who comprise Ukrainian society. A major difference is the horizontal relations (the active participation, agency of people, and civic responsibility) in the former democracy-focused systems, versus vertical relations (paternalism, submission to the state, and blind patriotism) in the latter Soviet-style systems. Thus, a national idea should include civic education and the increase of a democratic culture among citizens of Ukraine.