There is a different, more masochistic option for celebrating the national day, typically opted by the intelligentsia — complaining about Ukraine’s bad luck throughout its entire history, about how its predator neighbors hate it, and how it’s condemned to remain a poor orphan, and a perpetual victim of imperialists.
But it seems that Independence Day and other holidays designed to celebrate the state should become a time for reflection by the government, the opposition and the intellectuals along the lines of Hamlet’s “To be or not to be.”
It’s needed badly to understand why Ukraine, throughout its history, has had such a vivid discrepancy between its colossal potential and the horrible reality. In other words, if Ukrainians are so clever and talented, why is everything so bad? And what can be done to make people active – not passive — observers, but citizens able to turn Ukraine in to a flowering garden, a nation for thriving in?
There was a time when we thought that Red Director coming from a flagship of Ukraine’s high tech industry, Leonid Kuchma, once elected president, would become the guarantor of innovation and development of technology in the country. But he turned out to be the opposite – he conserved Ukraine’s technological backwardness, which allowed the newly born oligarchic gas lobby to skim off the greatest profits.
We used to think that Ukraine-obsessed Viktor Yushchenko would become the guarantor of the development of Ukraine’s arts, sciences and education, contribute to the creation of a new Ukrainian identity and promote the Ukrainian language. But again, the opposite turned out to be true, with culture barely surviving, language being trampled on, and talk of Ukrainian identity causing irritation for its association with failed opportunities.
We used to think that the Orange Revolution would allow Ukraine to get rid of the curse of neo-feudalism and help it to become a modern nation. But instead, the revolution has bred skepticism as to the sincerity of politicians, participation in public actions and hopes to improve the political system.
Yanukovych has met many expectations, though. Kyiv has become the new Donetsk (even in the architectural sense, as many ugly sky-scrapers are going up in the center and parks); criminals have not only merged with the government — they became the government; many lucrative assets have become the property of a single Family; and many vital state institutions, like the Constitutional Court, Verkhovna Rada, Central Election Commission, and the Ombudsman have turned into decorative organs, good only for rubber-stamping political decisions.
Oh yes, and Yulia Tymoshenko, the former prime minister, has been sent to jail for as long as this government remains.
During the 2009 election campaign, many people liked Yanukovych’s slogan “Ukraine for the people.” But that was only until the full list of the people in question became apparent, as well as the difference between those he called “the people” and the rest of the crowd.
In the ancient times of Kyivan Rus, when the kingdom’s political elite became too impotent and detrimental to the country’s potential, varangians (vikings) would have been summoned. In modern-day Ukraine, similar hopes are placed on European integration.
But integration with Europe (or the Customs Union with Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan, for that matter) cannot solve the main problem of Ukraine, its inability to become a “historic” people, in the sense meant by Georg Hegel. Those historic people fight for a place on the international arena in tough competition and by succeeding in social, political, economic, scientific and cultural development. None of that sounds like Ukraine.
Back in 1991, Ukraine looked very hopeful. It seemed the only thing it lacked for harmony and happiness was independence from the Kremlin in taking its own decisions. Now Ukraine has that, but it turned out that few are actually interested in the fate of their own nation. It’s obvious that what Ukraine lacks now is a social institution, a party or a class of people who can advance the whole nation.
In the Soviet Union, this role was played first by Stalin, then by the Central Committee of the Communist Party, in Singapore – by the government of Lee Kuan Yew, in the U.S. and most Western European states – by the political elite.
In post-Soviet Ukraine, there is no such driver. None of the existing political forces promote modernization of the whole political system. In theory, the creative class could take on this role, but this very class is a mortal threat for the feudal ruling elite and the brutal forces which enable it to rule. They don’t need modernization because they can simply take over an oil rig, a gas field or a seat in the government and live happily ever after.
In fact, the independent and self-sustaining parts of the population – good citizens, small and medium business, free journalists – become an enemy of the system. These are the same people who used to be sent to Siberia in the old days. Now they’re just given an opportunity to immigrate. Free people are no use in a feudal system, slaves are in demand.
In the past centuries, an inefficient system of governance used to mean death for a state. But modern civilization allows even its sickest patients to exist. Ukraine, infected badly by the virus of neo-feudalism, is one of those.
Its elite lives a carefree life, suffocating from money and glamour, its poor — in a daily struggle to survive. Neither of these two classes is capable of creativity, production of new senses and technologies – all these things that define the modern age, when creativity and human capital are valued most.
Is Ukraine capable of changing to a nation where all citizens have a chance for self-expression? Can it create a different society, based on the priority of a common good, rather than the predator instinct of the new feudal?
Yes, it has the capacity. But it lacks those who will fight for it, since the opposition continues to fight not for a systemic change of the country, but to take top spots in the feudal system, which guarantee the biggest share of resources.
Until Ukraine raises a critical mass of those who strive for modernization, it will remain a hospice. Yes, there is life in it, but it’s the living of the dying.
Andriy Okara is a Russian philosopher and political scientist. He heads the Center for East-European Research in Moscow.
