Ukraine’s greatest failure as a country is a lack of vision. Where have we come from and where are we heading? What future do we want, and what role should the state play in it? From building roads to reforming the healthcare and justice systems and, above all, fighting corruption, our shared efforts to build a better country have been woefully fragmented and incomplete. One doesn’t become successful without having at least a vague notion of what success is.
On Aug. 24 this year, we will gather together in central squares of Ukrainian cities to celebrate 30 years of independence. The president will give a usual speech stressing how far we have come and that we should be grateful for the efforts that generations of Ukrainians have put into fighting all sorts of foreign dominance. We will put on vyshyvankas, commemorate the Donbas War, mourn the loss of Crimea, and quote Taras Shevchenko’s poetry. Such events are always bittersweet: a painful reminder of where we have failed, only slightly sweetened with a fragile sense of belonging to a nation with a turbulent history of victories, invasions and quest for national identity. Although we disagree on the interpretation of our past, it doesn’t make it any less crucial in determining our present.
In pursuit of territorial independence or simply basic economic well being, Ukrainians haven’t developed a sense of direction through intellectual and political discourse. Ukraine’s history of thought can hardly be seen as a matter of pride. The famous figures such as Shevchenko, Ivan Franko, Panteleimon Kulish, Marko Vovchok have attempted to shape the vision of 19th-century Ukraine through blurred appeals to more freedom and encouragement of resistance against oppression.
Franko, for example, tried to take his vision a bit further by elaborating on Marx and Engel’s ideas and emphasizing that “the omnipotence of the communist state would mean the triumph of the bureaucracy over society and its material and spiritual life.” Despite some minor variations, the predominant sentiment of that time among intellectual elites was what today would be seen as socialism. Like modern-day Ukraine politics, where shifting political visions are linked to personalities and not ideas, back then it was also more about changing personal views than forging coherent systems of political beliefs.
In France in the 19th century, Frederic Bastiat was writing books on a free society, and in the UK, David Ricardo was arguing in the Parliament in favour of free trade, Ukrainian intellectuals were only tangentially approaching the question of the role of the state in society. The situation hadn’t significantly improved in the early 20th century with Mykhailo Hryshevsky entering the scene: the most important questions remained unanswered. Yevhen Konovalets, for instance, emphasised the importance of democracy. Every figure wanted to achieve some greater good for Ukraine – and they deserve praise for that – but their rhetoric lacked structure and, probably, more importantly, it failed to become a philosophy that we could apply now. Like our politicians nowadays, all of these personalities were more focused on addressing issues of the day, but what we need is a vector.
Ukraine’s Constitution pompously proclaims that “an individual, their life, health, and safety are of the highest societal value,” a contradictory statement that can be manipulated through interpretation. If the country’s main document is intrinsically populist, how can we expect our politicians not to be susceptible to divert from a single line? As members of the body politic, we are yet to decide what goes first for us – an individual or a society/nation. That is the main question we should ask to understand what future we want for ourselves. If we choose the first, we should embrace economic and individual freedoms, which we have to be frank with ourselves we hardly have much experience of. On the contrary, if the latter is embraced, it would be a return to the USSR-like days. Above all, we need an extensive societal dialogue on both.
The Ukrainian nationalists probably came the closest to defining their ideological stance and outlining their policies in accordance with it. Yet, nationalist forces haven’t gained much traction among the population, which signals that we might be more individualistic than we think.
Building a country without determining where the majority stands on matters such as individual vs. the state is like building furniture without knowing whether it is a sofa you want or a kitchen table. What we have created so far looks like a chair with one leg. Our politicians have been exploiting this lack of knowledge about what the populace want to their benefit for years. They make strategic alliances with each other, change colours, and disappear from the scene just to reappear with a new hairstyle and slightly amended rhetoric. They are truly in favor of everything good and fervently against everything bad. The issue though is that “everything good” and “everything bad” is fluid. This undermines politicians’ accountability because if as voters we cannot decide what we expect of them and what values we want them to promote, we let them get away with anything. For example, we all know that murder is bad, but the majority of Ukrainians have hardly decided on whether higher taxes are good or bad. Our politicians feed us with promises and confusing policies, but the question we really need to answer is: “Do I plan for myself or leave it to the state?”
Now, from there, we can build on the vision. Our political history luckily has some precedents. In 2013, we decided that we want to join the European Union. Since then – despite differences between political parties and succession of presidents and officials – we have been committed to working together to make that happen. The pro-EU vision has surpassed personalities and has become a goal shared by the majority. The same applies to NATO membership.
And yet, geopolitics isn’t everything. On a domestic, regional, city, and, above all, individual level, we have to stop and reflect on what matters most to us, the state’s role in it, and then exercise our political rights accordingly. Ukraine must finally move on from its Soviet past and finally learn to stand on its own feet. That should start with each individual having at least the most basic understanding of their values and keeping politicians accountable by acting on them. The hundreds of political parties in Ukraine are a prime example of our wishy-washiness. This doesn’t come as a surprise knowing our troubled past and weak history of political thought, but we can do better.
Let’s reflect, let’s debate, and let’s finally start putting ideas, not corrupt politicians, on a pedestal.
Maria Chaplia is a consumer advocate with a master’s degree in law and economics. She has written for The Brussels Times, Euractiv, CapX, The Parliament Magazine, Conservative Home, and many more.
