Recalibrate. It was one of the favorite words of a premier, the Australian equivalent of an American state governor, I worked for. He used it when his senior policy and communications advisors needed to consider new or changed factors and amend our approach – be it for legislative reform, for our organizational structures, for engaging with citizens, or for pursuing re-election.
If ever there was a need for the Ukrainian diaspora to recalibrate, it is now with the democratic election by the citizens of Ukraine of President Volodymyr Zelenskiy. Such a recalibration can have two key dimensions – one about the outlook and the other about strategy.
First, we can consider how much the diaspora in general and our “peak bodies” (such as the World Congress of Ukrainians, the Ukrainian Congress Committee of America, the Canadian Ukrainian Congress, the Australian Federation of Ukrainian Organisations and others throughout the world) are accurately aligned with public sentiment and concerns in Ukraine.
While some question the new president’s qualifications and motivations, there’s simply no question that his strong popular support – some 75 percent of participating voters and some 38 percent of the total eligible voting population – speaks volumes about Ukrainian frustrations if not aspirations. They are real and undeniable – even if we don’t like them or believe they are in part promoted by foreign and/or oligarchical interference – and we ignore them at the peril of irrelevancy.
Let’s note that, from our positions of wealth in the West, it can be too easy to dismiss the quality-of-life concerns of millions of Ukrainians doing it tough. And, it can be too easy to define Ukrainian patriotism in a prescriptive and historic manner that’s no longer fully relevant to many in contemporary Ukraine.
Our diaspora and our peak bodies can play a more successful role if we are more diligent about understanding the social mood in Ukraine. This is relatively easily done given the proliferation of polling there.
Ultimately, by really listening more to our Ukrainian colleagues, we take a productive position of respectfulness. The truth is we have at least as much to learn from modern Ukraine as it does from our knowledge of the West.
Secondly, it’s the right time for our leaders and us to ask ourselves key questions about peak bodies’ roles and programmes going forward. For example:
- In this new era, how do our peak bodies and the people they represent best support economic, social and democratic progress in Ukraine? What are our concrete goals rather than general slogans in those respects?
- How do we in the West best reinforce Ukraine’s sovereignty, such as supporting the humanitarian needs of servicemen and women? (An interesting opportunity is presented by the creation of Lifeline Ukraine, a crisis support helpline for returned service people experiencing mental health issues and at high risk of suicide.)
- How do our peak bodies help hold the new administration accountable? How do we ensure that very positive but difficult reforms – such as those by Ulana Suprun in the health sector – are maintained and expanded on?
- What contribution can peak bodies make to positive parliamentary ballot results – beyond redundant “election monitoring” of what is now an enshrined fair process?
- Given the dominance of the post-World War II generations, how do our peak bodies better engage and mobilize “third and fourth wave” Ukrainian migrants, including in the European Union? How do we become more inclusive?
- How do we press home opportunities such as dual citizenship and tap into the growing “expat” networks in places like Kyiv and Lviv?
- What does peak bodies’ public diplomacy now say to key societal and political stakeholders in the West? What is our new narrative to be?
- As peak bodies have mostly engaged at the senior political level to date, can we grow relationships with the buoyant NGO sector (where many of the Maidan’s best activists now work)?
- How do we better diversify and coordinate our efforts beyond the political debate to contributing to social solutions to Ukraine’s social problems?
- How do our peak bodies build internal structures that better utilize the massive experience and talents of individual diaspora members – who are otherwise respected leaders in every field from the military, politics, science, academia, the arts, law, business and charities in their Western home countries?
I have genuine respect for our peak body leaders. They work voluntarily; they sacrifice much in terms of their families and personal lives; they spend countless time in Ukraine doing their very best and, from my personal observation, are well regarded there.
They are not at issue. What is at issue is the need for our overall diaspora to recalibrate to be: a) more attuned to Ukraine’s contemporary realities and therefore better positioned to assist; b) more strategic and more professional in our work, such as we see in the successful precedents of the Jewish, Armenian and other diasporas.
Here’s a big understatement: the Zelenskiy ascendancy represents new challenges and opportunities for Ukraine, Ukrainians, and the diaspora. And that’s doubly so as Ukraine’s enemy also looks to exploit a new situation. So, let’s rip into this unique opportunity as a community through our peak bodies to step up substantive action. Or, we risk stepping aside.
Pete Shmigel has worked as a senior advisor to eight ministers or premiers and has been CEO of three non-governmental organizations in Australia. He has recently run an NGO leadership development course in Ukraine.
