It looks like Ukraine is entering a new stage in its development. As usual, many see this as a threat. For others, though, it may turn out to be more like an opportunity.
Back in the optimistic days of the late 1980s and early 1990s, Rukh leader Vyacheslav Chornovil was for a time enthusiastic about developing a constitutional system for Ukraine based on the German federal model. However, he quickly moved away from this idea, alarmed that it would open the door to separatism. For the sake of Ukrainian “sobornist” (unity), he relegated the creation of a federal system to the distant future.
In the name of this unity, the sacrament of Ukrainian independence was delivered into the hands of the old Soviet party nomenklatura, which set about building its own state in its own way under the name Ukraine. The cost of unity was the obliteration of differences between the regions. Under the last two presidents, a strict vertical chain of command was established.
The most powerful figures at the regional level were initially named, simply and accurately, presidential representatives. Later they were renamed heads of oblast state administrations. In reality, these structures assumed all power in the regions and nullified the influence of local representative bodies.
The country was administered from a single center in Kyiv. All the real power was concentrated in the presidential chain of command. The legislative and judicial branches were de facto subordinated entirely to the presidency. It looked as though all the elements were in place for a decisive effort to build a strong Ukrainian state. However, the woeful results for the regions of a decade of this form of administration speak for themselves.
The hyper‑concentration and hyper‑centralization of power mean that the majority of decisions, even the most trivial ones, are made at the center. To this day, for example, it is the Rada in Kyiv that makes the decision on changing boundaries between village councils. Further, the bulk of the funds, resources and investments that should serve the entire country remain in Kyiv, where they work for the benefit of a narrow group of people. The regions are left to their own devices and are slowly degenerating.
The Ukrainian nomenklatura – with its Sovietized and Russified mentality – is contributing to the neo‑colonization of Ukraine by Russia, which is proceeding at a ferocious pace. By doing so, the nomenklatura is betraying its own interests. By wholly subordinating Ukraine to Russia, its representatives will inevitably lose control over the economy and end up marginalizing themselves.
Ukraine still lacks the conditions for the appearance of a middle class. Hyper‑statism amounts to protection of the interests of a handful of clans. It has prevented the emergence of citizens and property owners. So long as people remain impoverished and dependent on the authorities, they will never become true citizens and will never create anything of value.
Even the cities with their nominal powers of self‑government remain ineffective. Too little power is delegated to their level. And the state authorities interfere in their activity too often.
As a result, disproportions and contradictions have arisen:
– between the center and the regions
– between the different branches of power;
– between a tiny minority of super‑rich individuals and the impoverished multitude;
– between Ukrainians and the Ukrainian state.
These problems have given rise to such surprising phenomena as “western Ukrainian (Halychyna) separatism.” Have western Ukrainians really been so disappointed in the attempt to build a Ukrainian state, which they now find does not have room for their Ukrainianness, that they have decided to abandon this endeavor?
Of course, the emergence of Halychyna separatism may be blamed on Moscow’s scheming. After all, Russia would certainly be strategically interested in detaching nationally conscious Halychyna from the rest of the country, which could then be assimilated more easily. Advancing its western border to the Zbruch River, Moscow would be in a position to turn a nominally independent Halychyna into a client state.
Things are not so simple, however. There are certainly people in Halychyna who categorically reject the existing regime. They are unwilling to accept that Ukraine has no future or that it “has no chance of entering the European Union before 2011.” Viewing Russification (including the linguistic, cultural and mental Russification of Halychyna) as not just undesirable, but absolutely unacceptable, they are sincerely looking for a way out of the dead end into which their rulers have led them instead of just repeating that there is none.
However, separatism is not a real option – that is a pure political utopia and may even prove a threat. It would be better to try reconciling our interests within the present borders of Ukraine. The products of labor should be enjoyed not just where they are distributed, but where they are created. It is necessary to open the road to enrichment to all – not just a handful of people close to the authorities. Decision‑making on most issues should be delegated to the lowest possible level – as near as possible to the people it affects.
Ukraine is an extremely varied country. It is time to acknowledge that the illusory attempt to Ukrainize its vast territory has failed. Much of it remains weighed down with something ineradicably Soviet.
Meanwhile, it is necessary to revive and protect the specific features not just of Halychyna, but also of Volyn and Zakarpattya. These regions are distinct but unified, and they should remain that way. This is what the “unity” of Ukraine should mean – not wholesale, lowest‑common‑denominator “Russification” or “surzhikization.” Unity and strength should emanate from a diversity that is recognized and tolerated.
Of course, a federal state is harder to administer. It makes it harder to get rich quick. Besides, there are plenty of successful unitary states. The world has only about 20 federal states. But they contribute 80 percent of gross world production. Maybe Ukraine will be able to join this esteemed club some day. Especially if we understand federalism as something more than simple‑minded separatism or the creation of yet more administrative structures to replace Kyiv bureaucracy with an equally obnoxious product – the present‑day western Ukrainian bureaucracy. Rather it should involve delegating powers to the local and regional levels, introduce true self‑government, and a real division of powers between the branches of power.
Taras Wozniak is editor‑in‑chief of the Lviv‑based cultural magazine Ji and head of the international relations department of Lviv City Council.
