News
National idea: to be or not to be, that is the question. Section «Political aspect»
The second section of the panel discussion «The National idea for Ukraine» has gathered not less authoritative pool speakers than the previous one. Responsible moderator’s function was entrusted to the famous media manager Igor Levenstein, who noted that it is unlikely to decide global issues within the current panel. However professional audience at least «has the opportunity to listen to the opinions and advice of qualified experts regarding how to «sew» Ukraine in its present state».
Continuing the theme of «identification» of the national idea started in the first section, founder of R&B Group Eugene Kopatko drew the audience's attention to the fact that, according to the survey «Before Maidan» period for the majority of Ukrainians national idea was most consonant with the idea of national well-being. And remains largely the same. «We tried to find some unifying moments. But the first, and perhaps the only issue that was significantly different from all the others – it is comfortable, prosperous, successful life, which will encourage people not to emigrate, and to work and create something in this country.» At the same time stressful social atmosphere in the Ukrainian society, which persists throughout practically all the years of independence, doesn’t contribute to this goal. To a large extent the lack of common moral orbit and moral authority of the nation makes this more complicated. Continuing the idea of national unity raised by the participants of the first panel discussion, Eugene Kopatko also noted that in order to make it «happen» Ukrainians must accept that they are all different, and not try to change each other. «We should not have any illusions about the fact that we are all – onenation who live with a common goal, and has the same roots, understanding, mentality, language, culture and religion. It isn’t true, was not and will not, by definition. But on the other hand, nothing prevents understanding the difference, to find a common language... People may speak different languages, and understand each other and, on the contrary, speak the same language and do not understand each other... If there is a dialogue, agreement between elites, if we become personalities, if we can learn to talk with each other, the outside world will talk with us. Otherwise, we'll keep being a subject to the impact of political games and people who do not live in this country.»
The next speaker, political analyst Dmitry Vydrin, offered his version of the structuring of the problem of the national idea, highlighting the three main aspects – the ontological, technological and geopolitical. «In ontological term, I think, is quite simple to identify the body of the national idea. As soon as the national idea coincides with the idea of democracy. There is a brilliant definition of democracy: democracy – this is when you are not afraid. Every person wants to live in a state where he is not afraid. These are those national ideas on the ontological level that you can decrypt, detail from the viewpoint of economy, psychology, philosophy – thebody is always the same – andthen you should improvise.» Revealing the essence of the technological aspect, the expert noted that the problems faced by the Ukrainian government in the current historical period are the result of the coming to power of exceptionally economic elites. «The last 15 years in Ukraine only economic elites are fighting for power – theelite of resellers, elite of bankers and elite of manufacturers – he stressed. – Andeach of these elites considers other less significant. We miss at least two elites who could unite good manufacturers, resellers and good quality bankers so that they worked on weaving of social fabric and not for destruction. We lacking force and intellectual elite. Regarding authoritative power. And till we will not have such own elite, I think, everything will be questioned, including the national idea.» Referring to the geopolitical aspect, Dmitry Vydrin criticized the authorities which are trying to represent Ukraine in different years as a «bridge between civilizations», noting that for a country that presents itself as neutral, there is the only way for the successful development – within the same civilization. To be a «bridge» in this case is simply dangerous.
The theme of state forming elites raised by Dmitry Vydrin, was continued by a political analyst Vadim Karasev. In his speech he raised the issue of corruption in Ukrainian institutions of government and its origins. «In Ukraine, the force elite didn’t exist, as there weren’t state forming groups except oligarchy. But the oligarchs – its money and corruption. And when everyone is talking about the fact that corruption in Ukraine reads off scale it is objectively so. Because Ukrainian state was being built on corruption for the 23 years.» Speaking of the state, a political scientist, as previous speakers noted that for the population the form of political system is far less important than the quality of life and security that it is able to provide. «The system should ensure the rights of people – frommoral to social. If the rights are provided – peoplewill be loyal to the political system. If the political system, the government, the state will not ensure him these rights, he will focus on an exit strategy. From the country or from the political system, and so on.» Furthermore, Vadim Karasev stressed that the current situation in the country to a large extent is the result of attempts to build in Ukraine the state on a national basis, «We have two problems. The nation-state model is often imposed. The nation-state must have clear boundaries that coincide – cultural, political, administrative, economic, etc.Nation-state in Ukraine can only be built in a small Ukraine, i.e. Left Bank Ukraine plus center without East. An alternative model – thestate-nation. A country with multiethnic. Example of this is Belgium, Denmark, all so-called constitutional democracies. Democracy in compound societies, which include three components: a large coalition, mutual veto right, perhaps, federalism or autonomism.» As for Ukraine's geopolitical role, then, in his opinion, for it, there are two most real ways of development: either to become an outpost of the West against Russia, or offshore country. The main thing is the choice for a particular model has to be made deliberately, and not only by politicians, but also by the Ukrainians.
Vice president of GR at Russian Association of Public Relations, a leading Russian political analyst Igor Mintusov resorted to everyday life allegory by comparing Russia with the abandoned husband and Ukraine with the wife that left, in a very intelligent way and lucidly tried to explain the reasons for such a painful attitude of Russia to Ukrainian experience of self-identity. «Since more than half of Russia's population believe that we – onenation, the search for the Ukrainian national idea perceived as some intrigues of Western intellectuals. In Russia it is very fond of quoting Zbigniew Brzezinski, who wrote that the Soviet Union (or Russian) will stop to be a great state when Ukraine leaves it. Therefore, the price of Ukraine to the Russian political mentality, first of all for the Russian political elite – isa very big price of a question. Ukraine and Russia – isstill great super state, here are the memories of the last few centuries. And if Ukraine leaves for the West in all terms, for some it is an internal contradiction.» With regard to the search of the national idea, Igor Mintusov did not give any advice, just cited examples of similar Russian experience, allowing the audience to come to their own conclusions. In the Russian interpretation, according to the speaker, the key linking chains of the national idea became «an attempt to restore the Russian empire in the civilized meaning,» оrthodoxy and statement of Russia as a world energy state. Returning to the subject of the church as the only institution capable to unite the country in crisis, raised earlier by Vitaly Portnikov Igor Mintusov again appealed to the Russian experience, and noted that the role of Orthodoxy in Russia's current public policy, in his opinion, is quite exaggerated. Speaking of another component of the complex concept of national idea – foreign policy image – Russian political analyst has resorted to another allegory. He noted that excessive concern about the external image, which, in particular, is shown by Russia (to draw conclusions about the Ukraine, he let the audience), very similar to the behavior of young, insecure girl, looking for confirmation of her positive qualities from the outside. «It comes from some of the national inferiority complex, if you wish. If a person takes himself adequately, he thinks little about how others perceive him. He just does what he does, and follows the goal set inside by himself. A person who is insecure, who to a large extent either culturally or politically, economically is dependent on other countries – moreimportant for him is how he looks in the eyes of others», – concluded the speaker.
Another participant in the panel discussion, a political analyst Mikhail Pogrebinsky, suggested that a systematic return to the search topic of Ukrainian national idea throughout 23 years of Ukraine's independence is a sign of failure of the country. And, as well as a number of speakers before speaker called for the abandonment of his discourse as harmful to the modern Ukrainian society. Regardless of context – either as search of national spirit «in the sense of blood and soil,» or in the constructivist terms. «Ukrainian state the last 15 years is being built on the principle of Ukrainian Ukraine, regardless of who is currently the president. When it comes to the President of Ukraine from the East, it is simply engaged in theft and business, and humanitarian part still belongs to those who are engaged in the construction of Ukrainian Ukraine. For Ukrainian state to get a chance for success, it is necessary to close this topic once and for ever. Ukrainian national identity should include an element of the southern Russian culture, including the Russian language. And by doing so, to remove the theme of disloyalty of that part of society which lives in the east and south.» At the same time, the unifying role of the Ukrainian Church, which many previous speakers insisted on, Mikhail Pogrebinsky has questioned. «When I hear that the only unifying institution may be Ukrainian church. But, listen, it is obviously is divided. There is one and the other part of the Ukrainian Church. On the Maidan one played a major role, but not the second. And all are well aware. It certainly can’t unite. That is the political elite who should unite the country and begin to build a modern state.» The political scientist also called for Ukrainian politicians to desist from imposing to the public an image of the «main enemy» and opposing the image of «civilized world» able to protect and to solve all the existing problems: «I think it's wrong, it's bad. You've got to stop and move towards peace and a normal search of adequate construction of Ukrainian statehood.»
Final in the debate was the performance of the German political strategist Ian Yagiello-Schoenfelder, who, unlike the previous speaker, supported the policy of the new Ukrainian government and in relation to Russia as well. Analyzing the causes of failure of Ukraine as an independent state, he noted that there are several ones. «These are internal and external reasons. Generally a formula how to become a successful state has been found, and it is primarily to maintain traditions. Traditions in every region of Ukraine are different. But this is not an obstacle, if we understand that the Ukrainians are a political nation and share common values. In today's event context, the most important for Ukraine – areconciliation. Second, internal security and comfortable living conditions. I do not agree with the fact that it’s necessary to give Russian a state language status. This is untimely. There is the European Charter for regional or minority languages and we have to ratify the charter. All need to be united into one strong political Ukrainian nation».
Panel was summed up by short but sharp debate within the discussion, which was the result of questions from the audience: is the thesis that «we are Ukrainians» is a defining one in the context of the national idea; is the unitary a platform for it and, how, in fact, the idea has to be built? Taking into account the time regulation of the event, the moderator asked the participants to answer only the question of the determining role of the thesis «we are Ukrainians.» Expert opinions traditionally divided: from «Yes, because it is a sign of the political nation» (Jan-Yagiello Schoenfelder) to «On the one hand uniting, on the other hand Ukrainians are still different» (Vadim Karasev) and «Answers to these questions are given not by experts, but people» (Dmitry Vydrin). Curtain.