Fathers and sons

“Times change and we change with them,” the ancient Romans used to say. A whole generation of young Ukrainians has already grown up, for whom the names of Vasyl Stus and Viacheslav Chornovil, as well as other people who sacrificed their lives on the altar of our independence, are already part of our recent turbulent history.

Dmytro Stus, a linguist and research associate at the Taras Shevchenko Institute of Literature, and Taras Chornovil, a well-known politician and member of the Party of Regions faction in the Ukrainian parliament recently visited the editorial offices of The Day. These sons of two great Ukrainians took part in a debate entitled “Fathers and Sons in National Democracy.” Our guests, both of whom are relatively young people but mature and self-sufficient personalities, sought to answer — through the prism of their distinguished fathers’ system of values — the following difficult questions.

Why have the ideas of Ukrainian national democracy of the 1960s-1980s (the era of Chornovil and Stus) not been implemented? What is “national” and how is it related to “democratic” and ‘ethnic?” When will politicians learn to respect their own people and how can one teach (compel) them to do so? What were the national democratic illusions and have they been dispelled?

The “aura of frankness” that pervaded our discussion — the first encounter between Dmytro and Taras — considerably increased the “efficiency” of this occasion, although our readers will naturally not agree with all our guests’ conclusions. Our guests’ famous fathers not only knew each other but considered themselves comrades-in-arms in the united struggle. This is vividly illustrated in a letter written by Vasyl Stus, who was not yet a political prisoner, to Viacheslav Chornovil, who was already one. The letter, dated 1968, begins with the words, “Slavko, hold on!” (Cited in Vasyl Stus: Correspondence, Lviv, 1996).

“Dear guests, the subject of our debate can be defined as follows: national democracy in Ukraine or, to be more exact, the fathers and sons of our national democracy. So let us begin with the principal question: what do you think is going on with Ukrainian national democracy? What is its actual condition?”

Taras CHORNOVIL: “I think the key to understanding the ongoing processes in the national democratic camp lies in the words of Vasyl Stus. He once said, ‘I hate politicians!’ When you set about analyzing this question, you can see to what extent everything here was re-carved, marginalized, and made an object of shameless speculations. Frankly speaking, this makes even exalted and essential truths look somewhat trivial and primitive. I will say bluntly: in my opinion, there is no national democracy today.”

Dmytro STUS: “I do not think we will find an answer to this question unless we conduct the discussion in concrete terms: what is national democracy as such? What was it and what is it today? To be honest, I take a dim view of democracy. Can we call Rukh national democracy? Democracy is a political trend that places the interests and rights of people above everything else, but if the national element is given indisputable priority, this has hardly anything to do with democracy. For in this case the fundamental cornerstone concept of human rights acquires ‘reduced’ status.

“Accordingly, when the first excitement over national ideas faded and it became clear that we had finally gotten a state, none of the representatives of the national democratic camp (for example, Rukh or the Republican Party) were able to say something meaningful about the interests of the people. The impression is they flatly forgot. ”

“We must acknowledge the truth: many politicians were and still are acting as parasites in many ways on the language problem (without doing anything for the Ukrainian language!) and on culture (doing nothing to protect the culture). And ordinary people know this. Can one treat this talk seriously? All this has its consequences. Now about myself: in my view, there was only one lucid and morally flawless figure in the entire national democratic camp: Zynovii Krasivsky (Taras knows him very well). I will only add that I personally have no interest in politics and politicians because I am convinced that they have done nothing good for Ukraine. At least, I don’t know anybody better.”

“Taras, you said that we have no national democrats. Would you care to clarify this statement?”

Taras CHORNOVIL: “I meant that Ukrainian national democracy, much to my regret, has failed to realize itself, its goals, and plans.

“Still, I would like to argue a little with Dmytro. When he claims that there is nothing to respect politicians for, there is undoubtedly a large dose of truth in this. But are we not taking a very simple, easy-to-understand, and ‘people-oriented’ stand: this government, this Verkhovna Rada, and even this president should be dismissed so they ‘don’t stand in the people’s way?’ This is an easy option, but is it acceptable? Let us not forget that ‘a holy place is never empty’: suppose we abolish such a political institution as the Verkhovna Rada, what then?”

Dmytro STUS: “Naturally, the question is not about abolishing the Verkhovna Rada. It is about the way ordinary people rate its work.”

Taras CHORNOVIL: “We must ask ourselves: who will replace the deputies whom we are criticizing so scathingly? They will be outright adventurers, who will think only about their own lightning-quick enrichment. Of course, I think that our politicians don’t deserve to be loved, but we are the one who elected them.

“I would like to express another reservation, about the idea that people like Vasyl Stus and Zynovii Krasivsky would now be drawn, one way or another, into the politics of expediency. I don’t think so. I remember Krasivsky saying, ‘I am a lone guerrilla, I dream of having my own hideout and my own rotator on which I will be printing my leaflets.’”

“Doesn’t it seem paradoxical that people like Zynovii Krasivsky are virtually unknown to the general public?”

Taras CHORNOVIL: “No, it is not paradoxical because above all the general public likes politicians who have the gift of the gab. But when someone bluntly says that you are a fool and will remain one (fate decreed this!) and that it will take our entire nation 40 years of wandering and suffering in the wilderness and only then we may reach the Promised Land, nobody will love a person like this. Streets can be named for this person posthumously, his books can be published, but even after his death everything will be done to stifle his ideas.”

Dmytro STUS: “In my view, Zynovii Krasivsky (and not only he) is perhaps unknown here because nobody in Ukraine has ever seriously dealt with ideology. Meanwhile, what a lofty idea — to stretch the limits of the possible and defend one’s freedom — runs through the letters that Krasivsky wrote from prison, i.e., in the most difficult conditions!

“I must also note that we have totally inexplicable criteria for honoring people who sacrificed their lives in the struggle for Ukraine’s spiritual and political liberation. I recently read the new honors list and cannot understand why there is no Opanas Zalyvakha on it. This prominent, extremely gifted artist, true patriot of Ukraine, and absolutely unconventional and phenomenal person lives quietly in Ivano-Frankivsk and continues to paint his berehynias [berehynia: goddess of the hearth]. But he has never been in politics; he is an artist who is creating a very warm world around himself.”

“Taras, you will obviously agree that every country, Ukraine being no exception, needs its own national democracy?”

Taras CHORNOVIL: “Again, everything depends on what you mean by ‘national democracy.’ The main thing is that the interests of your own country should have real priority; in deeds, not words. This will be national democracy in the correct sense of the word. Furthermore, it must not necessarily speak Ukrainian only. And the national idea itself should not be reduced to the language question alone, although this is unquestionably very important. There must be a broader and deeper linchpin. With my hand on my heart I must admit that sometimes I feel that this linchpin is not so strong in my own political force, the one I represent in the Verkhovna Rada. It is about things linked to our people’s historical memory and traditions.”

Dmytro STUS: “It seems to me there are three or four basic, fundamental, things (language, attitude to the Holodomor, and attitudes to our victories and defeats) by which a certain part of society can define its position with respect to a specific political force, doing this within the ‘friend-or-foe’ system of coordinates. But what really alarms me is that, given these criteria of assessment, people on both flanks are turning a blind eye to a simple thing: a ‘friend’ may have minuses and a ‘foe’ may have pluses! This is dangerous indeed. So whenever I visit eastern Ukraine, I never tire of saying: no ‘Banderites’ are going to knife you for speaking Russian, get rid of these hysterics and fears! Likewise, when I am in Lviv, I keep saying: look, there is nothing scary about the ‘Donetsk people,’ I myself am from Donetsk!”

“Let’s go back to the past, to the difficult path of your fathers. They dreamed of and fought for an independent Ukraine or at least for Ukraine to preserve its identity. Were the other shistdesiatnyky [Sixtiers; Ukrainian dissidents of the 1960s] in complete agreement with them? Or, maybe, they had other reasons for which to struggle?”

Dmytro STUS: “The Sixtiers differed a lot from each other. They often had very dissimilar attitudes to politics, philosophy of life, and culture. All that united them was the desire to oppose through a joint effort the ‘late-imperial’ system of humiliation and depersonalization — precisely through a joint effort because clearly it is very important that there is someone to lean on when you are feeling bad. Otherwise, they were very different people.”

“Let’s look at what happened later. In 1991 Ukraine gained its independence, and it was necessary to put the Ukrainian idea into practice in a totally different system of coordinates. Did the Sixtiers and society as a whole succeed in this?”

Dmytro STUS: “To find this out, let us ask ourselves: could the Sixtiers cope with this task on their own? Let us recall the colossal and irreparable losses that they suffered during the years of struggle, those 10, 15, or more years in the prison camps, and, finally, the real state of society and the political system in the late 1980s: besides the Communist Party, there was nothing. To tell the whole truth, we must acknowledge that had it not been for the former communist Leonid Kravchuk, there would have been no referendum on independence because many panic-stricken deputies opposed this, fearing that the people would cast the ‘wrong’ vote.”

Taras CHORNOVIL: “I think the events of 1991 that Dmytro recalled just now (the referendum and especially the presidential elections), as well as the events of early 1992, when, contrary to the insistence of my father and his followers, the idea of an early reelection of the Verkhovna Rada was rejected, can offer an explanation of why national democracy evolved in one direction and not another, to become what it is now. That was an important ‘junction.’ As for which parties still have some national democrats, I can honestly say that I once hoped and still hope that in the future the Party of Regions will be able to position itself as a genuine national democratic force. I cannot say that my dream is coming true right now, but the hope is still there.”

“What’s in store for Ukrainian national democracy?”

Taras CHORNOVIL: “Let me get back to political concreteness no matter whether we hate politicians or not. In reality, there are some left-wing forces. They are not very large and on the fringe.”

“But they are viable.”

Taras CHORNOVIL: “They are viable and have reached the minimum, where they will stay forever. They will not fall lower and probably will not rise higher. We have a de-ideologized Our Ukraine that has given shelter to some national democrats and which is being marginalized and is disintegrating, like the national democrats themselves. In fact, we have two powerful forces: the Tymoshenko Bloc and the Party of Regions. In my opinion, the Party of Regions could perform the function of defending national democratic interests.

“On the other hand, we have a political force that is even farther away from national democracy and is also de-ideologized. This is the Yulia Tymoshenko Bloc, which occasionally speculates on these principles. So this can bring about a situation in which one of these two opposing political forces may lack wisdom. And if the leadership of the Party of Regions fails to correct some faults of an ethnic, historical, cultural, and national nature, this may set off an explosion. This is exactly what Dmytro is saying. And this should be a warning. I hope this does not happen, so I will try to insist on openness or some kind of debate inside the party in order to avoid excessive dogmatism and one-sidedness. Our society is very multicolored. There are certain ethnic roots, but they are looked at in a different way.”

“Europe is now showing a trend marked by the rise to power of nationalists and populists. Russia is following its own way. We are in between. What do you think is in store for us: the Western or the Russian option?”

Dmytro STUS: “We are not prophets. We are discussing risks.”

Taras CHORNOVIL: “I also find it easier to discuss risks. I do not like making predictions. As for what we will have and what criteria will get the upper hand, I would like to have something Western.”

“Viktor Yanukovych said that if the political reform is repealed, he will run for the presidency. And this will be a very bitter struggle. Under what colors will this struggle be waged?”

Taras CHORNOVIL: “The struggle will unfold under the banner of resisting the comeback. Those who are now bent on provoking changes in the political reform should understand that an early presidential election will automatically take place. And Yushchenko will lose his office. He will not be a player in that election. So there will be a face-off of two personalities. We will only speed up this face-off. Yes, we have five years to do some things under the slogans of democracy, which will perhaps require some unpopular but necessary decisions. There is a government that must and will do something without talking about democracy. Otherwise, there will be endless attempts to play up to the people and exploitation of the Russian or the Russian-language vector.”

Dmytro STUS: “I do not think the situation is so terrible. We seem to have a president with rather broad powers, and let’s not say that they are negligible. The point is how to use them. And he has a worthy opponent.”

“And, in a way, an ally.”

Dmytro STUS: “True, an ally in one way and an opponent in another. But at the same time, I think that to throw this country today into the whirlpool of a fresh election means getting an absolutely uncontrollable process of general disillusionment. The east is also disillusioned. But everybody is disillusioned in his own way. This poses a major problem. Now the people will have to reunite again.”

Taras CHORNOVIL: “This would be a risky undertaking with really disastrous consequences. Otherwise, the situation is not critical. One part does not properly understand some ethno-national details, while the other part is not aware that these games should not be played brutally. One must not play the language card on every street corner.”

Dmytro STUS: “It is not good form to do this. It is very interesting today to watch Yushchenko and Yanukovych. They should thank each other because they are both gradually growing up. Yushchenko is not the man he was a year ago. I think he is much stronger now. Yanukovych, too, is becoming more and more interesting. In the past I took a dim view of him. But both of them behave depending on the force on which they lean. This is normal. I would like both of them to stay in office to the end.”

Taras CHORNOVIL: “The current situation is on the way to normal stabilization. The trouble is that adventurers will always be spoiling the broth. Take Yushchenko and Yanukovych: their entourage is unprepared for the transformations that these politicians have undergone. Yanukovych is clawing his way into European institutions. He feels good there, and the Europeans are beginning to accord him normal treatment. Yushchenko is fully repeating Kuchma’s way and increasingly surrounding himself with the former president’s cadres. Both politicians are getting mixed up and changed. There can be a different opinion, but I clearly see that the Party of Regions is not prepared for the transformations that Yanukovych is undergoing.”

“The Maidan’s principal gain is that it gave the Party of Regions an opportunity to make full use of democratic instruments and come to power by punishing the bad learners. In principle, this is positive for society. The losing side should now constantly keep the winner awake and control him as effectively as possible. Unfortunately, they are doing it very badly. Why are we talking so much about the national democrats? Because the Party of Regions has not yet reached this stage and is not likely to reach it any time soon.”

Taras CHORNOVIL: “We have chosen a certain sector for ourselves. We could have taken a wider one, but we chose one that is narrow.”

Dmytro STUS: “There is quite a difficult situation with young people and prospects for them. There are fewer young people in society than people of the older generation. Objectively, this slightly reduces the protest capacity and gives this country a chance to develop smoothly. So far, all these problems are being swept under the carpet.”

Taras CHORNOVIL: “I think that in moral terms the current situation is much better than the ‘ironclad stabilization’ of 1994. I am still an optimist and believe that things are going to improve. There is an ocean of opportunism and hypocrisy. It has always been so. I have always voted against the constitutional changes, but now I think it is the best option to avoid an extreme when there is a right to veto and a double procedure for all appointments. With the president unable to appoint or dismiss anybody without the prime minister’s consent and vice versa, this is a boon for us now, although there is so much talk that everything is going badly. On the contrary: it is ideal. In the politics of our country an understanding has emerged that you must work for the people, but if you don’t, then you should at least pretend. This is a sign that it has become shameful to say things that are divorced from reality or to spit on people’s interests.”