Militarization of Consciousness

In an interview for The Day, the Vice Prime Minister for Social Affairs of the Opposition Cabinet tells us about the opposition’s work, the Verkhovna Rada committees, suggestions for celebrating Victory Day, and freedom of speech in Ukraine.

Mr. Donii there is a discussion between coalition partners and the opposition about the distribution of the committees. What committees are most important for the opposition?

“After a law on Verkhovna Rada regulations was recently passed this sphere is now clearly defined by the new legislative act. Therefore, there shouldn’t be any questions about what committees are important for us and which ones are not. The law defines which committees are supposed to be under our responsibility. So what is the present discussion about? The state authorities speak about the need to fill all the vacant positions in the committees because some of the MPs, as it is known, got positions in the Cabinet. The opposition speaks about this issue in more general terms: the redistribution of the committees between state authorities and the opposition has to be done according to the new law. This means that it is not just about the Freedom of Speech and Information Committee that was discussed in mass media, but also about the rest of them. However, it has to be done through mutual consent of both the government, which is now violating the law, and the opposition, which is represented by Mykola Martynenko. We have to be clear here: either everyone obeys the law, or everyone breaks it. It appears that everyone is breaking the law now.”

What have the state authorities and the opposition already agreed on?

“Viktor Yanukovych, who is now trying to create a new image as a democrat, declared that the position of the head of the Freedom of Speech and Information Committee (Hanna Herman used to be the head of this committee), should be given to the opposition. However, later the Party of Regions began to set certain conditions, correcting its leader, about what they would want in exchange, notably the Tax and Customs Policy Committee. In this case the Regionals speak from a position of authority.”

Mykola Martynenko, the NUNS faction leader [Our Ukraine-People’s Self-Defense – Ed.], told the 5th Channel that he will demand proportional distribution of the committees between opposition factions. He said: “When BYuT [Yulia Tymoshenko’s Bloc – Ed.] speaks about the opposition they only mean themselves. Together with Anatolii Matviienko, I raised the motion about an amendment to the law on parliament regulations that would allow having more than one opposition. Indeed, our faction is also in opposition.” So, first of all, how many oppositions do we have? Secondly, will the law on the opposition be adopted if there is no consent among the opposition?

“Martynenko’s statement, about the fact that every opposition faction has to have a chance to head committees for which the government is not responsible, is absolutely fair in this situation. However, unfortunately, at present the law on parliamentary regulations does not conform with democratic norms, meaning that it recognizes only one possible opposition. It is clear that all the political powers that did not enter the government, regardless of whether people acknowledge them or not, constitute a de facto opposition. In parliament such powers are the BYuT and NUNS, and there are still more outside parliament. It would be absolutely fair that not only the powers oriented towards the Yulia Tymoshenko Bloc would take part in the distribution of committees, but also those powers that are critical towards that formation, like the NUNS.

“There has to be a healthy competition in the opposition and it does not matter which faction is more numerous or has more titles. The main criterion is its efficiency and consistency. After all, the voters will assess the work of the opposition. Thus, there would be nothing bad in having several oppositions (and oppositional Cabinets). Another issue is that the opposition has to learn to cooperate on questions of principle.

“There is a project for the law on the opposition, and the possibility of bringing it to the session hall was considered at the last meeting of the oppositional Cabinet. However, there are many critical remarks about whether this law would limit the rights of the opposition. After all, why is there a need to regulate something when the opposition has a right to do everything that is not forbidden by the law?”

Still, what are the perspectives for creation of a so-called united opposition?

“Just think, is there a point in, and is it possible, that such opposition parties as All-Ukraine Svoboda and Progressive Socialist Party of Ukraine be united.

There can be different powers in opposition but this does not mean that they all have to unite. It is obvious that everyone should set aside one’s own ambitions and coordinate the actions by means of, for example, voting together in parliament. By the way, we’ve already voted like that once: there were 203 votes from BYuT and NUNS MPs in favor of the dismissal of Dmytro Tabachnyk. On the other hand, during such actions, ideologically close powers have to coordinate their activity outside parliament as well.”

We can see how quickly the newly elected authorities permeated vertical structures of power. How has the opposition distinguished itself during this time? Does it have the effectiveness criterion you mentioned?

“There is nothing bad in that the state authorities try to build their own vertical power structures by putting their people on every position. The quality of those people, however, is another issue. The opposition criticizes the poor choice of personnel, showing society that those people are not qualified for the positions they got. But this does not mean that the opposition has to prevent any formation of executive power. We can, and should, criticize the concrete actions of ministers and draw public attention to various problems, hoping that at some point the state authorities would listen to us and remove the most odious personalities as they affect their popularity.

“Another issue are alternative actions. Here a certain time is needed for the factions to bring in bills that constitute an alternative to those presented by the incumbent government. Until now the government did not bring any systematic proposals to parliament, even the budget bill hasn’t been presented yet. Unfortunately, their main objective seems to be the social policy aimed at de-Ukrainization of Ukraine.”

It is well-known that on Victory Day a joint military parades of the Ukrainian and Russian armies will be held in Ukraine. A bigger version is to be held in Moscow — a joint parade of the anti-Hitler coalition, CIS countries’ armies. How should Ukraine celebrate Victory Day in your opinion?

“Participation of military formations in any events on the territory of Ukraine is strictly regulated by the law. First there has to be a decision from the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine, then the President’s decree, and finally a decision passed by the Parliament of Ukraine. This whole procedure hasn’t been completed yet; therefore, I don’t understand what the grounds for the presence of foreign military formations in Ukraine are.

“In what concerns the celebration of the WWII victory. My own grandparents fought during the war. For them it is a big holiday. Yet I get the impression that these people’s memory is used for a different purpose — establishing the hegemony of one country on the territory of the former Soviet Union. It is sad when the memory of victims is used as a foundation for the prevalent ideology of our neighbor. Unfortunately, the militarization of consciousness in Russia has been gradually spreading to Ukraine. Just look at the serials and movies constantly propagated by Russia: about World War II, Wars in Chechnya, and about various Russian special services. This informational production is constantly financed, often not by the commercial institutions but by the Russian state. Thus, it seems to be focused on the formation of a militarist conception  of Russia but it is now being spread throughout Ukraine. There is a lack of peace, tolerance, and humanism, and now the values of wars and constant violence are being promoted for Ukraine.”

So how does the opposition suggest to celebrate May 9?

“In my opinion, May 9 should not be celebrated so pompously, it is quite a private thing. For example, I try to go to the cemetery together with my mother to visit the grave of my grandfather. For him it was a big holiday because he lost his first wife and a child in the Leningrad Blockade. For this I don’t need someone to rattle his saber on my dear Khreshchatyk.”

By the way the Minister of Education and Science Tabachnyk suggested to substitute the term World War II with the term Great Patriotic War.

“During WWII there were two aggressors. On the one hand, there was a Nazi Germany, which practically tore apart Czechoslovakia in 1938. On the other hand, there was the USSR which together with Germany attacked Poland in 1939. We shouldn’t forget that the first joint parades were held by Nazis and communists in Poland. Joseph Stalin cooperated well with Adolf Hitler, and Europe was clearly divided between the USSR and Germany. After signing the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact the USSR was the aggressor who invaded the Baltic countries and Bessarabia and began a war in Finland. The war between those two aggressors began only because one of them turned out to be more insatiable. Why do communists forget about that today?

I think that the historian Tabachnyk should remember that the war began not in 1941 but in 1939. If he wants to change the name then how will it correlate with patriotism: who and what country fought in 1939? I think that for many veterans, people who survived the war, the name Great Patriotic War is acceptable and sacred, but it is only one fragment that took place in the USSR. Now it is being replaced with the European notion of World War II. I don’t think that these two names should be opposed to each other. The name will be gradually changed as the public becomes increasingly well-informed. At the times of Soviet Union a lot of information was concealed: it was forbidden to speak about the fact that the Soviet Union attacked Finland and about the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. One should not oppose those two terms to each other as Tabachnyk is doing it. It would be absolutely fine to use both terms. Those who are nostalgic about the Soviet state, and we have a great number of such people, can use the term Great Patriotic War. Those who value Ukrainian state will use the term World War II.”

What did you mean by the de-Ukrainization of Ukraine?

“This one word can describe all the recent initiatives of state authorities in the social sphere – both statements and concrete actions. I am talking about the idea of creating one handbook for teaching history in Ukraine and Russia. It means that Ukrainian historians will be deprived of their right to write Ukrainian history on their own. Another case is the rejection of film dubbing in Ukrainian and, thus, the refusal to continue the propagation of Ukrainian. The state authorities try to maintain a situation which will facilitate further Russification. Another case of that is the liquidation of the one-language system for writing tests. In this way, Ukrainian is being devaluated under the guise of European values. However, in Russia, which, unlike Ukraine, is a federal state, and which is used as an orientation point for the present government, the uniform language for taking the tests is Russian. Therefore, if we analyze the social sphere of governmental actions, it will become clear that all their efforts are aimed at belittling the Ukrainian language, culture, and finally at the complete liquidation of the Ukrainian ethnos.”

The opposition is also speaking about threats for the freedom of speech.

“I can tell you about my personal experience with that matter. Just last week I, being an MP and a member of the Committee for Education and Science, was denied the right to present a speech at one of the universities in Zhytomyr. When students went to the director of the university suggesting that he would let me speak to the students, he said that it would be purposeless. There were no problems with public meetings at schools or universities before. I don’t think that this director had a direct order from the Ministry of Education and Science not to let me give the speech, it was rather a matter of the cowardliness and servile flattery of a concrete person. This kind of cowardliness is characteristic of many officials and, unfortunately, for members of the mass media. It means that we have not yet fully acquired the value of self-respect and understanding of democracy. It requires time so that those things would come with the mother’s milk and it is only possible in a stable democracy with freedom of speech.

“We can already feel considerable backsliding; it is also obvious in mass media. I have to repeat, however, that it is happening not because of some orders but rather due to the self-censorship of journalists, education workers, and NGO representatives. Unfortunately, fear and flattery come back, but we have to fight those things not on the level of law, but on the level of social consciousness.”

That is why the role of opposition is very important in this situation.

“I think that it’s time for the opposition to regain consciousness. We should be honest in saying that not everyone expected such election results. Some leaders of the opposition were not ready for them, which is why they made some improper statements revealing their confusion. Now we have to work on our mistakes. It will become clear that the defeat was caused by the tough public confrontation between Yulia Tymoshenko and Viktor Yushchenko which resulted in voters’ disappointment. I stress that we need to learn to set aside one’s own ambitions and look for more possibilities of finding compromises and points of contact in the oppositional environment. That would be the first thing. The second is to learn to work with available resources, now it is the parliament and local councils. The third is to work with new partners — NGOs. We need to search for a new elite, new leaders of public opinion. If the present elite did something wrong it means that we should not be afraid to let new alternative politicians come into the light.”

Ukraine was shocked to hear the news about the tragic deaths of the Polish President, his wife, and many other Polish politicians. In your opinion, how will Ukraine-Poland relations develop from now on, as we have lost one of our greatest friends?

“It seems to me that Polish-Ukrainian cooperation is irreversible. The cooperation is taking place on many horizontal levels, which means that it is valid not just on the level of Presidential Administrations or Cabinets of Ministers, but also on the level of NGOs, education, and mass media. The most important thing is that the Polish elite realized that Poland lost its independence a number of times, notably due to the hegemonic plans of Russia, which resulted in the oppression of other nations, among them Ukrainians. Ukraine’s independence is not valued by Ukrainian or Polish people, it is one of the guarantees of Poland’s independence. Polish people understand this. It is now important that all the representatives of the Ukrainian elite would understand it too.”