In an exclusive interview with the Post, Myroslava Gongadze discussed the state of civil society and democracy in Ukraine.
Myroslava Gongadze is a Ukrainian journalist, human rights activist and founder of the Gongadze Foundation. Since the murder of her husband, journalist Georgiy Gongadze, in September 2000, she has been an advocate for freedom of the press and journalists’ safety in Ukraine.
Gongadze still continues to pursue justice in solving her husband’s murder and works in the Washington as a correspondent for Voice of America and Radio Liberty. She came to Kyiv to attend the Fifth Assembly of the World Movement for Democracy, where she spoke on Ukraine’s democratic development. In an exclusive interview with the Post, Gongadze discussed the state of civil society and democracy in Ukraine.
KP: For Ukrainian society, you are a symbol of courage and invincibility. Are you ready to continue your work in Ukraine?
MG: Yes, of course I’m ready. You know, it’s really hard to be a symbol. I have to work every day. I discuss the investigation and the court hearings (on Georgiy’s yetunsolved murder case) every day with my lawyer. It takes a lot of time. I do it with all my strength.
KP: Don’t you wish to forget all you have gone through? Don’t you want to begin your life over again – without politics, journalism, and without Ukraine?
MG: No, I don’t. Sometimes I really want to forget everything. But then I ask myself – who else? Nobody will press the authorities for an investigation, nobody will try to unite journalists. Nobody will work with international organizations, which helped Ukrainian journalists a lot. So I’m happy to have such an opportunity. I’m happy to be a symbol. But if I am a symbol of courage for Ukraine, I’m responsible for everything I do as well.
KP: You once said your definitive return to Ukraine will become a symbol of your trust in Ukraine’s authorities. So is there trust yet?
MG: No, there is not.
KP: You said the spheres of your interest are politics and diplomacy. Do you see yourself in the Ukrainian parliament?
MG: No, I don’t. I don’t see myself in the Ukrainian parliament. I try to be consistent. I set a task for myself: if I can do something to punish all those who organized and carried out Georgiy’s murder, I will do it to the fullest. When I exhaust all my potential in this case, I’ll think about the next problem – in what way can I be useful for Ukraine. But today my main task is to raise my kids. Time will show what I do in the future.
KP: In today’s Ukraine, a discussion on the prospects of civil society is very active. And do you think that an average Ukrainian is ready to become a full member? After all, it is not only rights, but also civic duty.
MG: That is absolutely correct. Truthfully, I think Ukrainian citizens just got a taste for freedom. During the Orange Revolution, Ukrainians understood that it’s possible to change something with collective action and political conviction. But Ukrainians also think: I went out in the street, I voiced my opinion, I gave these people power, and now they have to do what they promised. Unfortunately, they haven’t.
KP: Do you think the achievements of the Orange Revolution were partly lost by Ukrainian society?
MG: Yes, that’s correct. I think that society is responsible for their leadership. It has to pressure it. A revolution is only the first step. For real changes, it’s necessary to struggle and pressure. Ukrainians have to realize that they are creators of their own lives.
If they help themselves, their families, houses, cities and villages, it would be a great contribution to democracy in Ukraine.
KP: Many political experts believe the biggest problem with Ukrainian democracy is the parliamentarypresidential republic, in which authority is divided between the president and prime minister. Do you agree this is a big problem?
MG: I don’t think this is a big problem. The real problem is in the accountability of leaders to their people and for their promises. I think it’s possible to destroy any system.
Were the politicians more responsible and adhered to the law, there would be no such discussion at all. I don’t know the details, but I believe it’s an insignificant problem.
KP: Is democracy the right way to solve all problems? Maybe some political problems in Ukraine, such as language, need a nondemocratic solution?
MG: There are no problems which need a nondemocratic solution. I know that in Ukraine, there is a faith in the socalled “strong hand.” Unfortunately, they are wrong. The minority has to have rights. In Ukraine, there is a power of the majority. This is a great philosophical discussion about what actually democracy is. But I believe that only democracy can change Ukraine.
