On Sept. 8-10, 1989, inaugural congress of Rukh, the Popular Movement of Ukraine for Restructuring, as it was initially known, marked the resurgence of Ukrainian national assertiveness after decades of suppression under Soviet rule. It also saw the fusion of patriotic and democratic forces regardless of politics, ethnicity, religion or regional background into a novel and formidable political vehicle for building a new post-Soviet Ukraine.
Former dissidents and political prisoners united with liberal nationally-minded communists, Ukrainians with Jews, Russians and representatives other national minorities, Orthodox Christians with Catholics, Protestants, Jewish and Muslim believers, and miners from the Donbas made common cause with intellectuals from Lviv.
Rukh was a grassroots movement inspired by the example of analogous “popular movements” in the Baltic republics. It was built on the principles of tolerance and inclusion.
Its rejection of exclusive ethnocentric ideas about Ukraine being only for ethnic Ukrainians in fact precipitated the birth of a modern Ukrainian political nation.
Rukh’s growth during the previous months had been spectacular. Conditions in Ukraine at that time under the control of Moscow’s viceroy, Volodymyr Shcherbytsky, were still more restrictive than in other regions of the Soviet Union and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev’s proclaimed policy of glasnost (openness) was not making much headway.
Membership had soared to almost 280,000. The official launch of Rukh was attended by 1,109 of the 1,158 delegates representing 1,247 groups throughout the country (some were prevented from participating) and even several in the Baltic republics. 22 percent of the delegates were Communist Party or Komsomol members.
The broader international significance that the Congress represented was emphasized by one of the main foreign guest, Polish historian, and veteran Solidarity activist Adam Michnik.
With the “totalitarian system” in Eastern and Central Europe collapsing and a new European community of free nations appearing in its place, this “historic day of Ukrainian national rebirth” was important for “all of Europe”, he maintained. Michnik brought the delegates to their feet by calling for closer Polish-Ukrainian cooperation in “a new common European family” and by ending his speech with the words: “Long live democratic, just, free Ukraine!”
Although emotions ran high, the overriding theme was the need for unity – political, ethnic and social. Although there were numerous calls for independence, the Congress took into account the existing realities and instead of opting for outright confrontation settled on demanding the broadest possible political and economic sovereignty for Ukraine.
Rukh dropped the obligatory recognition of the Communist Party’s “leading role,” and committed itself to build a democratic, law-based sovereign state with a mixed economy, social justice, and ethnic harmony.
This tactical compromise allowed Rukh to continue its dialogue with the local leaders of the Communist Party who in their own way were to contribute to the gradual dissolution of the Soviet empire. In fact, the then chief ideologist of the Communist Party in Ukraine, Leonid Kravchuk, addressed the Congress and his main message was to show restraint and refrain from “extremism.”
But most of the delegates did not mince their words.
Petro Saliy, a liberal Communist official from the capital’s Podil district, joined others, including representatives from Donbas strike committees, in calling for Shcherbytsky’s replacement.
Congress sought to broaden the appeal and social base of Rukh. It adopted several reassuring appeals addressed specifically to Ukraine’s national minorities, including Russians, Jews, and Crimean Tatars. Ethnic Russians were asked for their support, anit-Semitism was condemned, and the national rights of the Crimean Tatars – still exiled in Central Asia after their deportation from Crimea in 1944 – upheld.
Miners from eastern Ukraine nevertheless cautioned Congress not to minimize the importance of social and economic issues, and in particular the pitiful conditions of the workers. One of them, a representative from the Donbas (S. Furmaniuk) stirred up controversy by warning the delegates that his region was not yet ready to accept Ukrainian national symbols.
The Congress elected writer Ivan Drach to lead Rukh, and an ethnic Russian from eastern Ukraine, Serhiy Konev as his first deputy. Former political prisoner from Lviv, Mykhailo Horyn, a close associate of former leading dissident Vyacheslav Chornovil, was chosen to head the secretariat and writer Volodymyr Yavorivsky to lead the organization’s Grand Council.
The Rukh Congress was a veritable turning point. Within a week Shcherbytsky was removed, and several days later Gorbachev himself arrived in Kyiv to oversee the changes in the Party and gauge the situation in the now problematic republic. Meanwhile, also in September 1989, the Chervona Ruta pop music festival in Chernivtsi brought another defiant manifestation of Ukraine’s revived spirit.
In the months ahead, mass protest meetings became more common, in western Ukraine, the Ukrainian Catholic Church emerged from the catacombs, and unofficial groups and publications spread rapidly. The following year, on 16 July, under pressure from Rukh, the Ukrainian parliament adopted a Declaration of State Sovereignty for the republic. But by now Rukh was pressing for full independence. The rest, as we know, is history: 30 years later, it is important to be aware of the crucial role that Rukh played in spearheading the peaceful revolution and exit from the USSR and creating the foundations for today’s Ukraine. Bohdan Nahaylo is a freelance journalist.
