The regime of Viktor Yanukovych, which was
supported and encouraged by Vladimir Putin’s Russia, deepened the
system of corruption, forced political pressure
on the media and attempted to eliminate civil society and freedom in Ukraine.
The economy was brought to the brink of collapse. However, the people of
Ukraine overthrew this regime.
Following the EuroMaidan Revolution,
the new Ukrainian government implemented a series of policies designed to fight
corruption and create favorable conditions for doing business in Ukraine and to
attract foreign investment.
In
education, we share the government’s same planned goals of democratization, accountability, transparency, and
other important changes. Reforms
in higher education include: the destruction of authoritarian state control over
universities; the establishment of university autonomy; the program of interdisciplinary
integration; and the integration of Ukraine’s higher education system with the
European High Education Area.
Firstly,
it is necessary to restore public confidence in the Ministry of Education and
Science, that had become extensively corrupted. Secondly, we have to push
through parliament a new law entitled “On Higher Education”, which has been
under development by the Ukrainian educational community during the last few
years, together with additional laws “On Education” and “On
Science and Research.” Thirdly, we will simplify the licensing and
accreditation system, whose procedures were unduly complicated and corrupt. We are focused on the task of improving the quality of education and research.
Following this path, we will separate Ukraine
from Russia’s authoritarian practices of governance. To the current Russian regime, this is the greatest threat to
their own autocracy.
Many intellectuals in the West used to call for
dialogue with the Soviet Union in the context of the necessity to respect the
choice of Soviet people, which first had a “revolution” in 1917, and later were
trying hard to build communism.
But that is not true.
First, the Bolshevik takeover in 1917 was a project
of renovation and reestablishment of the Russian Empire, which has nothing in
common with ideas of rightfulness.
Second, the faceless masses of so-called
Soviet people were a result of awful repressions, brainwashing and
russification held on the territory of the USSR. They had neither their own
will nor the ability to choose between different methods of social, political
and economic development.
The West often identified the USSR with Russia, which ignored the
right of self-determination of other nations included to the Soviet
Union through interventions and occupations. Finally, the dialogue was arranged
with a clique of international terrorists who seized power and established a
single-party communist dictatorship.
To understand current events better, I offer the diaries of Zinaida
Gippius, who was a Russian intellectual with democratic thinking. There is a
proverb in Ukraine saying that Russian democracy ceases as soon as it reaches
the issue of Ukraine. Nevertheless, the emigrant diaries of Zinaida Gippius
convince us that she was a real democrat, and trace, at the same time, the
tragedy of her political marginality. People like her never had real political
power in Russia.
Today we should carry on the dialogue with only people who are sincere in
their intention to find a way out of the political deadlock of the cold war.
Then, what should we mean by saying «dialog with Russia»? If we communicate
with responsible intellectuals, they are not the people who can influence
Vladimir Putin and his clique. Dialog with Putin is impossible not only from
the point of ethics and morality, but also due to the total senselessness of
such an attempt. Just listen: «Putin and dialog». Come on, no
time for kidding.
Basing on my people’s hundreds-of-years-long experience of relations
with the Russian political system, I will try to explain it in visual terms. It
is important for many benign western intellectuals who live in the countries
not bordering Russia.
The Russian tradition of a strong state means Russians respect the hierarchy
of the state bureaucracy. Such kinds of hierarchic consciousness tend to
respect any leader who gets to the top of the pyramid of power. The leader, be Tsar,
President, or Secretary General of the CPSU Central Committee, it doesn’t
matter, must be «strong», which means he must be able to keep this pyramid
solid, as it is associated with the country, with the people, and, at the same
time, with the «happiness» of the people.
Outrages on humanity or the negation of human rights and freedoms are
not considered to be crimes, but the ability to preserve the idol of unlimited
power, this is heritage from the times of Mongol rule, would be called so. The
one who holds the power is beyond good and evil, anything he does will be tolerated,
including such a «minor» fault as corruption.
In Putin’s terms, we are dealing with the «sovereign democracy» of
Russia, very close in some aspects to the ideological principles of German
Nazism. We can observe now a phenomenon of collective psychosis, resembling the
one described by Carl Gustav Jung who provided an explanation for this
phenomenon. In terms of the tsarist period of Russian history, the phenomenon
was characterized as «Orthodoxy, Autocracy, and Nationality».
Therefore, it does not really matter who is on the top of Russian
pyramid of power, only the position which it holds. This pyramid has an independent
ability to translate «unchallenged» ideas of the top person to the entire
society. So, Russian society, hypnotized by information wars and totalitarian
media, respects not the person, but the seat of power occupied by this person.
Correspondingly, hopes for a dialog with Russia are hopes for a dialog with
this «empty place».
It must be mentioned that there is no principal difference between
totalitarianism and the abovementioned pyramidal Russian authoritarianism. They
both are based on the old principle of «the stronger one is always right». The
reasons that made Russian government return to the political practices of the
Dark Ages are the following:
First, the regime of “sovereign democracy” has demonstrated its total
ineffectiveness. Therefore, Putin has to demonstrate «achievements» on the
international arena pretending to be an «integrator» and «retriever of the
lands» of the Russian Empire in the eyes of its exalted chauvinistic majority.
Second, Putin’s
anti-Ukrainian politics have a hysterical character. During the three years of
Yanukovych’s rule, Ukraine was totally infiltrated by Russian operatives;
Russian agents or venal bureaucrats were appointed to key positions. Major
parts of the Ukrainian political elite were amenable to psychological addiction
to Soviet / Russian imperial heritage. Russia used to spend huge amounts of
funds to enervate Ukrainian military forces and to keep it in the fairway of
Russian politics. But, as a result of Euromaidan’s victory, the whole
geopolitical project of the Anschluss of Ukraine slipped out of the
hands.
Third, Euromaidan became
the most visible threat of the Ukrainian “virus” of freedom to Russian
autocracy. This is historical battle of different types of political cultures
and mentalities. 106 members of the “heavenly hundred” gave their lives for the
fundamental human values and justice of Europe. The number of victims of the
Russian-Ukrainian war is growing.
Fourth, projects of this
kind can only be based on a specific political culture of the major part of
Russian society, hung up on a primitive mythological vision of the reality.
Lack of elementary political freedoms together with a general tolerance of
authoritarianism is being compensated for through an aggressive search for an
enemy.
Fifth, Putinism is
characterized by the authorities’ ignorance of a conscientious and thinking
part of Russian society. The personality of Putin himself is significant: he is
a KGB agent with a primitive Soviet education convinced of his almightiness. He sees society as a
faceless vulgar thing, which can be told lies to, and manipulated again and
again.
Under such conditions,
returning to the idea of a resumption of dialog with Russia, we should
recognize the impossibility of a dialog with Devil. Would Europe be able to
have a dialog with Russia, if Russia had annexed Brussels, where we stand today?
In the
context of diplomatic
dialogue Ukraine can agree to a referendum on a unitary or federal structure of the state. It is our position that any democratic choice may be appropriate. The problem is that Russia is ignoring the content of democratic procedures, remembering the main principle of Joseph Stalin: it’s not who votes that counts, it’s who counts the votes. In other words, if the referendum results deny Russia’s position, its government
will not recognize it. They
understand only language of force.
So, is the dialog needed?
Of course it is, but that must be a dialog between people who sincerely hope it
will have results. I would like to remember the great European tradition of
philosophical hermeneutics from St. Augustine to Gadamer and Ricoeur, where we
speak about the personal involvement and responsibility of all participants.
This is such fruitful conversation that gives us the opportunity to find
something new, which did not exist at the beginning of the dialog and is both
a solution and the truth.
That is why I suggest
looking at the task of such conversation wider than the professional work of
diplomats or the police. This dialogue has to become an intellectual bridge
between nations, cultures, and civilizations.
Speaking
about the Russian side, it must be represented not by the spokespersons of
Putinism, but by critically thinking intellectuals having a natural rejection
of the sacral power of the “empty place”, they would be decent representatives
for their people. We should speak about a lot of different dialogs between
academics, students, responsible politicians, and others, who are interested in
the process and positive result of mutual understanding. The Ukrainian side
will be represented by the generation of the victorious Euromaidan, grounded on
the idea of diversity. For the Europeans, such a conversation would be an
important option for self-reconsideration from a position of ideology of common
understanding as the most important value of Europe.
Serhiy Kvit is Ukraine’s minister of education
