As interest in Ukraine has grown, the quality of commentary on this country has improved. A growing realization of the importance of domestic developments in Ukraine exits. Less news about Ukraine is "filtered" through Moscow, and the tendency to dismiss Ukraine as a passive periphery region inevitably dominated by a core Russian state is decreasing. In fact, in recent months the pessimism that pervaded commentaries on Ukraine in early 1994 has been replaced, in some reports, by almost euphoric praise of the Kuchma administration and its reform program.
It must be recognized, however, that a profound degradation of Ukraine's socioeconomic infrastructure has taken place in recent years, and it will take a lengthy period of time to reverse its effects. In the meantime, public dissatisfaction with low standards of living and very poor social services is growing. This dissatisfaction has not been expressed in the form of mass disobedience and violence largely because of the absence of vigorous and respected leadership figures and organizations that could mobilize and channel public discontent. The public's patience is wearing thin, however, and one can easily imagine the emergence of demagogues who would try to take advantage of increasing popular discontent.
Certainly, throughout much of 1994 there was good reason to doubt that Ukraine would break out of a vicious cycle of growing public apathy and cynicism fed by widespread perceptions (largely correct) of a passive leadership with no clear socioeconomic and political strategy. Even in these circumstances it was unwarranted to paint an unremittingly bleak picture of Ukraine's imminent collapse, as more likely scenarios included the installation of an authoritarian regime in Ukraine or its subordination by Russia.140 However, the maintenance of minimal stability was probably the best that could have been expected given the circumstances that prevailed throughout most of 1994.
Even if favorable conditions for effective socioeconomic reforms are soon created, it will be at least several years before Ukraine can achieve a level of stability that would justify a high level of confidence in its future. However, under the Kravchuk administration it appeared unlikely that one would see the emergence of such conditions. In contrast, the Kuchma administration has shown great determination in tackling this task, setting in motion a reform process that is beginning to acquire considerable momentum. Thus the rhetoric of economic reform voiced by President Kuchma in fall 1994 was soon followed by concrete reform measures, and Ukraine's leadership took a number of important steps in spring 1995 to establish its control over the restive Crimean peninsula.
Following the Ukrainian parliament's vote of no confidence in the government's cabinet in April 1995, the final distribution of political power in Kiev remained undetermined, but most observers have concluded that President Kuchma's position has improved as a result, because it will probably allow him to streamline the cabinet and appoint more reform-minded ministers. Aware of the lack of public confidence in Ukraine's central legislature, in recent months its members have generally backed away from sharp confrontations with the executive branch of government, and in contests between the legislature and the executive, the latter has usually emerged triumphant.
Initial reports concerning the new acting prime minister (and former head of the Ukrainian security apparatus), Evhen Marchuk, indicate that he is a tough and able manager and negotiator, and his access to the resources of Ukraine's security apparatus clearly strengthens his hand in dealing with the current administration's domestic opponents. In addition, there has been little open dissent to date among President Kuchma's closest advisers, who remain quite united in pressing for further reform measures. To date President Kuchma and his advisers have shown great skill in advancing their agenda and taking advantage of the weaknesses of their opponents, and these successes have been gained without a resort to blatantly authoritarian methods.
Ukraine's transition to a relatively stable form of liberal democracy would be greatly facilitated by support from a full-fledged civil society, clearly lacking in Ukraine. However, the presence of a well-developed civil society is not essential for such a transition, as long as it becomes established in the course of the transition. As one scholar noted,
It may be that in these cases charismatic leaders, wise institutional designs, and exogeneous factors can play a role--not in making up or substituting for the civil society which is not there, but in helping the process by which such a society comes about. This role would require elites to pay close attention not only to the design of political institutions but also, and mainly, to the design of social institutions such as markets, social pluralism, and the public sphere.141
President Kuchma is not charismatic, but his blunt and direct style continue to appeal to a large number of voters, and he has retained a high popularity rating. In addition, he has devoted considerable attention to creating the preconditions for the development of a civil society, and there is little evidence that he is prepared to engage in any significant subversion of the democratic process. As an example, President Kuchma has generally supported the independence of the mass media and strongly stressed the need for a more capable and professional legal system. A good chance exists that the reform process in Ukraine will also be accompanied by the rapid development of a civil society, so essential for the long-term sociopolitical stability of any country.
Conversely, it is highly unlikely that Ukraine will become the scene of mass violence followed by civil war. An unpredictable chain of events could possibly lead to large-scale civil conflict, but extremist forces in Ukraine still have only a narrow social base and lack political influence. Of the mainstream political forces in Ukraine, none currently possesses the will, social support, and organizational resources needed to launch and sustain a major challenge to the current administration's authority. Equally important, none of these forces has a coherent plan for leading Ukraine out of its present crisis situation.
The absence of widespread violence in Ukraine is probably also due to another, less tangible factor: the great emphasis most citizens of Ukraine place on maintaining social peace. The importance of peaceful conflict resolution has been conditioned by the great losses of life experienced by Ukraine during the many wars and other conflicts on its territory in the 20th century, as well as the devastation wrought by the brutal forced collectivization of agriculture in Ukraine in the early 1930s.
However, as memories of these traumatic events fade, their role in restraining the population from new acts of protest and violence has gradually decreased and will continue to diminish. In turn, as economic reforms proceed, their differential impact on various social groups and regions of Ukraine will grow, as will the potential for social conflict, increasing the need for new formulas and "visions" to unify Ukraine's populations and its various regions.
Leonid Kuchma, who, during the 1994 presidential campaign was demonized by nationalist and national-democratic forces as a Russophile ready to sell Ukraine down the river, has paradoxically emerged as one such unifying force. With his family roots and work history connected with central and eastern Ukraine, and his wife of ethnic Russian background, Leonid Kuchma, who spoke poor Ukrainian only a few years ago, was initially perceived in many quarters as an "Easterner" with little emotional commitment to the cause of Ukrainian independence. Certainly, many commentators argued that if he achieved the presidency this would greatly accentuate the east-west cleavage in Ukraine.
However, by winning the presidential elections as a result of strong voting support in eastern and southern Ukraine, President Kuchma has given these regions a strong stake in developments in the Ukrainian capital. As he repeatedly demonstrates his strong commitment to Ukraine's independence, his popularity also quickly grows in western Ukraine. In fact, President Kuchma has managed to cobble together an increasingly influential coalition of moderate national democrats from western and central Ukraine, and centrists and social democrats from eastern and southern Ukraine. They are marked by a technocratic/pragmatic approach to politics and generally reject the option of emphasizing ethnic (cultural/linguistic) identity to promote the political integration of Ukraine's population. Rather, they have maintained the strategy, consistently adhered to since Ukraine's independence, of promoting a civic (political) identity based on the principle of citizenship rather than ethnic origin.
The nature of the civil/political identity that will evolve in Ukraine has yet to be clearly defined. It will emerge slowly, and during this period circumstances could conceivably arise (e.g., continued economic decline in Ukraine and vigorous economic growth in Russia, accompanied by clumsy regional policies emanating from the central government in Kiev) that would seriously disrupt or even threaten the nation-building process. However, cautious optimism regarding developments in Ukraine is fully warranted given the current positive trends noted above.
| Return to Top | Return to Contents | Next Chapter | Previous Chapter |