aaus-list @ ukrainianstudies.org -- [aaus-list/a] Apocalypse Tomorrow (J.-P. Himka)

[Robert DeLossa <radelo@earthlink.net>]

[from John-Paul Himka <jhimka@ualberta.ca>.]

Apocalypse Tomorrow: Some Remarks on Two Texts on the Ukrainian Elections

In recent days I have received on various electronic lists and from private
individuals numerous copies of two texts concerning the Ukrainian elections: a
letter from Oksana Zabuzhko dated 24 October 2004 and another from "twelve
apolitical writers." As far as I have been able to judge, my fellow workers in
Ukrainian studies and others active in Ukrainian diaspora life consider these
texts to be important sources about what is happening and will happen in
Ukraine, worthy of circulation to as many readers as possible. An old friend
even contacted me to see if I could get a copy of Zabuzhko's letter to a
relative of mine who occupies an influential position in the global media.

I certainly have seen no critical remarks on these texts, no dissident
opinion, among the many discussions of the coming elections that arrive daily
at my e-mail address. These texts, and their propagators in cyberspace, argue
from the position of support of democracy and pluralism. In the spirit of
these latter ideals, please accept these remarks of mine, which are informed,
although this may be an inappropriate word, by a dissenting viewpoint.

I hesitate to say that my remarks are informed, because I admit to being
tremendously ignorant about current Ukrainian affairs and what is going on in
this election. Partly this is deliberate, or if you wish -- culpable,
ignorance, since I do not follow the press closely, but partly this is an
ignorance that stems from the kind of information I have been receiving,
information such as is contained in these two letters. I do not have my
friends and colleagues' confident knowledge of Ukrainian politics. Not only do
I proceed from a position of ignorance about the present, but I confess to
being even more mystified about the future. This puts me at a disadvantage
vis-à-vis both of the letters I will analyse, since both seem to know in
advance what will happen. Oksana Zabuzhko tells us "that there'll be NO --
however heavily falsified -- 'free elections' on October 31," instead
"there'll be a WAR." The "twelve apolitical writers" build their entire text
around what is going on "TODAY" and what will happen "TOMORROW." (All these
capital letters are in the original texts as I received them.)

For all I know, there could be a coup this week and Ukrainian democracy will
be crushed and all the signatories of these letters arrested. I certainly,
with all my heart and soul, hope not. I hope that their fears are misplaced.
But I honestly do not know. I do not know either whether Yanukovych's party is
just a bunch of thugs. I am certainly not writing to give comfort to thugs. I
am writing instead to clarify whether it is I or all my friends who have lost
their senses.

I am not sure what happened in Kyiv on the day of the rally. If matters are as
reported in Zabuzhko's letter, then it is an ominous turn of events. We know
the kind of paramilitary, parapolice squads that used to operate in Latin
America and South Africa. But for me at least, Zabuzhko undermines her
credibility by the overwrought rhetoric she employs. When she says that
Ukraine faces the prospect of becoming "one of the most terrible thugocratic
dictatorships that Europe has witnessed since Hitler and Stalin," I can only
wonder how much else she is exaggerating. Far from convincing me, she makes me
more uncertain about where the truth lies. That so much of the political
terror she evokes exists in the realms of possibility and the future is also
unsettling.

As to the letter of the "twelve apolitical authors," the initial posture
itself is false, since the signatories are well known for their sharp
ideological positions. Ola Hnatiuk wrote an important book in which they
figure as a distinct, prominent ideological current. If they start off by
saying they are "apolitical," how can I give credence to the statements which
follow? And again, how can I accept as good coin statements couched in such
rhetorical pathos?

And what am I to make of Zabuzhko's characterizing as a "political myth" that
Ukraine is "'split' into East and West" and into "'pro-Russian' and
'pro-Western', Russian-speaking and Ukrainian-speaking parts." To me, this
doesn't seem like a myth "made-in-Russia," as she claims, but the standard
wisdom, a realistic if overly simplified picture of the Ukrainian reality.
Otherwise, why have these same authors -- Zabuzhko and the twelve apoliticos
-- written so much about Mankurts and Little Russians and Creoles? Or look at
the frustration expressed by Roman Solchanyk in The Ukrainian Weekly ("Who Are
These People?" 17 Oct. 2004) that such a large percentage of Ukraine's
inhabitants are indifferent or negatively disposed to Ukrainian independence
or think that they and the Russians are one people? Whom am I to believe,
Roman or Oksana? Can I really trust her that 67 to 85 percent of the
population "wholeheartedly" hates the current government? Is it any wonder
that I feel confused and disinformed?

The letter of the twelve talks about "primitive anti-Western rhetoric"
emanating from Yanukovych's camp. But what about the sophistication of their
anti-Russian rhetoric? They say Russia has a "neo-Chekist regime" (Zabuzhko
calles Russia "a concentration camp"). "TOMORROW every Ukrainian city may
become a military base for Russia's armed forces."

Their letter contrasts Yanukovych and Yushchenko as a manichean binary:
Yanukovych stands for "corrupt, criminal, and degenerate government,"
Yushchenko "for civic rights and freedoms." Yanukovych -- "Soviet-era man and
a criminal," Yushchenko -- "chance for cultural diversity." Yanukovych --
"isolation from Europe and the world," Yushchenko -- "dismantling of borders,
understanding."

But how pluralistic and openminded are these writers themselves? Five times
they refer to Yanukovych as "the Ukrainian (?) 'prime minister.'" Why is the
word "Ukrainian" followed by a question mark? What makes one a Ukrainian
without a question mark? Why do they make reference to "Yanukovych's
historical fatherland, Belarus"? How about the characterization of the Russian
language as "the language of pop music and Russian criminal slang"? Is this
intellectually or morally superior to a characterization of the Ukrainian
language as, let's say, the language of small-town bazaars and Mariika the
Milkmaid? I am by no means saying that Russia should become a second state
language, I am just pointing to some notes in their discourse that do not
harmonize well with their self-proclaimed devotion to democracy and pluralism.

I am not sure why such texts are being given such wide circulation and why
some of my colleagues would like to see them published in major Western press
outlets. I thought we all preferred rational analysis and substantive
discussion.

John-Paul Himka
27 October 2004

John-Paul Himka
(780) 431-0388 hm (780) 492-0852 wk