Skip to main content
Support
Event

Ambivalence to Ambiguity: Why Ukrainians Remain "Undecided"

Mykola Riabchuk, Research Associate, University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy; John Kolaska Fellow, Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies, Edmonton; and former Regional Exchange Scholar, Kennan Institute

Date & Time

Monday
Apr. 12, 2004
12:00pm – 1:00pm ET

Overview

At a recent Kennan Institute talk, Mykola Riabchuk, Research Associate, University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy; John Kolaska Fellow, Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies, Edmonton; and former Regional Exchange Scholar, Kennan Institute discussed the development of society and identity in Ukraine. He noted that the common concept of "two Ukraines," divided by geography, identity, and values does not provide a complete picture of Ukraine's current political and social landscape, as it ignores a large "third Ukraine" made up of an ambivalent and silent populace.

Riabchuk identified two nation-building projects in contemporary Ukraine. The first is the "Ukrainian project," which looks to Europe as the future of Ukraine; the second is espoused by those with an "East Slavic identity" who view Ukraine's future in a Eurasian or neo-Soviet context. Riabchuk went on to describe a third Ukraine that is not a project but a silent majority without clear opinions. This majority is concentrated in central Ukraine, and can be identified in survey data as the majority who remain "undecided" or with "no opinion." According to Riabchuk, the silent majority was created by the totalitarian regime and has been maintained by the post-Communist elite. He explained that this large ambivalent portion of society is advantageous to the current Ukrainian elite because its members are susceptible to propaganda and are easily manipulated by the regime.

Nationalist appeals have not been successful in post-Soviet Ukrainian politics, said Riabchuk, in part because of the large undecided portion of society who reject both Ukrainian and Soviet nationalism or patriotism. Instead, officials often change their platforms depending on the audience, emphasizing very different priorities in Lviv (in Western Ukraine) than they would in Kharkiv (in Eastern Ukraine). According to Riabchuk, this has undermined nationalist movements. Riabchuk pointed to the Our Ukraine party, led by Victor Yushchenko, as a good example of an umbrella party that does not claim to be nationalist but tries to encompass a variety of views and thus be amenable to the silent majority.

Riabchuk pointed out that ambivalence in society is inevitable during a transition period. However, Ukraine's large silent majority makes it difficult to check the new version of Ukrainian authoritarianism evident today. Riabchuk characterized this authoritarianism as non-ideological and marked by disrespect for the law, rampant corruption, and extensive state surveillance. In closing, he suggested that the best hopes for altering the situation are a strengthened civil society, a change in the ruling elite, and pressure from the international community.

Tagged

Hosted By

Kennan Institute

The Kennan Institute is the premier US center for advanced research on Russia and Eurasia and the oldest and largest regional program at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. The Kennan Institute is committed to improving American understanding of Russia, Ukraine, Central Asia, the Caucasus, and the surrounding region though research and exchange.  Read more

Thank you for your interest in this event. Please send any feedback or questions to our Events staff.