The Nationality Policy and Dissidents
The after-Stalin cultural liberalization, which produced the revival of national cultures in all Soviet republics, frightened the Soviet leadership. During the Brezhnev reign a new party program was introduced which emphasized the importance of the Russian language for the integration of the Soviet peoples. Party theoreticians spoke of the diminishing significance of borders between Soviet republics; they also popularized the theory of “fusion of Soviet nations” that would be accompanied by the disappearance of national languages. The aim of that fusion was to create a new Russian-speaking Soviet man (homo Sovieticus), popularly known as sovok. Thus it is not surprising that Russification was spreading substantially. Many Ukrainian cultural figures, who continued to glorify Ukrainian culture and tried to protect the Ukrainian language from Russification after the end of the Khrushchev thaw, were accused of “Ukrainian bourgeois nationalism” and dismissed from their jobs or sent to prisons. A similar attack on intellectuals was conducted in other Soviet republics as well.
This attack on national rights of Soviet republics was one of the reasons for the emergence of the so-called dissident movement. This movement appeared in the Khrushchev period but got momentum during the Brezhnev period. Several small clandestine Ukrainian dissident groups secretly issued their own magazines and newspapers generally called samizdat, where they criticized the Soviet Union’s policy on civil and national rights of its citizens. During the 1960s and 1970s practically all dissident groups were repressed. Many of their members were incarcerated in mental hospitals or sent to labor camps in Siberia. The Ukrainian dissidents made up the majority of all the Soviet dissidents (about 75 percent). The Ukrainian dissident movement did not enjoy wide support among Ukrainians, however. Due to communist propaganda efforts many citizens of Soviet Ukraine considered dissidents to be foreign agents or “fanatical Ukrainian bourgeois nationalists.”[24]
The “Stagnation” of the 1970s – first half of the 1980s
The economic development in Ukraine in this period can be characterized by one word “stagnation.” The economy developed in extensive way in contrast to the economy of Western Europe, which developed in intensive way. The state gave plans to factories to fulfill. The workers did not have any wish to exceed state plans because in that case the plan quotas were often raised and next year the workers were supposed to work more to meet the plan obligations. Thus, the system discouraged hard work.
New technologies were rarely introduced as there was no competition, which could stimulate innovations. The quality of goods was low because of the same reason – the absence of competition. About forty percent of the work force was engaged in ВПК (military-producing-complex).[25] The arms race with the United States consumed large part of the state budget. The cost of foreign aid to Soviet satellites (Cuba, Afghanistan, Vietnam, African socialist states, and Eastern Europe) added to the budget deficit, which was three times higher than that of the United States (1985).
The central planning system often looked very inefficient and even awkward. For example, the Kyiv power station repair facility received electric cable from the city of Kuibyshev in central Russia, even though a large factory was producing just such cable in Kyiv. Some historians say that such a policy was specially designed to tie different republics economically. Other historians doubt it and say that such awkward economic schemes are typical of a command economy.
The Soviet government spent too much on consumer subsidies for propagandistic purposes. State subsidies keptconsumer prices artificially low. One government official noted, “The state pays four rubles, eighty kopecks for a kilogram of meat and sells it (to consumers) for one ruble, eighty kopecks.” From the 1960s to the start of the 1990s bread prices never increased. The subsidized price of bread was so low that many farmers fed bread instead of grain to their livestock because it was cheaper. Despite having more farmers than all of the industrialized West and Japan put together, the Soviet Union was forced year after year to spend precious hard currency to import Western grain. The state controlled agricultural complex was very ineffective. More than 30 percent of foodstuff rotted in state storehouses before it could reach consumers. Up to 40 percent of grain was lost during harvesting and transit. In contrast to state farms, peasants’ individual plots – ohorody (which had only 3% of the land) provided the agricultural market with 1/3 of meat, 1/3 of milk, 35% of fruit and 50% of eggs and potatoes. In general, Ukrainian peasants produced at their tiny plots a third of the total agricultural production of the republic.
The quality of medical service was poor, though free. Housing was cheap, but people had to wait for many years to get it. Food was cheap but it could not satisfy the demand. People, mostly women, had to spend hours each day in lines to get cheap products. In general, the life of a woman in Soviet times was harder than that of a man. The average Ukrainian woman worked full-time, took care of the children, and did most of the shopping (read: queuing).
One of the positive sides of the Soviet system was the absence of poverty. About 90% of the population had approximately the same living conditions. Foreign observers noted that the planned economy brought the Soviet population economic security, full employment, and a high level of equality. Or, in the words of one American analyst, “the state offered the people protection from ‘three evils of capitalism’: unemployment, inequality, and inflation.”
But full social equality was not reached anyway. The nomenklatura remained, as in the Stalin times, a privileged class. Their living standards were high. They lived in large apartments (sometimes with state maidservants) and could enjoy using special shops, sanatoriums, and hospitals. Their salaries were at least three times as much as those of ordinary people.
The late 1970s were characterized by a growing apathy to propaganda. With the death of Stalin the Soviet society lost the fear of mass repressions; with the removing of Khrushchev from power it lost enthusiasm and romanticism. Cynical attitude to the traditional Soviet values was especially growing among the youth in the late 1970s and early 1980s.
In the early 1970s, the Soviet Union’s impressive rate of economic growth began to slow. Per capita income, which had grown at an average annual rate of 6 percent from 1966 to 1970, experienced zero growth between 1978 and 1985. Thus, although command economy had reached remarkable results during the Stalin and Khrushchev eras (when extensive methods could be effective), it failed to advance the country into the next stages of technology. Industry and agriculture still used obsolete and wasteful production methods which kept the Soviet economy far behind that of the United States. The productivity of industry was 3.5 times lower than in the West; agriculture – 5 times lower. The Soviet leadership understood that serious reforms were necessary to avoid defeat in the Cold War with the United States.
The Gorbachev Era: Reforming Soviet Society (1985-1991)
After the death of Brezhnev in 1982, two Soviet leaders – Iurii Andropov (died in 1983) and Konstantin Chernenko (died in 1985) – ruled the state. Since they died soon after assuming power, they could not carry out serious reforms. In March 1985 Mikhail Gorbachev became the Soviet leader. He planned to make the Soviet system, particularly its stagnant economy, more efficient, stronger, and productive. To achieve these objectives, Gorbachev adopted a new “democratic” style of leadership. He called for more openness (glasnost) in the conduct of government and for a restructuring of the economy (perestroika).
Gorbachev’s economic plans called for reducing centralized control of the economy and allowing more local initiatives to factories, farms, and peasants. Limited private enterprises (the so called kooperativy) were also allowed and became widespread, especially in service industry.
Glasnost promoted the ideas of more freedom of expression and less censorship and government secrecy. Writers became free to criticize without fearing punishment, and many dissidents were released from detention. Permission to emigrate and travel abroad increased significantly, and many Soviet intellectuals supported Gorbachev’s policies. Films, plays, and books that had long been forbidden suddenly appeared. Long-taboo subjects – from airplane crashes to nuclear accidents, from prostitution to government corruption – could be discussed on national television and in the press. Newspapers and magazines criticized the faults of the Soviet political system. New historical interpretations, especially ones critical of the Stalin and Brezhnev eras, were published. The government recognized that the old history books were “full of lies” and it cancelled all final history examinations for secondary school students. The Soviet leadership allowed some demonstrations and strikes. Religious freedom was restored.[26] In December 1988 the government stopped the jamming of foreign radio broadcasts, including the Ukrainian-language programs of U.S. financed Radio Liberty. Soviet people started to loose their fear of freely expressing themselves to one another.
The great catalyst for the Ukrainian national movement was the Chornobyl nuclear accident (April 29, 1986). Moscow’s attempts to silence the consequences of the event led many Ukrainians to rethink their attitude to the Soviet system which could easily sacrifice the lives of people for political reasons. (Moscow even ordered the traditional May Day parade to be held in Kiev at the time). Many Ukrainians understood that an independent Ukrainian government would better protect their interests. Thus, Chornobyl stimulated the growth of Ukrainian national consciousness.
The primary aim of the glasnost campaign was to encourage economic modernization. Gorbachev thought that a free society would be more effective in putting reforms into practice. In contrast to the Chinese reformation model, where political freedom was suppressed not to be an obstacle for economic development, Gorbachev decided to use it to stimulate reforms. The result was counterproductive. Introducing democratic freedoms in Soviet republics opened the way for creating nationalistic movements, which started struggle for independence. The situation strikingly reminded that one of 1917, when the Provisional Government introduced democratic reforms which brought the Russian empire to collapse.
Thanks to the liberalization policy numerous independent cultural organizations started to appear in Ukraine. They tried to revive the Ukrainian language, history, culture, and environment. Their activities contributed to the growth of national consciousness among Ukrainians.
In September, 1989 a large-scale mass organization under the name “Popular Movement of Ukraine for Perestroika” (Rukh) had its founding congress. Rukh advocated a program of democratization and support for national rights. Thanks to Rukh’s efforts Ukrainian was proclaimed the state language in 1989. In the spring of 1990 the first free elections to the Verkhovna Rada (Ukrainian parliament) were held. In 16 June 1990, the Verkovna Rada proclaimed the Declaration of Sovereignty which placed Ukraine’s interests over those of the USSR. In 1989 and 1990 a number of radical political parties with the aim of achieving full independence emerged in Ukraine. Similar political parties appeared in many other Soviet republics. The Soviet Union was on the verge of disintegration.
On August 18, 1991 some old-line Communist leaders made their move. Fearing loss of their powers and the disintegration of the USSR, they put Gorbachev under house arrest while he was vacationing in the Crimea. The next morning an eight-member Emergency Committee (ГКЧП) of old-line Communists, including the defense minister and the KGB (secret police) chief, announced in Moscow that Gorbachev was sick and that the Committee had assumed emergency powers. The Committee planned to limit democratic freedoms and establish strict order all over the USSR. The Committee gave orders to introduce strict censorship in the media and to postpone the activity of political parties and movements. Tanks and troops were brought in the Soviet capital. However, neither the tanks nor the troops were resolute enough to fire on resisters led by Boris Yeltsin in Moscow. By August 22, the coup had failed, and Gorbachev returned to Moscow that same morning. Coup leaders were arrested, and Yeltsin became the hero of the day. Gorbachev’s power and authority declined sharply.
The events that followed quickly after were almost as dramatic as the failed coup. Taking advantage of the situation (the weakness of the central government) Soviet republics proclaimed independence one after another. The Ukrainian parliamentarians did it on August 24. The coup showed them that only independence could guarantee safety and free development. As the involvement of the Communist Party in the attempted coup became clear, high governmental officials quit the party, which was soon banned. The declaration of independence was confirmed in a nationwide referendum on December 1. (More than 90 percent voted “yes”). At the same time, Leonid Kravchuk, the former major ideologue of Ukrainian Communists, was elected as Ukraine’s president.
Independent Ukraine (1991-2007)
The first years of independence were extremely hard for Ukraine. The country lacked an experienced management to carry out economic reforms. Foreign advisors were of little help as the transition period (from communism to capitalism) was unique in the world practice. The Ukrainian leadership decided not to apply the so-called shock therapy (introducing of free trade and liberalization of prices). At the beginning shock therapy seriously deteriorates the economic situation and the living standards fall sharply. But than market mechanisms start to work and the economic situation improves. Shock therapy was successfully applied in Poland in 1990.[27]
The Ukrainian government decided to walk along the reform path very cautiously and slowly. It was afraid of making the reforms too painful to the people. The government feared that the angry people could overthrow them in that case. The result of such a “cautious” policy was not good anyway. The economic situation was deteriorating and the population demanded pre-term presidential and parliamentary elections. The elections were scheduled for 1994 instead of 1995.
In the parliamentary elections of 1994 the recently re-legalized Communists got a majority. That happened because the disappointed population believed that the market economy was not good for them. Many people started to miss the Soviet times.
The reforms in the middle of the 1990s went slowly mostly because of the Communists’ resistance. The Communists blocked many urgent reforms and loudly advocated return to the Soviet economic and political system. They also called for restoration of the Soviet Union. In fact, the Communists acted against Ukrainian independence. Their policy could be called the worse the better. The worse the economic situation was, the more people missed the Soviet times. If the ruling class of the former nomenklatura had supported the Communists, Ukraine could have lost its independence.
With the advent of independence the nomenklatura changed their cloth from communist to nationalist and retained power. Now it was unofficially called the “party of power”, since it controlled the most important sectors of the economy. The nomenklatura of independent Ukraine was different from the nomenkatura of Soviet Ukraine. In Soviet times they were subordinated to their Moscow bosses. In independent Ukraine they were real rulers and they did not want to loose their dominant position in the country. Thus, the ideology of independence became useful for them and they became “nationally minded”.
In the presidential elections of 1994 Leonid Kuchma was chosen president. Russian ruling circles supported him in the hope of bringing Ukraine into Russia’s embrace. But the second Ukrainian president, like the first one, turned out to be nationally minded. He managed to consolidate his power through transforming Ukraine from a parliamentary republic into a presidential republic. In his foreign policy Kuchma chose the so-called two-vector policy (a policy of balancing between Russia and the West). This policy enabled Ukraine to get concessions from both sides.[28] In 1997 the Treaty on Friendship and Cooperation was signed with Russia. On the other hand, Kuchma announced that Ukraine had started a process of moving to NATO.
In 1999 Kuchma was reelected for the second term. His rule was characterized by a large-scale corruption, authoritarianism, nepotism, disrespect for the law and democratic freedoms. Most of the mass media were not free. Over half of the economy was in shade.[29] But the economic growth rate was impressive (one of the best in the world).
In 2004 Ukraine experienced very dramatic presidential elections. Kuchma’s choice was Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych. The pro-Russian Yanukovych managed to ‘win’ elections through mass fraud. This mass fraud caused huge protest meetings all around Ukraine. The USA and the European Union refused to recognize the official results and advised to repeat the elections in a fair way.[30] As a result, new elections were held which brought victory to Victor Yushchenko. Since Yushchenko is an openly pro-western politician he changed Kuchma’s two-vector policy for one-vector policy. The result of this change was a serious deterioration of Russia-Ukraine relations. The close economic ties started to fall apart. A large-scale re-privatization was another fault of the new government led by Yulia Tymoshenko. Since foreign investors were not sure what enterprises were to be re-privatized they stopped making investments. The economic growth rate slowed down from 12% in 2004 to 3% in 2005. On the other hand, the transparent economic policy enabled Ukraine to get market economy status, which gives Ukraine an access to the markets of developed states. In September 2005 Yuriy Yekhanurov became prime minister. His government stopped re-privatization campaign. That measure resumed investments and revived the economy, but not significantly. One of the most impressive achievements of Yushchenko is the freedom of the media. According to foreign experts Ukraine has made significant progress in the fields of democratic rights and freedoms. They say that the Orange Revolution (the name of the 2004 dramatic elections) greatly contributed to the development of civil society. Freedom House, a prestigious human rights international organization, has upgraded Ukraine in 2006 to “free” from its “partly free” status. Russia was downgraded from “partly free” to “not free.”
The slowdown of the economy helped the pro-Russian ‘Party of Regions’ win parliamentary elections in 2006. It formed a coalition with Communists and Socialists and started to restrict Yushchenko’s powers. In response to this policy, the president dissolved the parliament. New parliamentary elections were scheduled for September 2007.
As a result of the 2007 parliamentary elections the Orange team (Tymoshenko’s and Yushchenko’s blocks) returned to power. Yulia Tymoshenko became prime minister again.
Дата добавления: 2015-07-11; просмотров: 66 | Нарушение авторских прав