LETTERS TO THE EDITOR (03/01/98)

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Re: Honcharenko's California ranch

Dear Editor:

Congratulations to Tamara Horodysky for her article (December 14, 1997) on the Rev. Ahapius Honcharenko and the preservation of the Honcharenko Ranch and burial place at Hayward, Calif., as a state historical site. Thanks are due also to the persistence of the committee from the East Bay Regional Park District and their representatives, as stated in the article.

I also wish to mention the contributions of W. O. Luciw and T. Luciw who published a biography of the Rev. Honcharenko in Toronto, in 1963. In the book's last pages there is mention of "The Honcharenko Committee," 423 Jefferson St., NE, Minneapolis, Minn., with a request that interested persons write to the Oakland Historical Landmarks of California for the purchase and designation of the Haywood property as the Rev. Honcharenko Park. I was among those who wrote letters of support at that time.

It is satisfying to know that after 35 years this project has become a reality and that an early Ukrainian pioneer in the United States has been honored.

I. I. Mayba, M.D.,
Winnipeg

About columnist's view of civil society

Dear Editor:

Dr. Myron Kuropas' January 18 column "Reflections on Ukraine's Civil Society" contains errors and inaccuracies, is based on faulty assumptions and wrongly criticizes U.S. and foundation-funded programs to support "civil society" in Ukraine.

First of all, the public opinion poll Dr. Kuropas cites was not conducted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), but by the International Foundation for Election Systems (IFES), which gave a presentation on the results at the CSIS in Washington. If Dr. Kuropas had read this report, a quite comprehensive and scientific account of people's attitudes toward their government - he might have found that civil society in Ukraine is not in such dire straits. He could also have written a sensible column.

The fact that 96 percent of Ukrainians are dissatisfied with their current state, and only 12 percent believe the economy will improve is not an indication of the lack of a civil society. It simply means Ukrainians don't like their current situation. Dr. Kuropas' assertion that only 3 percent of Ukrainians favor unlimited ownership of land is flat out wrong. In fact, the IFES report states that 34 percent support unlimited land ownership and 49 percent more support it in principle, but with limits. Only 11 percent were opposed.

Contrary to Dr. Kuropas, the IFES report shows some progress toward democracy, not "regression." In general, Ukrainians support the idea of political parties and a multiparty system, plan to vote in high numbers, support the idea of non-governmental organizations, support private property, etc. - all in slightly higher numbers than a year earlier.

At the same time, they distrust political parties, leaders and government, and believe their leaders are corrupt, ineffectual and unaccountable. That they believe Ukraine is not a democracy is not surprising - most party leaders and intellectuals in Kyiv would tell you the same thing. Democratic values, however, are present and slowly growing.

The great political scientist V.O. Key, studying American voters, once wrote: "I begin with the simple proposition that voters are not fools." Ukrainian voters also are not fools. Their government is not serving them well. It doesn't work. They know it and see it everyday, and have expressed their distaste to the pollsters.

Secondly, Dr. Kuropas' understanding of the term civil society is a strange one, and differs markedly from the way the term is commonly understood, from Alexis de Tocqueville in the mid-1800s to the work of Robert Putnam today. Civil society, as it is normally understood, refers to people voluntarily coming together to form free associations independent of the control of the state. This can mean churches, clubs, fraternities, boy scouts, PTAs, neighborhood watches, political parties, etc. - any case in which people come together to fill a need or solve a problem. This is particularly important in Ukraine, where all independent activity was stifled or destroyed by the party/state.

Mr. Putnam has shown that the health of such associations has a direct impact on the quality of government and the people's sense of efficacy. Most important - and completely contrary to Dr. Kuropas' understanding of civil society - is that people form such associations not only out of a sense of nationalism or duty, but out of self-interest. They want to make their lives better. In short, it is also individualism, the exact opposite of "national collective self-consciousness," which promotes civil society. Americans' individualistic "can-do" attitude, common sense and pragmatism was what most amazed de Tocqueville.

However, Dr. Kuropas writes that in order to have civil society, you need "moral consensus" and "national unity," and states that America, with both of these, still took centuries to develop a vibrant society. This is certainly looking at our history with rose-colored glasses. While the U.S. has always had a strong civil society and a sense of national identity based on an individualistic ethic, democracy and freedom tempered by religious belief, there has almost never been "moral consensus" or "unity." For most of our history, women and blacks could not vote; we had secession, a civil war, riots, ethnic strife and numerous highly undemocratic social movements. The state of New York almost failed to pass the Constitution. Remember? Today's "multiculturalism" appears to be insignificant compared to the divisive events of the past. Moreover, American civil society started with the movement of religious factions away from Plymouth, which cemented the idea of pluralism and civil society, long before the settlers thought of themselves as a nation.

Dr. Kuropas then tears into U.S. government and foundation support for pro-democracy programs in Ukraine because they do not promote nationalism in general, and religion in particular. This is a bizarre accusation, the implications of which are almost frightening. I am quite familiar with the programs funded by the U.S. government and various foundations to support democratic institutions, both from this end and "on the ground" in Kyiv.

Organizations such as the U.S.-Ukraine Foundation, the Eurasia Foundation, the Parliamentary Development Project, Laboratory 4F, Democratic Initiatives, the Center for Independent Political Research, IFES and several others have been doing something extremely important: pressing for openness, respect for the law, and accountability on the part of Ukraine's elected officials and nomenklatura. Although their efforts have not filtered down to the general public, they have assisted highly motivated and democratically oriented activists in Kyiv and other cities, who are working hard to make their government more open, effective and honest.

These organizations are assisting the core of Ukraine's future democratic government. They deserve greater support, not criticism.

Dr. Kuropas, however, seems to want to use these funds, U.S. taxpayer money, to engage in religious and nationalistic crusades. First, raising religious and national awareness in a foreign country is not the job of any department of the U.S. government. The U.S. can condemn religious intolerance, as it recently did in Russia, but should never get involved in another country's religious affairs. Secondly, whose version of nationalism should we support - eastern, western or Crimean? If such a program were to work, perhaps the U.S. government could expand it to include Russian nationalism and religion as well.

Such aid programs are not based on American "hubris," as Dr. Kuropas alleges, but on self-interest increasingly tempered by modesty. They are aimed at incrementally chipping away at the oligarchy that both he and I dislike, and at making Ukraine a normal European country. It should not be any other way.

Victor Chudowsky
Washington