Shevchenko Society lectures focus on Ukraine today (06/16/02)

Shevchenko Society lectures focus on Ukraine today

by Dr. Orest Popovych

NEW YORK - A capacity audience was treated to an unexpected double feature at the home of the Shevchenko Scientific Society (NTSh) in New York on April 27, when in addition to the previously announced talk by Dr. Oleh Romaniv of Lviv the group was also able to enjoy a presentation by Dr. Natalia Yakovenko of Kyiv. Both lectures clarified different aspects of the ongoing process of building a Ukrainian national state.

The program was opened by the president of NTSh, Dr. Larissa Onyshkevych, and emceed by Dr. Anna Procyk, a vice-president of NTSh, who organized the event.

First to speak was Dr. Yakovenko, a professor of history at the National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy and presently a visiting scholar at the Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute (HURI). She painted a sharp contrast between the status of historiography in Ukraine before and after independence. Under the Soviet regime, said Dr. Yakovenko, Ukrainian historians fell hopelessly behind their Western colleagues as professionals for three main reasons: they were largely cut off from Western scholarly literature; important positions in the profession were often filled on the basis of party loyalty rather than merit; and scholarly research in the humanities was pretty much restricted to the Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, while absent at the universities.

The last shortcoming served to divorce historical scholarship from education, which was controlled by Moscow, where all the graduate degrees were awarded. Finally, the interpretation of history in Soviet Ukraine was dictated by Communist ideology and guided by Russo-centrism.

Following the declaration of independence in 1991, Ukrainian historians easily and quickly got rid of both the myths of Soviet scholarship and the Russocentric orientation. Instead they have been engaged in a free discussion on how best to write and teach history. Dr. Yakovenko said she sees two distinct genres in historiography, which require different emphases: school textbooks, which should educate students in Ukrainian national history, and scholarly works, which must deal with the anthropological, sociological and political aspects of history.

The professional level of Ukrainian historians has improved dramatically since independence, according to Dr. Yakovenko, as Western scholarly literature has become easily available - much of it in translation. Furthermore, the doors have been opened to Ukrainians for post-graduate studies abroad, aided by a variety of scholarships. Most popular with Ukrainian students have been the master's program at the Central European University in Budapest, Hungary, as well as institutions of higher learning in Poland, in particular the European University in Lublin, where doctoral studies can be pursued under joint Ukrainian-Polish mentorship. In Europe many of the scholarships are provided by the Soros Foundation. In North America they are funded by the HURI and the Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies.

In Ukraine, an exciting new program has developed, designed to demonopolize historical research. Called a "mega-project," it enables provincial universities to establish specialized research centers in collaboration with foreign universities. Funded by the Soros Foundation, the participating Ukrainian universities, which are chosen on the basis of competition, can pursue research projects without the usual administrative and budgetary restrictions imposed by Kyiv. "We view the future with measured optimism," concluded the professor from Kyiv.

Dr. Romaniv, a member of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, the president of NTSh in Ukraine and secretary general of the society's World Council, spoke on the situation in Ukraine in light of the recent parliamentary elections. Much of the factual material which he related was already known to those who have followed the detailed and in-depth coverage of the elections on the pages of The Ukrainian Weekly. Nevertheless, there is something to be said for the corroborating stories and insights of an eyewitness, spiced up with anecdotal tidbits.

Dr. Romaniv is an ardent supporter of Viktor Yushchenko's Our Ukraine bloc and was one of the 126 scholars who signed a published declaration in support of it. He confirmed reports that in the pre-election campaign, the formidable forces of President Kuchma's administration did everything in their power to impede Mr. Yushchenko's bloc and to promote the pro-presidential For a United Ukraine bloc.

Although European observers did monitor the elections, they were mostly deployed in major cities, said Dr. Romaniv, while provincial and rural areas were left exposed to voting irregularities and outright fraud. He mentioned some examples of rather creative vote-rigging: in some places non-residents would be bussed in to vote, after which they would be paid and feted; there were cases where voters were handed pre-marked ballots; votes were tallied for so-called "dead souls" - people who were either deceased or away from home on jobs abroad.

Dr. Romaniv said he believes that in a fair election the Our Ukraine bloc would have garnered up to 35 percent of the by-party vote, rather than the 23.6 percent that it did win. He summarized the present status and the imperatives of today's Ukraine as follows: the fundamental problem afflicting Ukraine is that it is governed by people with a Russian orientation. What we need is a Ukrainian majority in the Parliament and a government composed of patriotic Ukrainians, including people competent in economics. The speaker expressed the hope that Mr. Yushchenko would become the unifier of patriotic forces in Ukraine, thus bringing about the salutary changes.

| Home Page |