Identity and Power in Ukraine

Abstract

This paper analyzes the coercive and legitimate forms of power in Ukraine. It describes the crisis of legitimacy in Ukraine as a contradiction between a blatantly cruel system of capitalism dominated by a few oligarchs, and the lingering remnants of a Soviet mentality. Two strategies are used by the Government to stoke the crisis. First, increased identification with ethnic or regional groups are instrumentally used by the Government to take attention from economic and class issues. Second, the incorporation of a Soviet meaning of power into the new national identity and presentation of it as core norms, believes, and values of the people of Ukraine competes with alternative Ukrainian identity concepts. The paper analyzes five main features of the Soviet meanings of power – political, social, and economic paternalism, perception of power as source of profit and violence, and the dual reality of power with the gap between official narratives of power and a real life. The process of incorporation of the Soviet concept of power into national identity is facilitated by the process of national identity formation that helped to preserve the Soviet perception of power, because of the absence of a new ideology, a lack of critical assessment of the Soviet past, an absence of the vision of outcome, an embryonic culture of democracy, and contributions of all the presidents to the preservation of the Soviet meaning of power. People justify the system as legitimate and fair for many reasons: out of historic habit and deemed moral obligations, self-interests and/or a fear of sanctions, identification with the ruler, zones of indifference, an absence of will and self-confidence, desire to support a strong leader based on ambiguity intolerance, hierarchy – enhancing ideologies, and a general tolerance of injustice. The obedience of subjects is connected with the strength of will of the subjects and the social structures of the society. In Ukraine, the society is not united, not organized, has no identity of “us”, no civic accountability, nor even any real interest in such matters. Civil society levels are very low, as reflected by limited opportunities for civic responsibility and participation and few demands from the society.