Соборність та регіональний розвиток у суспільно-політичному житті незалежної України

Abstract

The analyz the making of the independent Ukrainian state in terms of social unity. The author argues that in the making of independent Ukraine some part of the party-soviet elite was stirring up disintegrating processes in order to preserve their power. To prevent the USSR disintegration, a territorial autonomy of the Crimea was artificially created, an unnatural idea of “new-Russian” ethnos in the Northern Ukraine was articulated. The Russyn self-identification of a part of Trans-Carpathian population was emphasized. The issue of a special status of Russian-speaking minorities in Donbas area was raised. Radical organizations of Hungarian and Romanian minorities activated their work in Trans-Carpathian and Chernivtzi oblasts. Nevertheless, due to the considered national policy, the Ukrainian central authorities stopped disintegrating processes in the country and achieved social consolidation around the independence idea in all-Ukrainian referendum on December 1, 1991. From 1991 to 1994, Ukraine was in a deep social-economic crisis, inhibited by unsuccessful reforms in all areas of social and economic life. In those circumstances, on the background of the soviet past nostalgia, the trust in the Ukrainian independence decreased, regional differences became deeper, some political forces of the neighboring countries intensified their negative impact on the national minorities. Elected in 1994, President L. Kuchma managed to stabilize the social-economic situation, turn the Crimea autonomy back to the Ukrainian legal framework, limit activities of the Russyn organizations in Trans-Carpathian oblast only to ethno-cultural one, and decrease political strain in the areas inhibited by national minorities. The Ukrainian Constitution of 1996 finally defined Unitarian’s status and stated the basics of the local self-government. However, stabilization of the social-political situation in 1994–2004 was mainly possible due to the formation of the political regime that resembled the autocratic one, lack of radical reforms in national-cultural life and introduction of an undercover moratorium on discussions of socio-political development issues (language status, historical-cultural heritage, lack of church unity, indefiniteness of the state’s international guidelines). One can say, that President L.Kuchma didn’t succeed in achieving noticeable results in true consolidation of the society and overcoming the interregional discrepancies. The 2004 Orange revolution democratized social relations in the country, consolidated the Ukrainian position on Euro-integration as a uniting national idea. But because of endless conflicts among the upper authorities, interference of the external factors into the country’s ethno-political life, drawbacks in the national policy disintegration processes intensified, the rate of the social consolidation decreased. In 2005–2009 a great part of the Crimean population inclined to support the radical pro-Russian public organizations. The problem of the Crimean Tartars remained unsettled. The power didn’t manage to improve the level of social-cultural life and defeat crime in the state, which intensified the regional self-identification of the Donbas population. In Trans-Carpatian region, weakening of the power led Russyns back to the idea of the region’s autonomy and separation of the Russyn ethnos, the radical Hungarian organization became more active. Romanian factors were ruining the ethno-political stability of Chernivtzi oblast.