People's Deputy Ihor Hryniv of Lviv speaks about Parliament's work

by Oksana Zakydalsky

Ihor Hryniv is a 29-year-old people's deputy of the Supreme Soviet of Ukraine, elected this year, as a Rukh candidate, from the constituency of Nestoriv, Lviv oblast. He is also a deputy to Lviv Oblast Council.

Educated at Lviv University as a chemist, he planned an academic career at the university but, after serving for the 1988-1989 term as head of Tovarystvo Leva, he chose full-time political work.

He is a member of the Rukh Grand Council and was a delegate to Rukh's founding Congress. He has become a member of the Supreme Council Committee on Local Self Government for which he will be working full time. He is one of the organizers of Plast in Lviv and was in Toronto recently at the invitation of Plast in Canada.

Q: You have been taking part in the first session of the newly elected Supreme Soviet. What are your impressions of this session?

A: We are all conscious of the fact that this session of the Supreme Soviet is taking place in new and historic circumstances. The Democratic Bloc, a coalition created during the election campaign to battle the party apparatus, includes different political organizations and, because Ukraine's awakening has not been uniform throughout - some regions lag in political and democratic development - representatives in the Democratic Bloc from different regions are different. The most politically conscious, of course, are from western Ukraine as well as from some of the other large cities - Kiev, Dnipropetrovske, Kharkiv. In Central Ukraine the Democratic Bloc lost the elections.

Because the bloc does not reach one-third of the membership of the Supreme Soviet, a number that could create a parliamentary crisis, it is not in a position to influence realistically the direction that Parliament takes. This minority situation has forced the bloc to take on the role of an opposition. This role was first evident in the election of Volodymyr Ivashko as president of the Supreme Soviet when the bloc did not take part in the voting.

Q: What do you think was the most significant achievement thus fair of the Democratic Bloc at this session?

A: The Democratic Bloc proposed a large number of candidates for president of the Supreme Soviet. For four days the whole of Ukraine - the sessions were broadcast on TV throughout the country - heard, for the first time, people such as Lev Lukianenko, Vyacheslav Chornovil and Mykhailo Horyn. Not only did the bloc make itself heard, but it won over Ukraine. It showed itself intellectually and morally superior to the party apparatus. When the country saw such people as Lukianenko who never accommodated and always sincerely spoke his mind and realized that he was not the criminal pictured in official versions, a reevaluation took place in the nation.

For example, when the voting for president, which was to have taken place on a Friday was postponed to a Monday and (Volodymyr) Yavorivsky advised the deputies from eastern Ukraine to go and consult with their constituents, they were sceptical, knowing the ambivalent attitude towards Rukh in eastern Ukraine.

But many of them returned and said that they had found their constituents had changed during the week of the televised speeches. They were no longer hostile to Rukh and were positive towards such candidates as Lev Lukianenko and Prof. Ihor Yukhnovsky. The latter won over the audience completely, with his enormous intellect. When he read his program, the hall was completely silent.

Yet in our Parliament people do not vote on their convictions, but according to what camp they belong. I am sure that the majority of the deputies were for Yukhnovsky but the majority voted against him because they were, after all, party apparatus and conservative first.

Q: Does the Democratic Bloc have its own program or are there many views?

A: The bloc represents different political organizations: the Republican Party, Democratic Party initiative group, Agrarian Democratic Party, Democratic Platform (of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union). There are also varying views on different subjects, but we do have a common platform: Ukraine must achieve sovereignty.

In more specific terms, sovereignty is viewed differently. Some see it as a sovereign, independent, democratic Ukraine, outside any Soviet Union; others see a confederation, a new union based on confederative principles. It is assumed that, once sovereignty is achieved, the constituent parts of the Democratic Bloc will go their own way.

But currently there is not a single deputy who does not support sovereignty - a term that has become as acceptable as "good morning."

Q: What is the specific relationship between the Democratic Bloc and Rukh?

A: The Democratic Bloc includes members of organizations other than Rukh, particularly the Democratic Platform of the CPSU.

Q: A criticism of Rukh is that it is not a constructive but a destructive organization - that it only criticizes but does not propose solutions. Do you agree?

A: No, although I believe that the basic function of Rukh now is to destroy the existing administrative-command system and bring to government new people committed to changing the existing system. Rukh is a broad organization - too broad to have concrete and specific functions of constructive changes. This is the task of future political parties which will develop and have already started developing from Rukh but will still unite in a kind of coalition bloc under Rukh.

Q: You say that the current role of Rukh is to destroy the existing system, yet the Democratic Bloc has taken over the chairmanship of seven parliamentary committees?

A: What I mean by destruction is not just continuing criticism - after all Rukh feels, to some degree, responsibility for the processes taking place in Ukraine. Therefore, we decided to take part in the work of the committees and the leading role in some of them. At the same time Rukh will not take any ministry and will remain at a distance from the formation of government.

Responsibility must stay with the majority in the Supreme Soviet. This, of course, makes sense as no party should be willing to take responsibility for government when its influence is insignificant. The majority will, after all, form the kind of government it wants. We will take part in legislation and form a shadow cabinet as an opposition bloc in the Parliament. The committees, after all, don't have executive functions but will work for general democratic reforms, for the legislative functions of the Supreme Soviet.

Q: Could you comment more broadly on what you consider to be the role of Rukh now and In the near future.

A: Ukraine's achievement of state status can be divided into the following three stages: the awakening with its demand for sovereignty; democracy for a sovereign Ukraine; a high standard of living for a democratic Ukraine. Thus, sovereignty is a means for the building of a democratic society with the aim of achieving a high standard of living. The three stages form a trinity but there are specific tasks that must be accomplished at each stage. In this, the role of Rukh has several variations.

Rukh is a coordinating center of other civic organizations. It is not a political party organization, it is not a professional union such as Solidarity. Rukh is a civic-political organization, brought to life by the particular circumstances of a transitory phase of change from a one party dictatorship to a free and democratic society. It united all political powers around a strategic aim: the building of a sovereign, independent, democratic, economically developed Ukrainian state.

In this transitory phase it has its particular role: it should encourage the development of other civic organizations and discourage the idea that it is the one and only representative of the people in the political arena. Such an attitude would lead to the creation of an undemocratic system in Ukrine.

If Rukh develops as described, helping to bring about the establishment of many different civic organizations, it will increasingly become just a coordinating center of such organizations. It is not now or should it be a politically homogeneous structure with a single aim.

Q: Why are processes in the Supreme Soviet of Ukraine so slow? Why do decisions take such a long time?

A: The Supreme Soviet includes a large number of conservative deputies who grew up in a different system, a totalitarian and administrative system, and in principle can't see any future for a different type of state.

It is very difficult, for people who have only seen one state system, who have felt the pressures the state exerted on them, to begin to think for themselves and to build a state of a different kind. This will be the function of the younger deputies who grew up under different circumstances.

Q: Do you think that the younger generation is closer to democratic values?

A: The younger generation grew up in a more democratic society, never saw repressions, does not possess the deep-rooted fear of them and in its actions and behavior is more consistent and open to the democratic transformation. There is, of course, the problem of communication with the older generation. The building of a sovereign, democratic Ukraine should go into the hands of the young generation and young people should see their duty and join in this building process.

Young people are more self-assured while the older ones want to maintain their positions and only instruct- the younger on how things should be done. Conflict is natural. The duty of the first is not to wait around until it is their turn but to join today on all levels of state building and the duty of the second is to help them in this and step aside.

Q: Do you see the younger generation eager to join in?

A: Unfortunately, no. Apathy among the young is very evident; only a small part of the younger generation has become politically active. And this is no surprise. For example, a unique feature of Soviet society, another which differentiates us from the West, is that there are no young leaders in society - no young directors, no young professors. A hierarchical system has developed and keeps hold. It is responsible for this general apathy among the young while allowing the older generation to hang on. When we make contact with our counterparts in the West - be it in the academic or political fields - the age difference is very evident. The people from the West are usually much younger. To my mind, unless we bring youth into the whole system, it will be difficult to pursue change.

Q: How can this apathy of the young be overcome?

A: People must come to believe that their interests are involved with the fate of society. First of all, their economic interests; they need the stimulus of a market economy. Success should depend not on one's age but on one's initiative and intelligence. If the proper stimulus is provided, I am sure we will see a large number of creative, serious young people come forward. "Let him wait until he's older" - this attitude of society towards youth has to change. It is already beginning to happen as the elections proved.

The elections brought in much younger soviets (councils), both regional and republican. I myself often came across statements such as "I'll vote for the younger one," I was the youngest of the initial five candidates in my constituency as well as being one of two from Rukh. Thus the choice seemed to be a Rukh candidate, but the younger one was favored. There were other such examples where two Rukh candidates ran: Taras Stetskiv won over Ivan Gel, Ihor Derkach and Ivan Makar both won over older Rukh opponents.

Q: How can we in the West help the younger generation in Ukraine come to power?

A: I don't think that help from the West should come in the form of charity. Help should come in the form of an investment in people - the training of people who are preparing themselves for state building. What is needed is a preparation of leaders, sharing of technological know-how and sharing of political experience.

Ukraine will soon become a member in the family of democratic states and we hope that the Western states will not take advantage of our lack of knowledge and experience for their own interests but help us stand on our own two feet. I think that Ukraine hopes for and expects such help.

Very soon after coming to Canada I realized that problems are confronted on a different level here than in Ukraine. There is a completely different level of perception. We stand on a much lower level in the acceptance of democratic ideals and moral values. The moral sphere has been greatly neglected in our society.

Q: What is the immediate purpose of your visit to Canada?

A: I came here during a break in the Supreme Soviet session, at the invitation of Plast, in order to find out more about the organization with the aim of helping the rebirth of Plast in Ukraine. Plast is being reborn in Ukraine not in order to bring back Plast to Ukraine but to bring back Plast because Ukraine needs it now.

The methods and models used by Plast in preparing young people for leadership, to my mind, are most appropriate and necessary for Ukraine today.

Copyright © The Ukrainian Weekly, July 22, 1990, No. 29, Vol. LVIII

| Home Page |