INTERVIEW: Mykola Horyn, Lviv Oblast Administration chairman (09/22/96)

INTERVIEW: Mykola Horyn, Lviv Oblast Administration chairman

Mykola Horyn, a brother of dissident and Ukrainian Republican Party leader Mykhailo Horyn, was first elected as chairman of the Lviv Oblast Council in 1991, and re-elected in June 1994. Mr. Horyn also served as head of the Lviv Oblast Administration, a post to which he was re-appointed on September 6 by President Leonid Kuchma after all of Ukraine's oblast councils were dissolved upon the adoption of the new Constitution in July.

An interview with Mr. Horyn was conducted by Andrij Wynnyckyj in Lviv on August 26.

Q: What have been the major accomplishments of the Oblast Council you presided over?

A: For me, the most important achievement was our move toward privatization of the regional economy and changing the system of ownership. This was a process that our national Parliament impeded somewhat, but already in 1993 we had taken significant strides in effecting land reform in the Lviv region and in changing the structure of the agricultural industry here.

We understood, I think, that this was the linchpin of all reforms, because everything is tied to land, whether in a socialist or a capitalist system. At present, about 40 percent of all land is in private hands.

This 40 percent accounts for roughly 70 percent of the gross agricultural production of our oblast. However, we're not yet able to provide more specific statistical data because we haven't yet been able to monitor the activities of all the newly established individual farmers.

This land reform and the entrenchment of private property has also eased our social burden. At a time when in the cities our industries have laid off many people, these same people have managed to lean on those they know in the villages, on the land, and this has made the economic crisis somewhat easier to bear.

Of course, neither the land reform nor privatization are complete. This is a process that will be ongoing for at least another decade.

Q: You mentioned that 40 percent of land has been privatized. What about the remaining 60 percent?

A: It's controlled by the former collective agricultural concerns. However, even that situation has changed, because these concerns are no longer operated based on the principle of state ownership, but on a form of shareholding in an "agricultural association" (silsko-hospodarska spilka), as they are now called.

Each former worker of a collective farm was offered a share (pai) of its land and assets, and based on this arrangement, new collective enterprises were established.

There is also a great deal of skepticism among the peasantry, who are conservative by nature, and they don't really believe that the system is being reformed. Some of them still harken back to the Bolshevik way of doing things.

Q: That seems strange, given that the peasantry had always been the most resistant to collectives, and that throughout the Soviet period the small privately held plots generated up to a quarter of the Ukrainian SSR's agricultural production.

A: As surprising as that may seem, the dominant psychology now is: "Don't disband the collective farms." If you ask people why not, they'll tell you openly "Where will we steal?"

So, you see, in some sense, as important as it is, land reform is not the highest priority. The most important thing is to reform the civic consciousness and psychology. People need to be weaned off the idea that the state will give them employment, goods, money, a pension, and they can simply stand quietly to one side.

The prevalence of this idea is bad enough, but in western Ukraine particularly the state was seen as an enemy force, an entity to be undermined and destroyed. By whatever petty means - thefts, sabotage, what have you.

After the old regime fell, this psychology has remained. Maybe not everywhere, not in everyone, but in a significant portion of the citizenry. Only among the young, who are now facing questions about where they'll work, where they'll study, is this kind of thinking completely absent.

The young will tell you openly: "I don't trust you to give me anything." This has its positive side, because they'll be self-reliant. They haven't been scarred by the old regime to the extent that we have.

To a certain extent, privatization was hindered by the voucher system, when everyone was given a share in the enterprise or service where they worked. It's not practical to have 52 million shareholders, particularly given the attitudes that prevail in our country.

Now we're waiting for the second phase of reforms, when these shares can be concentrated and then recirculated on stock exchanges, bond markets.

Q: There was a fairly high concentration of Soviet military industry in western Ukraine. How has conversion gone here?

A: Rather poorly. With great difficulty.

Q: Is that because of the flight of technicians to other countries?

A: No, because there's a limited field of opportunities. Most of them were highly specialized. But that's not the main problem. I've read some material on the subject, particularly what was written by specialists in the U.S.

They concluded that it is essentially impossible to save an enterprise that was entirely devoted to the defense sector. Their studies showed that these firms became entirely dependent on government contracts, and competition and initiative were bred out of them, and they became completely economically unviable.

I read that the largest corporations dealing with the military in the U.S. always insisted on having a significant part of their production tied to civilian uses.

Here in the Lviv Oblast, where we bear a heavy mark of being tied to a huge military monster, we also came to the conclusion that conversion was impossible. This took a long time - it took me about four to five years to face the facts.

Q: What's the unemployment rate in your oblast?

A: It's high, but very difficult to quantify, both because certain enterprises are camouflaging the extent of their layoffs, and also because people are abetting such practices. They don't want to loosen their ties to a particular factory or enterprise. It gives a sense of security.

Many also conduct business or work under the table, so it's very hard to gauge.

Q: Do you think foreign investment in certain local companies will end the spiral?

A: That should help, definitely. However, in the end things will change not because of foreign investment but because people will become confident in their own ability to manage their own affairs, to set out their own path.

It's already happening. Some are setting up small businesses. Some are converting their "na livo" (under-the-table) work into legitimate concerns.

The next step is reforming the tax system. It can't be confiscatory the way it is if we expect businesses to survive and for foreign investors to be interested.

Q: How has the status of western Ukraine evolved within the country since Leonid Kuchma assumed the presidency? Is it now more than simply the "hotbed of nationalism"?

A: Western Ukraine has changed dramatically over the years. Essentially, it was easier for us to do so, because our "Velvet Revolution" occurred much earlier. Our regional and city governments were not as filled with Bolshevik stalwarts, and thus it was much easier to move forward.

After we achieved independence, there was a period when it was important to give the national idea some prominence, and since it had been best articulated in western Ukraine, it was logical that Lviv, Ivano-Frankivske, Ternopil and Volhynia take the lead.

But this could not have continued. In order for Ukraine to remain independent and remain whole, the other major cities and regions of Ukraine, such as Dnipropetrovske, Odessa and Donetske, had to take a more important role, because they're the industrial and commercial centers of the country.

In the Lviv Oblast, I believe many of us have realized this, and much credit is due to President Kuchma's leadership. Of course, at first we were afraid of his stated pro-Russian orientation, but since he has proven himself to be a mature statesman dedicated to Ukrainian unity and independence.

This has actually helped the Lviv Oblast and the rest of Halychyna considerably, I think, because it has forced many of the flag-wavers to start thinking about concrete problems of economic well-being. Independence is fine, but independence and prosperity are better.

Besides, if you aren't making any money, you can't pay for the education system that will give you Ukrainian textbooks, teachers and so on that will shore up Ukrainian identity.

Q: Have you attended oblast chairmen's conferences to discuss regional cooperation and national issues?

A: Actually, that's a moot point, because when the new Constitution was ratified, all oblast councils were dissolved. Now there's the national Parliament, the legislative branch, and the national administration, the executive branch, to which I was re-appointed by President Kuchma in July.

Q: But doesn't that limit the representation and contribution of the country's regions? Wouldn't the previous federal arrangement have been better?

A: It is limiting to a certain extent, but I don't think the country can afford to work as a federation at the moment. The forces that bind it together need to be strengthened.

Only by way of a strong centralized government can the economic and political reorientation toward Europe be brought about. Of course, this can't be simply mandated, and some form of economic relations with Russia and the East are only natural.

Q: You don't think that the recent historical record bears out a special role for Lviv or western Ukraine?

A: The problem is that Kharkiv, Kyiv, Lviv, Dnipropetrovske, Odessa - they all have their own special characters and demands. All need to be expressed in some form politically.

But there is a danger in singling out the Lviv region or Halychyna, because that breeds separatism, in fact it would make separation inevitable. Both here, and in other regions and in the Crimea, or those regions closer to Russia, for example.

Besides, it's up to people's deputies in Parliament and up to people like me in the administration to make the case for our regions. If we don't, we have only ourselves to blame.

Q: Do you think that extremist nationalist groups will persist in western Ukraine?

A: Extremism is nurtured by economic hardship. That's because radicals promise total solutions to all problems tomorrow.

So we have to keep working at the problems we face, and do so visibly, in consultation with people, so they see their government is engaged in the process of rebuilding the society and strengthening Ukrainian statehood.

The number of extremists here has always been greatly exaggerated, and in the long run I believe they will run out of things to get up in arms about. After all, Ukrainian independence, supposedly their ultimate goal, has been achieved, so they should stop shouting and simply get to work to ensure it lasts.

Q: How are relations with your neighboring Polish counterparts?

A: We have good relations with the wojewodstwa (regions) of Rzeszow, Zamosc, Krasno and Peremyshl. When we're able to keep perspective and concentrate on the economic benefits stable relations bring, which happens more and more now, relations are positive and cordial.

Q: When you're not talking about the dismantling of the former Greek-Catholic cathedral's cupola in Peremyshl, for instance.

A: On certain matters we're going to disagree, and we're going to make our views known, but essentially, such matters are in the jurisdiction of our Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Mr. [Hennadiy] Udovenko, who was ambassador to Poland, has a very good grasp of the issues involved.

What it comes down to is this: Poles and Ukrainians have a long and complex history, and there is no point in revisiting all of our ancient conflicts. In fact, the situation we now both face is an entirely different and novel one.

The questions we're dealing with at the moment are economic, primarily in terms of progressively greater integration with western Europe. It is also greatly in our interest to coordinate our policies toward Russia, both economically and politically.

Historically, we've always had much to gain from working in concert, but until now, there were too many things in the way for us to do so. I'm very optimistic about this.