Nationalism in Ukraine: Towards a New Framework Taras Kuzio

Politics (2000) 20(2) pp. 77–86 Nationalism in Ukraine: Towards A New Framework Taras Kuzio

Nationalism is the most abused term in con- (and ‘nation’) continue to be misused or temporary Ukrainian studies. The majority of used in a loose manner by scholars. scholars have failed to place its use within Barrington defines the misuse of these terms either a theoretical or comparative frame- as ‘used in a way that is completely outside work due to the dominance of area studies how the term is used by nationalism and the Russo-centricity of Sovietology and scholars’. A loose use, on the other hand, ‘is post-Sovietology. Instead of defining it within one in which the author has captured only political science parameters, ‘nationalism’ part of the concept or has stretched the has been used in a subjective and negative meaning of the term to an extreme degree’ manner by equating it solely in an ethno- (Barrington, 1997, p. 712). cultural sense with Ukrainophones. As a result, The misuse and loose use of these terms scholars tend to place Ukrainophones on the more generally within political science is right of the political spectrum. This article made even more confusing by their defin- argues that this is fundamentally at odds ition in both a narrow and negative manner with theory and comparative politics on two within contemporary Ukrainian studies. When counts. First, ‘nationalism’ is a thin ideology ‘nationalism’ is used within contemporary and can function through all manner of Ukrainian studies, it is not placed within ideologies ranging from communism to a theoretical or comparative perspective. I fascism. Second, all liberal democracies are argue that the reason for this is because, as composed of ethno-cultural and civic features Motyl points out, ‘The answer to the ques- and are therefore permeated by state (civic) tion “what is nationalism?” depends on the nationalism. The article proposes an definition and, more substantially, on the alternative three-fold framework for under- definer’ (Motyl, 1992, p. 308). How it is standing ‘nationalism’ in Ukraine. used and defined is therefore often more a reflection of the ideological and subjective Nationalism is a phenomenon that has been preferences of the scholars themselves than with us since at least the late eighteenth any commonly understood definition of century; some scholars would argue that it ‘nationalism’. predates the modern era of industrialisation This article seeks to survey critically and urbanisation. Nevertheless, nationalism the use of ‘nationalism’ as a term within

Taras Kuzio, University College London

© Political Studies Association 2000. Published by Blackwell Publishers, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA. 77 Nationalism in Ukraine • Kuzio Politics (2000) 20(2) pp. 77–86 contemporary Ukrainian studies and to socialism, communism or fascism. Clearly develop a new framework for understanding then, ‘ethnic nationalism’ is only one of many this concept within the Ukrainian context. types of nationalisms (Richmond, 1987, p. 4; The narrow definition of Ukrainian national- see also Smith, 1971). We therefore find that ism as used by Ukrainophone national numerous nationalist movements from the democrats is criticised as being too narrow Scots, Welsh, Irish, Breton, Basque and those and subjectively based. Instead, Ukrainian in former Western colonial countries are both nationalism is defined within the context of socialist and nationalist. Nationalism projected theories of nationalism and the relationship via liberalism, conservatism or social democ- of nationalism to civic, inclusive states. All racy can coexist within Western civic states. civic states are composed of both civic and Civic nationalism (i.e. state or pragmatic ethno-cultural criteria and therefore, as nationalism) is also often defined as that Wanner points out, ‘nationalism is a project which encompasses all three of these trends. of the modern state and an integral part of Western liberal democracies are defined as the process of state building’ (Wanner, 1998, ‘civic’ and also ‘nation states’, reflecting p. xix). This article therefore defines ‘state the uneasy coexistence of civic and ethno- (civic) nationalism’ to be an ideology com- cultural factors within them. mon to all civic, liberal democracies. In other Another way of defining ‘good’ from ‘bad’ words, all political parties that uphold the nationalism is by differentiating it into continued independence of the nation state Risorgimento and integral nationalisms are ‘state (civic) nationalists’. respectively. Risorgimento nationalism is that The article is divided into three parts. The of the oppressed seeking to create their own first discusses nationalism within a theoretical nation state by separating from an empire or and comparative perspective that broadens by uniting separate branches of the same and deepens our understanding of the con- nation (e.g. Italy in 1860). Integral national- cept. The second section discusses the attitude ism, on the other hand, is that most com- of the right and left of Ukrainian politics monly associated with fascism or Nazism towards the national idea and therefore, by since the 1930s and is defensive, xenophobic implication, their relationship to nationalism. as well as aggressive towards both national The final section provides an alternative minorities and foreigners within an existing three-fold framework for understanding nation state. Risorgimento nationalism is per- nationalism that no longer focuses upon fectly compatible with an inclusive, liberal ethno-linguistic criteria that is common in democracy and sustains civil society (unlike area studies by placing it within the realm its integral variant). of political science. Nationalist movements against France in Europe, against Spanish or Portuguese rule in Latin America in the nineteenth century, movements for self-determination in the Nationalism: a theoretical and tsarist, Austrian-Hungarian and Ottoman comparative perspective – empires in the early twentieth century and Nationalism requires a host anti-colonial movements in the post-war developing world all qualify as Risorgimento What is nationalism and who are nation- nationalisms (Helbing, 1997, pp. 225–226). alists? Nationalism is a thin ideology when The national democratic movements in the it stands alone; it therefore needs a host late Soviet era united democratic reformist (Freeden, 1998, pp. 758–759). This host can with Risorgimento nationalist demands. Such be any of a number of innumerable ideo- nationalism was reminiscent of that com- logies such as liberalism, conservatism, monly associated with the pre-1930s, when

78 © Political Studies Association 2000 Politics (2000) 20(2) pp. 77–86 Nationalism in Ukraine • Kuzio nationality and popular sovereignty (i.e. (Wilson, 1997b, Laitin, 1998, p. 291, Kubicek, national democracy), ‘were natural bed- 1999, Lieven, 1999, pp. 37 and 135–136, fellows’ (Miller, 1996, p. 414). Nationalism Birch, 1999, p. 1496. D’Anieri, 1999, pp. 21 along these lines can be highly positive, 40, 82, 176–178). defending minority rights, rescuing lost How nationalism is defined depends on histories and treasures, providing inspiration the definition and, more substantially, on for cultural revivals, resolving identity crises, who is defining it (Motyl, 1992, p. 308). This resisting tyranny, providing the base for popu- has particular relevance to Ukraine because lar sovereignty and promoting self-sustaining post-Soviet Ukrainian studies are not under- economic growth (Smith, 1991, p. 18). taken within a vacuum but within a three- fold framework developed earlier:

Nationalism and nationalists 1. Russo-centric historiography: The non- in Ukraine: broadening the Russian peoples of the tsarist empire were definition1 largely ignored in Western scholarly studies of ‘Russia’. From the second half The misuse of ‘nationalism’ in of the seventeenth century Ukrainian contemporary Ukrainian studies history was subsumed within ‘Russian’ history and the ‘Medieval Kievan Rus’ The term ‘nationalism’ is the most abused became Kievan Russia, its culture and term in contemporary Ukrainian studies. inhabitants Kievan Russian or ‘Old When discussing the nationality question Russian’. In later periods Ukraine became in Ukraine scholars are apt to use the terms West, South, Little or New Russia and its ‘nationalist’ and ‘nationalism’ loosely, without inhabitants Little Russians (Magosci, defining their concepts. A study of Ukrainian 1996, p. 11; see also Velychenko, 1992 nationalism followed in the tradition estab- and 1993). In the post-Soviet era the lished by Armstrong and only defined it as teaching of ‘Russian’ history has not the extreme right (Kuzio, 1997a; Armstrong, substantially changed, despite the revival 1963). of new historiographies in the 14 non- Nevertheless, the norm in contemporary Russian Soviet successor states (see Kuzio Ukrainian studies is to define ‘nationalism’ forthcoming – a and forthcoming – b). in Ukraine according to linguistic criteria as 2. Sovietology: The nationality question was Ukrainophones. Because western-central largely ignored by Sovietologists. Many Ukraine is primarily Ukrainian-speaking and Sovietologists were influenced by post- the base for Ukraine’s national democratic war theories of modernisation and parties, such as Rukh, then scholars define assumed that the nationality question had ‘nationalists’ in a narrow manner as Ukraino- been resolved through the homogenising phone national democrats. Wise and Brown policies of industrialisation and urbanisa- take this stereotype further by dividing tion.2 This meant that the non-Russians Ukraine into the east, where 11 million did not figure in Soviet studies Russians live, and the west, which is in- (Chritchlow, 1990; Subtelny, 1994). habited by a previously unknown ethnic 3. Area studies: Sovietology was under- group, ‘Ukrainian nationalists’ (Wise and taken within the UK within area studies Brown, 1998, p. 122). The only book-length departments and was not therefore study of ‘Ukrainian nationalism’ remains integrated within the social sciences. Wilson’s, a volume that follows in this frame- Two of the four positions in Ukrainian work by defining ‘nationalism’ in Ukraine studies created in 1996 as a consequence solely with Ukrainophone national democrats of the expansion of Eastern European

studies in the UK are in area studies that Kubicek remains convinced is ‘the departments. In academia in North largest party with a nationalist orientation in America a better situation prevailed Ukraine today’ (Kubicek, 1999, p. 31). Many because scholars were first and foremost former political prisoners (who dominated specialists (e.g. political scientists, the commanding heights of new parties) had anthropologists, etc.) and only then always been strong advocates of minority assigned themselves to Eastern European rights. While supporting the introduction of centres. Ukrainian into all walks of life (as stated in the June 1996 Constitution), Rukh also Consequently, ‘As we would expect, the ‘guarantee the development of the Russian meanings and assignments to nationalism in language, the languages and cultures of all much scholarly and most political discourse nationalities’.4 reveal more about the users of the term Why then are they denigrated as ‘nation- than about the phenomenon’ (Motyl, 1992, alists’ in post-Soviet Ukraine when centre- p. 309). Nationalism is usually defined in right parties in Western liberal democracies pejorative terms by scholars who are study- who are usually opposed to regional devolu- ing post-Soviet affairs through their own tion and polyethnic rights are not defined in biased cultural lenses, looking down on such a manner? The Ukrainian centre right Eastern Europe for its ‘illiberal’ nationalism do not advocate the disenfranchisement in the traditional manner of Hans Kohn’s of ethnic Russians or the total removal of division of Europe into ‘good’ and ‘bad’ Russian language and culture from Ukraine. nationalisms (Kohn, 1955). But, as in all post-colonial countries, they do argue in favour of righting some of the National democrats and the wrongs committed against the Ukrainian lan- national idea guage and culture during tsarist and Soviet rule through affirmative action. The centre right in Ukraine are usually The discussion over the degree and disparaged by scholars as ‘nationalists’.3 This speed to which affirmative action should be contradicts the fact that they have always adopted rests on three factors common to all been strong advocates of polyethnic rights for ‘civic’ states: national minorities and group rights for those who live compactly in defined territories (e.g. 1. The centre right are usually in favour of Tatars in the Crimea, Hungarians in Trans- unitary states, and opposed to regional Carpathia and Romanians in Chernivtsi devolution or federalism. The exception oblasts). Such support for polyethnic rights to this are centre-right parties in federal- makes them unusual bedfellows of their ised liberal democracies, such as Germany centre-right allies in the West, such as Britain’s and the USA;5 Conservatives or Republicans in the USA, 2. The centre right are opposed to who are opponents of multiculturalism, poly- multiculturalism because they fear it ethnic rights and often regional devolution. damages the unity of societal culture and Indeed, Jaworsky believes that one of the national integration; two factors that prevented the outburst of 3. The liberal and social democratic wings interethnic conflict in Ukraine were its of the political spectrum support de- political parties, ‘which quickly reached a volution, polyethnic rights and multi- consensus on the need to provide guar- culturalism. antees for the rights of ethnic minorities in Ukraine’ (Jaworsky, 1998, pp. 117–118). Of Rukh, as is commonly the case, is defined particular relevance here was Rukh, a party as ‘nationalist’ by scholars of contemporary

80 © Political Studies Association 2000 Politics (2000) 20(2) pp. 77–86 Nationalism in Ukraine • Kuzio

Ukrainian studies when other popular fronts, allegedly use ‘nationalist threats’ and such as the Polish Solidarity Movement, ‘provocations’ against Russophones, which are not. How then should Rukh be defined? ‘instils shame and guilt in many russophone Rukh can be only defined as ‘nationalist’ Ukrainians’ (Laitin, 1998, pp. 100–101 and after its 25–28 October 1990 Congress, when 141–142). it adopted a platform of state independence, and only until 31 December 1991, when The left and the national idea Ukraine left the USSR (i.e. a total of only 15 months). Prior to October 1990 Rukh did The equation of nationalism with national not advocate Ukrainian independence and democrats and Ukrainophones is under- therefore cannot be defined as ‘nationalist’ mined by the attitude of a large section of but as an opposition civic group. the Ukrainian political spectrum on the left To define Rukh as ‘nationalist’ after which is supportive of Ukrainian state December 1991 when Ukraine became an independence and who can also therefore independent state is mistaken on two be defined as state (civic) nationalist (i.e. counts. First, it again equates Ukrainophones derzhavnyky). This left-wing tradition has as ‘nationalists’ and all centre-right parties long historical roots in Ukraine going back as ‘nationalist’, thereby placing them in the to the late nineteenth century. The 1998 and same camp as the extreme right. This is 1999 parliamentary and presidential elec- commonplace among scholars who define tions witnessed the evolution of Ukraine’s Rukh as ‘nationalist’ from the moment of its political spectrum towards a left committed inception in 1988 to the present day. From to state independence (and therefore state or January 1992 Rukh is no longer nationalist civic nationalism). but a centre-right political movement/ In Ukraine the centre left is now com- party similar to the British Conservatives, posed of four competing social democratic French Gaullists and American Republicans. parties, one of which has close ties to Rukh is a member of the European Demo- the ‘party of power’ establishment. In addition, cratic Union, which unites centre-right Hromada and the pro-reform Agrarian Party parties, an organisation into which it would can also be included within this spectrum. not have been allowed if it was indeed To their immediate left are the Socialist and ‘nationalist’. Peasant Parties which can be defined as Secondly, to continue defining Rukh as pragmatic and are evolving away from the nationalist after January 1992 ignores the communists towards state-nationalist positions. strong support provided by Rukh for poly- It is to these various pragmatic left-wing ethnic rights for national minorities, its rejec- groups that our analysis now turns because: tion of any anti-semitism, and its backing for a) their evolution towards state-nationalist automatic citizenship and an inclusive civic positions has occurred since the 1994 state. These are not the programmes of those elections and b) discussions of ‘nationalism’ commonly defined elsewhere as ‘national- in Ukraine ignore the left. ists’ (i.e. the extreme right and often even The policies of the IMF, the left believe, conservatives). Are then Ukrainophone parties aided and abetted domestically, are ‘trans- such as Rukh to be defined as ‘nationalists’? forming Ukraine into a colonial state’6 and Laitin thinks so and argues that only ‘nation- transforming Ukraine into a ‘protectorate of alist deputies’ opposed the definition of international financial oligarchs and NATO’s ‘peoples of Ukraine’ (narod Ukraiiny) in the puppet’.7 These denunciations turn Kuchma’s Ukrainian Constitution adopted in June 1996 arguments on their head by accusing him (for an alternative critical view see Kuzio, (not the left) of endangering Ukraine’s sov- 1999a). These Ukrainophone ‘vigilantes’ ereignty and thereby promoting themselves

© Political Studies Association 2000 81 Nationalism in Ukraine • Kuzio Politics (2000) 20(2) pp. 77–86 as defenders of Ukraine’s independence. The president remains, our state will be finally IMF, the left believe, is undertaking a ‘veiled ruined and Ukraine will lose its sovereignty.’ form of colonisation and economic plunder’ They therefore called upon Ukrainians to (The Ukrainian Weekly, 11 July 1999). unite because ‘The Fatherland is in danger!’: The left seek to turn the argument around ‘We will rise together and make Ukraine a and argue that it is Kuchma and his ruling rich, strong and respected country in the elites who are likely to lose Ukraine its world’ (Holos Ukraiiny, 26 August 1999). independence, and not the left themselves A common misconception among scholars if they came to power. Socialist leader is that the Ukrainian left are opposed to Oleksandr Moroz’s aide, Ivan Bokyi, believes nation building, Ukrainian language and that it is Kuchma’s socio-economic policies culture (which are allegedly only backed by ‘which are destroying independence, sowing ‘nationalist Ukrainophones’). To what degree social tensions’ (interviewed in Sil’ski Visti, is this the case? The left and the ‘Kaniv-4’ 10 September 1999). Moroz’s presidential bemoan the lack of national consolidation and election programme denounced the ‘immoral unity under Kuchma (i.e. nation-building). ruination of one’s motherland and the They therefore place great emphasis upon physical extermination of millions of citizens’. building greater unity not only between dif- Ukraine’s revival would be undertaken by ferent branches of the ruling elites but also ‘liquidating the banditocratic regime’ and between different regions of Ukraine. Thus placing ‘trust in one’s people, its talents and they propose that different regions should traditions, and in the potential of the be harmonised within an overall common Fatherland’ (Holos Ukraiiny, 8 September identity and national idea. The language 1999). problem ‘will be solved’, Moroz promised if The October 1999 presidential elections he was elected president, and Ukrainians were ‘a chance to choose independence’. would become ‘united and consolidated’ ‘Independence’, as defined by the left, (Holos Ukraiiny, 26 August 1999). would be ‘real’, no longer dependent upon ‘foreign advisers’, the IMF and other international institutions who have conducted Nationalism in Ukraine: ‘economic and social experiments by political towards a new framework maniacs’. Ukraine should also not be assigned to any kind of ‘special zone’ (i.e. a Redefining nationalism in Ukraine Russian sphere of influence) (Holos Ukraiiny, 26 August 1999). What is ‘nationalism’ and who then are the The evolution of the left towards state ‘nationalists’ in Ukraine? In the Soviet era nationalism was especially pronounced in the term ‘nationalist’ was used in a pejorative the joint appeal by four presidential candi- manner by the Soviet state for decades to dates (Moroz, Oleksandr Tkachenko, Yevhen vilify those advocating not only Ukrainian Marchuk and Volodymyr Oliynyk) on the independence, but even greater cultural August 1999 anniversary of Ukraine’s and political rights as ‘bourgeois nationalist’. independence. The joint appeal was made The Ukrainian historian Kasianov believes symbolically in Kaniv, the birthplace of that ‘Ukrainian bourgeois nationalism’ was Ukraine’s national bard, Taras Shevchenko. defined by the Soviet regime as ‘any The appeal is noticeable in that it never once kind of show of national consciousness, mentions ‘socialism’ yet it is permeated by cultural, ideological or political tendencies state nationalism. They felt that a new which did not coincide with state ideology executive needed to be elected as a ‘rescuer on the nationality question and could (or, of the state’: ‘It is evident that, if the current believed they could) threaten its rule or

82 © Political Studies Association 2000 Politics (2000) 20(2) pp. 77–86 Nationalism in Ukraine • Kuzio become the basis for separatist tendencies’ A new framework for understanding (Kasianov, 1998, p. 40). It is perhaps nationalism in Ukraine strange that scholars in the West continue to define organisations such as Rukh as As outlined earlier, Western scholars have ‘nationalist’, nearly a decade after the USSR tended to define ‘nationalists’ rather loosely disintegrated. and negatively through their own prisms as In a major study of the domestic sources of Ukrainophones or national democrats. This Russian security policy, four authors defined has failed to provide a satisfactory framework Russian elites after 1993 as ‘pragmatic for analysing Ukrainian politics. nationalists’. As Light has pointed out, ‘Prag- Nationalism in Ukrainian politics should matic nationalists represent the standard view be therefore broadened and redefined: one might expect the foreign policy elite to hold in any country’ (Malcolm, Pravda, Nationalists in the Soviet era Allison and Light, 1996, p. 87). Such a 1. Democrats: Rukh supported state pragmatic state nationalism is the same as independence and therefore a nationalist we would understand to be civic nationalism agenda from its October 1990 Congress in liberal democracies. until December 1991 when the USSR In other words, pragmatic state nation- ceased to exist. Prior to this Congress, alists are ‘nationalist’ because they prioritise Rukh should not be therefore described sovereignty and seek to defend by all means as a nationalist movement because it had state and national interests (regardless of what no separatist agenda. language they speak, Ukrainian, Russian – or 2. National communists: Supported state both). By only defining Ukrainophones as independence only from 24 August 1991 nationalists in Ukraine scholars have failed when Ukraine declared independence. to understand state and nation-building in Prior to this date they backed the trans- general, and in Ukraine in particular. Wilson, formation of the USSR into a confeder- for example, would never attach the label ation of sovereign states (a second ‘nationalist’ to Kuchma because he believed question to this effect was placed on the that no ‘nationalist’ could ever win the Soviet referendum ballot ‘on a renewed presidential elections in Ukraine (Wilson, federation’ in March 1991 by the then 1997a, p. 83. For further discussion, see Parliamentary Speaker Leonid Kravchuk). Kuzio, 1998b). This is only true if by ‘nation- National communists, such as Kravchuk, alist’ he understands this to mean the can only therefore be defined as ‘nation- extreme right. In the second round of the alists’ from the declaration of independ- Ukrainian presidential elections in November ence until December 1991 when the 1999, Kuchma, who portrayed himself as the USSR disintegrated. During Kravchuk’s defender of Ukraine’s independence, faced presidency (December 1991–July 1994) Petro Symonenko, the Communist leader. A he did not adopt nationalist but prag- framework that only defined ‘nationalism’ in matic, centrist policies associated with Ukraine as Ukrainophone will find it difficult his membership of the Liberal and to analyse how a Russophone (Kuchma) up- United Social Democratic Parties. held a state-nationalist position and supports Ukrainian as the sole state language. The Nationalists in the post-Soviet era 1999 presidential elections in Ukraine 1. Extreme (radical) nationalists: As in showed that (state/civic) nationalism was a Western liberal democracies, nationalists majority faith in the country and not are usually narrowly defined and refer therefore confined to only Ukrainophones or only to the extreme right (e.g. the national democrats. National Front in France and the British

National Party in the UK). In the These political forces represent approxi- Ukrainian case, these can refer to either mately 25 per cent of public opinion, a ethnic Ukrainian or Russian nationalists. figure that is declining. But, to what degree 2. State nationalists (civic nationalism): are they immune from nationalism? Using a broader definition, state nation- President Kuchma, when asked if Ukraine alism refers to civic nationalism because would join the Russian–Belarusian it recognises that liberal democracies union, replied that to do so would ignore are composed of civic and ethno- the multinational composition of Ukraine’s cultural variants. State (civic) nationalists population (not all of whom are Slavs) within the elites and population at large and promote ‘ethnic superiority’.8 In can refer to the ruling elite, the entire other words, Kuchma defined pan- population and those political parties Eastern Slavism as ‘ethnic nationalism’. who support state independence and The pan-Slavic regime in Belarus headed seek to defend Ukraine’s national and by President Alyaksander Lukashenka state interests. This includes all of has an ideology that is anti-semitic, anti- Ukraine’s political forces ranging from Polish and (Russian) nationalist (RFE/RL the Socialist and Peasant Parties on the Newsline, 3 and 5 January 2000). left to the far right. Pragmatic state (civic) nationalism is an ideology common to the ruling elites of all independent Conclusion states. Centre-right parties, such as Rukh, should not be defined as ‘nationalists’ This article has sought to survey critically but as centre-right conservatives or the use and misuse of nationalism within republicans. All political parties from the contemporary Ukrainian studies and it has Peasants/Socialists on the left to the argued that it is the most abused term in the centre right are state or civic nationalists study of post-Soviet Ukraine. It is incumbent because they support Ukraine’s upon scholars to use nationalism as a independence. They differ though on political-science term in the same manner to their attitudes towards how the national that when applied to other countries, both idea is to be defined. As in all civic liberal democracies and former communist states, the attitude of political parties states. If we define Ukrainian nationalism towards the ethno-cultural context of the as ‘ethnic nationalism’ (group 1 of the new nation state varies. Centre-right parties framework) then it can be described as a are more supportive to giving greater ‘minority faith’ in Ukraine. Unfortunately, prominence to ethno-cultural features this would not provide us with a basis to within the state. The fact that centre- understand nationalism because ‘ethnic right parties in all civic states place nationalism’ has minority support not only in greater stress upon the ethno-cultural Ukraine but throughout Europe and North definition of the state does not make America. If, on the other hand, we integrate them nationalists. our discussion of Ukrainian nationalism 3. Soviet Ukrainian nationalists (unionists): within the social sciences we can broaden its Political forces, such as the Communists definition of nationalism to that of state and Progressive Socialists on the extreme or civic nationalism (group 2 of the new left, who seek to subvert Ukrainian framework). Ukrainian nationalism defined independence, either through it joining in such a manner is a ‘majority faith’. the Russian–Belarusian union or a re- I have outlined a three-fold division of how vived Soviet Union, are Soviet Ukrainian nationalism can be used within Ukrainian nationalists (as well as being unionists). studies by broadening its definition beyond

84 © Political Studies Association 2000 Politics (2000) 20(2) pp. 77–86 Nationalism in Ukraine • Kuzio the narrow confines commonly used by References scholars. This three-fold classification does not equate nationalists with Ukrainophones Armstrong, John A. (1963), Ukrainian Nation- alism, New York: Columbia University Press. and national democrats, as is commonly Barrington, Lowell W. (1997), ‘“Nation” and the case among Western scholars. Language “Nationalism”: The Misuse of Key Concepts as a factor that defines whether one is a in Political Science’, PS: Political Science and nationalist or not is therefore largely irrelevant Politics 30(4), pp. 712–716. when using such a framework. This frame- Birch, Sarah (1990), Review in Europe–Asia work also removes the temptation from Studies, 51(8), pp. 1496–1497. Critchlow, James (1990), ‘Nationality Studies: scholars to analyse post-Soviet developments Where Did They Go Wrong?’, Journal of in a subjective manner through their own Soviet Nationalities 1(3), pp. 22–32. ideological or cultural biases. D’Arieri, Paul (1999), Economic Inter- dependence in Ukrainian–Russian Relations, Albany, State University Press of New York. Freeden, Michael (1998), ‘Is Nationalism a Notes Distinct Ideology?’, Political Studies 46(4), pp. 748–765. 1 This article lacks the space to discuss the Helbling, Jurg (1997), ‘The Nationalist Game: neglected aspects of state and nation- State Dominance and Ethnic Nationalism’ in building in post-communist transitions. On Hans-Rulf Wicker (ed.), Rethinking Nation- these questions, as they relate to Ukraine, alism and Ethnicity. The Struggle for see Kuzio, 1998a and 1999b. On nation- Meaning and Order in Europe, Oxford: Berg, building in the former USSR more generally pp. 225–250. see Kuzio, forthcoming – c. Jaworsky, John (1998), ‘Nationalities Policy and 2 This was the prevalent view among Potential for Inter-ethnic Conflict in Ukraine’ lecturers at the School of Slavonic and East in Magda Opalski (ed.), Managing Diversity European Studies, University of London, in Plural Societies. Minorities, Migration and when I undertook my MA in Area Studies Nation-building in Post-Communist Europe, (USSR/Eastern Europe) in 1983–1984. Yet Ottawa: Forum Eastern Europe, pp. 104–127. this was on the eve of the growth of nation- Kasianov, G.V. (1998), ‘Ukraiins’kyi natsionalizm: alism in the USSR under Mikhail Gorbachev. Problema naukovoho pereomyslennia’, 3 Andrew Wilson, 1997. See my critical Ukraiins’kyi Istorychnyi Zhurnal 2, pp. 39–54. review of the volume in Kuzio, 1997b, and Kohn, Hans (1955), Nationalism. Its Meaning the more lengthy discussions in Sysyn, 1997 and History, Princeton, N.J.: Van Nostrand. and Kuzio (forthcoming – d). Kubicek, P. (1999), ‘What Happened to the 4 Quoted from the election programme of Nationalists in Ukraine?’, Nationalism & Hennadiy Udovenko, head of one wing of Ethnic Politics 5(1), pp. 29–45. Rukh, in Uriadovyi Kurier, 23 September 1999. Kuzio, Taras (1997a), ‘Radical Nationalist Parties 5 I am grateful to an anonymous referee for and Movements in Contemporary Ukraine pointing this out. Before and After Independence: The Right 6 Appeal of the Left Centre Bloc (Kievskiye and its Politics, 1989–1994’, Nationalities vedomosti, 21 May 1999). Papers 25(2), pp. 211–242. 7 Heorhiy Kruchkov, communist and head Kuzio, Taras (1997b), Review in International of the Rada commission on defence and Affairs 73(2), p. 386. security (Holos Ukraiiny, 8 June 1999). Kuzio, Taras (1998a), ‘Ukraine. A Four-Pronged 8 Interviewed in Izvestiya, 11 November 1999. Transition’ in T. Kuzio (ed.), Contemporary The head of the Press Centre of the Ukrainian Ukraine. Dynamics of Post-Soviet Transition, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ihor Hrushko, Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe, pp. 165–180. also defined the pan eastern Slavism of the Kuzio, Taras (1998b), Ukraine. State and left as ethnic nationalism: ‘The creation of Nation Building, London: Routledge. any unions between Slavic peoples will be Kuzio, Taras (1999a), ‘Defining the Political a kind of showing off of some ethnic Community in Ukraine: State, Nation and the groups in front of others’ (Intelnews, 17 Transition to Modernity’ in T. Kuzio, R.S. November 1999). Krawchuk and P.D. Anieri (eds.), State and

Institution Building in Ukraine, New York: in the Contemporary World’, Journal of Inter- St Martin’s Press, pp. 213–244. national Affairs 45(2), pp. 307–324. Kuzio, Taras (1999b), ‘Ukraine’s Post-Soviet Smith, Anthony D. (1971), Theories of Nation- Transition: A Theoretical and Comparative alism, London: Duckworth. Perspective’, Paper given to the Conference on Smith, Anthony D. (1991), National Identity, the Problems of Development of Ukraine Since London: Penguin. Independence at the University of Toronto, Richmond, Anthony (1987), ‘Ethnic Nationalism: 7 November. Social Science Paradigms’, International Kuzio, Taras (forthcoming – a), ‘Back to the Social Science Journal 111, pp. 3–18. Future: Post-Soviet Ukrainian Historiography’, Subtelny, Orest (1994), ‘American Sovietology’s Contemporary European History. Great Blunder: The Marginalization of the Kuzio, Taras (forthcoming – b), ‘History and Nationality Issue’, Nationalities Papers 22(1), Identity Among the Eastern Slavs’, National pp. 141–155. Identity. Sysyn, Frank (1997), ‘Ukrainian “Nationalism”: Kuzio, Taras (forthcoming – c), ‘Multicultural- A Minority Faith?’, The Harriman Review ism and Nation Building: Between Plurality 10(2), pp. 12–20. and Unity in the Soviet Successor States’, Velychenko, Stephen (1992), National History Nationalism and Ethnic Politics. as Cultural Process. A Survey of the Inter- Kuzio, Taras (ed.) (forthcoming – d), Nation- pretations of Ukraine’s Past in Polish, alism, Identity and Regionalism. A Study in Russian, and Ukrainian Historical Writing Nation Building in Ukraine, Oxford: Berg. from the Earliest Times to 1914, Edmonton: Laitin, David D. (1998), Identity in Formation, Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies. The Russian-speaking Populations in the Velychenko, Stephen (1993), Shaping Identity Near Abroad, Ithaca: Cornell University in Eastern Europe and Russia. Soviet-Russian Press. and Polish Accounts of Ukrainian History, Lieven, Anatol (1999), Ukraine and Russia. A 1914–1991, New York: St Martin’s Press. Fraternal Rivalry, Washington D.C.: U.S. Wanner, Catherine (1998), Burden of Dreams: Institute of Peace. History and Identity in Post-Soviet Ukraine, Light, Margo (1996), ‘Foreign Policy Thinking’ Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University in Neil Malcolm, Alex Pravda, Roy Allison and Press. M. Light, Internal Factors in Russian Foreign Wilson, Andrew (1997a), ‘Ukraine: Two Policy, Oxford: Oxford University Press, Presidents and their Powers’ in Ray Taras pp. 33–100. (ed.), Postcommunist Presidents, Cambridge: Kuzio, Taras (ed.) (forthcoming – d), Nation- Cambridge University Press, pp. 67–105. alism, Identity and Regionalism. A Study of Wilson, A. (1997b), Ukrainian Nationalism in Nation Building in Ukraine, Oxford: Berg. the 1990s. A Minority Faith, Cambridge and Magosci, Paul R. (1996), A History of Ukraine, New York: Cambridge University Press. Toronto: University of Toronto. Wise, Charles R. and Trevor L. Brown (1998), Miller, David (1996), ‘On Nationality’, Nations ‘The Consolidation of Democracy in and Nationalism 2(3), pp. 409–421. Ukraine’, Democratization 5(1), pp. 116–137. Motyl, Alexander J. (1992), ‘The Modernity of Nationalism: Nations, States and Nation-states