No this is not wordplay, but rather a set of principles. The potential of signing an association agreement with the EU has been prioritised above all other news for over a month. It is pretty much guaranteed that it will remain as the epicentre of political discourse until at least the end of the year.
The voices of pro et contra, despite all the contradictions in the evaluations and predictions, fall under the slogan ‘We’re going to Europe’ – the contradictions are solely among the relevant signs and clues. Arguments of those who oppose this, are grounded upon the alleged perception that Europe is ‘alien’ and harmful. Supporters of the notion propagate the idea on the basis of promising prospects. Neither side truly understands the consequences of the association agreement, the legal challenges and the complexity it delivers to the rule of law. Even as a historian, I feel like this situation in particular reminds of a ‘deja vu’ moment – I have seen this somewhere before, I came across it.
There is a lot of talk of Ukraine being positioned as a mid-point buffer between the West and East, both in literature and in political discourse. The effects of these two advantages on the political history, culture and mentality of the Ukrainian people has been strongly characterised by Vyacheslav Lypynskyi and Ivan Lysyak–Rudnytskiy, Ihor Shevchenko and Yaroslav Dashkevych. The image of Ukraine-Rus’ and its people as a civilization based upon the integration of eastern influences (Byzantine at first, as well as muslim influences) and European beginnings. European beginnings in this case were evident in its political culture, social institutions, economic models (production and trade) and social norms.
Upon choosing the direction of integrating with the EU or moving backwards, Ukraine chooses its historical autobiography, and thus a civilizational platform which would be the groundwork for a civilizational platform from which Ukraine will negotiate its path in the future – and not only with the EU. If we look at this process simply as integration, then we automatically refuse from the very goal of association with European civilization and historical ancestry, which was the spinal cord of Ukraine-Rus’ beginning in the late mediaeval period until the early modern era (XVIII century). It is that exact entity that gave rise to an undoubtedly European society, which now carries the name of the European Union and offers Ukraine partnership, and hence the propagation of common goals, plans for the future and above all – common values. It is these common grounds and experiences that made Ukraine part of the European community a long time ago, until the last two centuries, when the direction diverged.
This common ground was evident in the widest ranges of the public sphere of life – starting with the structure of governance as a contract between citizens and leaders (analogous to the electoral processes in the kingdom of Poland such as the election of leaders in the Ukrainian Cossack Hetmanate), and the sovereignty alongside the rule of law, the execution of which was catalysed by a sophisticated judicial system structured by a system of immune and neutral judges. This came along with the first documented (in European history) large-scale structurization of law. An example of this is the evolution of local governance at the time. The Magdeburg rights and the institutions implemented by them, may not have established cities in Ukraine as semi-independent republics such as seen in Krakow or VEnice, but have given rise to a specific civil conscience to citizens of the cities. For many generations to follow (to this day, even the modern structure of the local city council of Kyiv serves as an example) this civil conscience, so to say, gave means for commoners to protect their rights, freedom and privileges.
The same can be said about the structure of education and its practices, which were identical in principle to the rest of Europe. The free circulation of students and professors around educational institutions and its academic independence, which was not always the case in the religiously war-torn Europe. At worst, the apparent European-like system could be described as tolerant neutral. Hence, for the committed Christian Orthodox Bohdan Khmelnytskyi, during the Khmelnytsky uprising of 1648, it was a matter of honour to bow to his mentor, Andrzej Honczel-Mokrski – as a show of respect.
No, I do not by any means try to idealise to perfection or exaggerate the prospects of where our European heritage could lead us. What we had in our past, partially gave way one way or another – either naturally or forced out by aggressors in the modern era. A lot of this heritage has been lost by ourselves. Moreover, even a short glance at Ukrainian history, one can see: the European ‘heart’ of Ukraine was never a universal rescue plan for our ancestors. However the question of where Ukraine is headed is still upon us: what path will we choose to go on from here? The path of the neophyte or the return of the prodigy? Are we going forward or backward? I would choose the former. What about you?
