Case Study-Bulgaria and Lebanon: "Communitarian and Civic Humanistic approach"

The communitarian theory has evolved over the years as a philosophy which places community and social values as the driving forces behind a developed society.  Authors as Charles Taylor, Alasdair Macintyre and Amitai Etzioni looked into classical republicanism and civic humanism for inspiration in expanding on a theory that individual life and liberty can only prosper within strong and vibrant communities which as a rule take into consideration and are responsive to shared social values.

Central to communitarian school of thought is the idea of “positive rights” which are guarantees for access to a “common good” which could be for instance education, housing, health care, safe and secure environment, etc.  A wide spread objection to that thought is that by focusing on the citizen’s positive rights it is possible to infringe on people’s “negative rights” namely rights to “not” have something done for you. The ongoing discussion about the idea of universal health care is a perfect example of the controversy in having something as individuals’ participation in health care being regulated by the government. Yet it could be argued that having access to affordable health care is so important for the vitality of any society that it could be perceived as something that an elected government could potentially participate in and play a major role in to insure fairness and broad accessibility.

There is an interesting link between the aforementioned communitarian ideas and the thoughts expressed by Jean Jacques Rousseau in his magnum opus “The Social Contract” and “Discourse on Inequality”.  The philosopher of the 18^th century states that man must enter into a “social contract” with others in order to achieve the highest levels of societal development. He argues that every human being will be naturally “free” if it forfeits the same amount of freedom for the sake of the community and share certain moral “duties” in order to be part of a successful establishment. The idea is that by sharing strong common will, the group receives each individual as part of the indelible whole.

There are numerous examples of challenges that new democracies are facing due to their lack of shared common moral values and a balance between positive and negative rights in the society as such. For the purpose of this study I would like to focus on Bulgaria and Lebanon as two countries with very different cultures and yet rather distinguished problems in the very nature and functionality of their political systems when analyzed in line of the communitarian school of thought.

During its communist past Bulgaria was a typical example of a country governed by a totalitarian regime that imposed severe restrictions on any perceivable rights the population may have. Even such trivial matters as relocation from one town to another had to be approved by the government authorities. No one was allowed to express any type of a dissenting opinion to the official communist party line. After the regime change in 1989 there was a dramatic reversal of the way people lived their lives.  Interestingly enough the common thought, that became wide spread, was that  liberty meant not paying attention to any type of restrictions that a society would normally impose on its members, for instance respect for others’ ideas and property, being polite and caring. Even criminal behavior became something to be proud of as the society was looking for new ways to live well. The fact is that the people in their search for new values, supposedly opposite to the totalitarian regime, lost touch with some very basic humanistic ideas of behavior. They started to forget that any society requires certain level of morality in order to be successful. For instance general denouncement of vices as theft, robbery, murder, corruption, taking advantage of the weak in order to achieve material gains are rather  symptomatic of a harmonious society. The years after 1989 in Bulgaria were rather emblematic of the general decay of the very moral values that had sustained the nation during so many challenging moments in its history. The lack thereof of any shared humanistic vision of the people could explain the country’s difficulties in reaching the type of society that would be considered developed. There is a common misconception that Bulgarians have lost their “human” features due to poverty. I tend to disagree wholeheartedly. Being poor, is not a sin by any means. It also can’t be used as an “excuse” for failures.  I would like to give an example of the community I currently reside in. It’s located deep in the mountains of Western North Carolina-the Appalachian region that is considered one of the poorest in the nation. Yet the people are polite and friendly and they wave at each other when passing on the road! That comes to show that poverty by itself is not the reason for lack of manners or propensity for crime. I would never forget an episode from one of my travels to Bulgaria when a taxi driver in Sofia was openly bragging about his opportunity to swindle diesel fuel from his "day" job in the railways and use it for his "moonlight" occupation as a cab driver later. He had no moral trepidations that what he was doing was theft whatsoever. As a matter of fact he sounded quite proud of his resourceful scheme! The reason people in Bulgaria feel “unsuccessful” and deprived of opportunities is in their general failure to adhere to basic common moral values that could be established as essential to the very existence of the society as such. Only after agreeing on a “Social Contract” within the society would Bulgaria or any country for that matter reach a level of development that would allow its people to feel “prosperous” in moral terms, which would eventually lead to financial gains as well. What the politicians of the post-communist Bulgaria will be held responsible for, is not their plunge into blatant corruption and helping establish a culture of cynicism into the country, but for their failure to encourage the population to reach a basic “Social Contract” of shared moral values that would lead to a strong and prosperous society in the long run.

Another example of a country failing in its political development in terms of civic humanism and communitarianism is Lebanon. It is an example of a “contract” gone wrong when focusing on “negative” versus “positive” power in any given society. During its movement for independence Lebanon established the so called “National Pact” of 1943 (later on inscribed in stone in the constitution) that stipulated that the president of the country will always be Maronite Christian, the prime minister will be Sunni Muslim, the Speaker of the House of Representatives will be Shiite Muslim and the deputy speaker will be Greek Orthodox. This provision seemed to be reasonable in guaranteeing the rights of all groups representing the Lebanese population based on historical realities. In fact what occurred was a severe division in the society among ethnic and religious lines. How can a functional democracy be achieved when a Shiite or Sunni Muslim can never be a president or vice versa a Christian can’t think of being a Prime Minister? The followers of communitarian thought claim that in order for a society to be successful in its “Diversity Within Unity” all groups should in this case perceive themselves as being Lebanese first and then Christian, Shiite or Sunni. What the ill fated “National Pact” of 1943 did was divide the population further along sectarian and confessional lines. The civil war that occurred from 1975 to 1990 is just a tip of the iceberg compared to the very existential challenges facing the Lebanese society in the near future. As long as it does not share any type of common moral values and cohesive understanding of political and communal development it would fall into violence and deadlock as the recent establishment of a government dominated by Hezbollah showed.

The studies of countries like Bulgaria and Lebanon could enhance the general understanding of society as such and what forces make it functional and prosperous. The perspective of Communitarianism  and Civic Humanism may be controversial but it does give an insight into the very forces that keep any given society together and make it vibrant and prosperous. The fact that individual life and liberty are only possible within a strong and vital community based on shared social and moral values will always resonate deeply in new democracies during their plight for democracy and harmony. Both Bulgaria and Lebanon could achieve their level of prosperity if the political leaderships show signs of understanding of their respective societies and embark on a true course of reconciliation and social advancement. Their success will be judged of course by the future generations. We can only hope it will be something to be proud of and not a failure.

The Fall of the Berlin Wall in the Arab World

What happened on February 11^th, 2011 in Cairo will enter the history books as the victory of the “Nile Revolution” that put an end to an era of repression, lack of freedom and omnipresent fear. On that day the people of Egypt, representing all strata of society achieved something that would have been unthinkable just a short while ago-they ousted the dictator who had been in power for 30 years, who had all conceivable forces of power at his disposal and yet lost the battle with the unrelenting wave of democratic uprising.

The feeling that one gets, when watching the news from Tahrir Square bears striking similarity with the overwhelming joy and jubilation of the people in both East and West Germany, who tore through the infamous Berlin Wall in 1989 and declared to the world that the old world order of suppression of free will had departed forever.

The Berlin Wall epitomized the division between East and West, between communist dictatorships and liberal democracies, between governments that relied on fear to stay in power and ones that obeyed the rule of law. In October of 1989 when watching the Germans destroy the wall that had separated them for so many years the world knew that it was witnessing something that was so profound that our lives would never be the same for the years to come. The “wind of change” had started and its power was about to sweep through and lay waste to those regimes that stood in the way of freedom. What happened next was a fascinating chain of events that brought down all communist regimes in Eastern Europe and even caused the “Evil Empire” of the Soviet Union to disintegrate.

The Revolution on the Nile that followed the democratic upheaval in Tunisia carries a similar aura of an era coming to an end and a new beginning for the whole region of the Middle East. What makes it so prophetic is the fact that an invisible psychological barrier has been crossed. The people of Tunisia and Egypt bravely faced the worst of their fears-the authoritarian regime of dictators whose very names used to cause people to cringe. They learned how powerful they could be when gathered together.  One will always wonder if the young Tunisian Mohamed Bouazizi, who set himself on fire in front of a local government building in the city of Sidi Bouzid to protest his treatment by the police, had had any idea how his sacrifice would open the floodgates of democratization in the entire region.

It is almost comical if it wasn’t  sad how an array of Middle Eastern governments all bearing shades of an undemocratic rule , are breathlessly coming forward to declare their sudden desire to appease their respective populations. The long term president of Yemen Saleh announced that he would not run for re-election in 2013, the Palestinian Authority decided the time had come to call the long overdue national elections in September, the government of Bahrain started to give out cash to its citizens in hope they wouldn’t dare start  openly proclaim their legitimate grievances. Additionally the opposition groups in Algeria are planning an anti government demonstration that has already been banned by the authorities.

It will be a shot in the dark to predict at this time how politics in Egypt will unfold in the near future and what the denouement will be. The stern and somber faces of the interim (for now) rulers Omar Suleiman and the minister of defense Mohamed Tantawi that could be seen during the announcement of the departure of Mubarak certainly do not portray democratic enthusiasts.

The former foreign minister and long term Secretary General of the Arab League, Amr Moussa has the appeal of a professional who could run for president in the future elections.  There is also the former head of the International Atomic Agency Mohamed El-Baradei who returned to Egypt in the middle of the uprising in order to be a part of the anti-government movement. His true intentions are still to surface though as he does seem to exude a level of hard to conceal political opportunism. The person who was a true leader of the insurgency in fact was the Google representative in Egypt Wael Ghonim whose tearful address to the world after being released from detention provided the final spark that ignited the Egyptian nation to push forward in its relentless strive for democracy.

Once president Ronald Reagan said in his interview with the Bulgarian National Television in 1990, when the Eastern European nation was preparing for its first free and open elections after communism: “Building a viable democratic society is like planting a tree-you have to support it, nurture it and look after it. Only then it will grow and succeed in its growth”.  It would be interesting to dwell a bit more on Ronald Reagan’s metaphor -there is a small nation in the North Sea on the fringes of Europe, Faroe Islands which a lot of people probably don’t even know exists.  The climate there is so inhospitable and windy that no trees have ever been able to grow. The people wanted to be able to grow some there for environmental purposes and perhaps just to prove they can. As much as they had tried no trees were able to survive in that climate. Finally they found a species that is native to Southern Patagonia in Argentina that could survive in that environment and after so many years of trying they were able to plant and grow their first ever trees.

The young and fragile process of awakening in Egypt also needs nurturing and support like the tree that Ronald Reagan was referring to. It is next to impossible to know if the Egyptian nation has found the right democratic “tree” that could grow in the arid political climate of the Middle East. What is certain though is that its people managed to break through their own psychological Berlin Wall that straddled the Nile for so many years. They deserve to succeed and we as citizens of the world should help them in the process of planting and growing their first ever democratic society.

Bulgaria and the plight of its lost generation

I hail from a generation that graduated high school in the 90’s. That coincided with the transitional period in Bulgaria between communism and a democratic society.

One of my unforgettable childhood memories is the day of November 10^th, 1989. I still recall myself sitting in the living room with my mother and watching something unbelievable-there was a live coverage on the national TV of the regime change. Todor Jivkov, the long term communist dictator was being replaced peacefully, mind you, and a new leader was being elected!  We saw the long time dictator Todor Jivkov sitting in the sidelines, pitiful and humbled for the first time in our lives.

The reason this memory has stuck with me is that up until then, his name (Todor Jivkov) was spelled with reverence and fear.  He was the ultimate ruler-the “chosen one” to give us guidance and wisdom and there was not even a thought of the possibility of changing the status quo.

When I was very young I had a chance to be a Bulgarian communist “pioneer”-it was an approximate equivalent to the “Boy Scouts” in the US. I was proud to be one. Aside from the mandatory indoctrination It gave us a “purpose” in life to be good people and useful to society. I had given a pledge to do honorable things and I was serious about it.

When the change of November 10^th, 1989 came about in Bulgaria it was a total surprise. No one had ever thought of challenging the regime. The truth is that Bulgaria from the early 80’s was in fact doing quite well in comparison to other countries from the Eastern Block. For instance Poland was going through a tremendous economic hardship, Romania was in the middle of a “economic belt tightening” and the Soviet Union itself was experiencing significant difficulties in meeting its obligations in its war in Afghanistan and the military race with America. In reality Bulgaria was doing well based on preferential agreements with the Russians and its tourism which was thriving as a popular summer vacationing spot for all eastern countries, not to mention the increasing travel from Western Europe.

The truth to be held is that the political change in the Eastern Block was sparked by the development in the Soviet Union. Mikhael Gorbachev’s initiatives of “glasnost” and “perestroika” caused a tremendous ripple effect on all nations that were under communist dominance at the time.

It had appeared that the Soviet leadership had instructed its cronies in Eastern Europe to reform and adopt a “social-democratic” agenda. The fact is that some eastern governments as the one in Bulgaria took that directive from the “supreme” soviet power literally. So the communist party there decided to weather the storm by proactively initiating the peaceful coup d’etat of November 10^th, 1989.

Shortly after, the ruling party declared the opportunity of a national consensus via the so called “Round Table” (which by the way could be implemented in Egypt in order to get all opposing parties together in an open discussion) and national free elections were called. The communist party simply changed its name to the “Bulgarian Socialist Party” and performed exactly in the line of directions given earlier by Gorbachev. It became a social-democratic party that “cared” about people and won the elections in 1990. Being very young at the time but already understanding things in politics I was appalled at the perspective of living in a “quasi” communist and semi socialist state.

The former communists and new “pseudo-socialists” decided to explore the opportunity of gaining wealth while they had a chance of being in power. The following years bore many an example of the so called “privatization” of state owned factories and industries, being run down in order to be purchased below market value by individuals “approved” by the regime. The pillaging of the economy caused it to finally collapse during the unfortunate government of Jan Videnov.

The opposition forces gathered together and decided to take a stand and bring a change to the already disgruntled country. The college students took to the streets of the capital Sofia, built barricades and refused to go back to their Universities until the government resigned.

I was a sophomore in the University of National and World Economy in 1997 and participated wholeheartedly in the democratic uprising. We gathered in downtown Sofia and demanded the resignation of the government. We built barricades on the famous “Orlov Most” or “Bridge of Eagles” in the middle of Sofia and faced riot police. It’s interesting that the government forces-both police and army actually refused to fight the demonstrators and this caused the socialist government of prime-minister Jan Videnov to fall.

We the students who made that government change happen were extremely idealistic and democratically leaning. We thought that a new era was coming as now Bulgaria could truthfully embark on a path of sincere democratization and development.

Unfortunately the years to come proved that the Bulgarian society had not grown to the challenge. What occurred was a criminalization of the nation as such. The so called “groups” of criminals led by former government security individuals and “wrestlers” from the sports community of all people created clandestine economic and later political pressure formations to take advantage and go on a foray of economic grabbing. This is the time of the infamous “insurance” agents who would steal your car if you don’t pay an indemnity to the “insurer”.  The “groups” of economic interests blatantly went on a rampage to secure all financially viable enterprises.

That’s the time a large number of people from my generation decided to vote with our feet and left our home country. We just didn’t think at the time that it was worth “tilting at windmills” as in Don Quixote and decided to leave and pursue other opportunities.

In the years to follow, just to make the circus complete, the former king Simeon Saxe-Koburg decided to participate in the Bulgarian political development. The people thought that he would bring a stable and clearly pro-Bulgarian stance, as the general populace still had some fond memories of his father- King Boris III who was extremely popular in the country. It turned out however that “king” Simeon had an agenda of his own-namely to re-acquire the properties his family had lost during the communist regime.  His unpopular governance led to another power shift with the formation of the triple coalition of Simeon’s party, socialists and DPS (Movement for Rights and Freedom)-the organization of the Turkish minority.

These are the years when corruption and ill-management took firm hold of the Bulgarian reality. The criminalized entities grew wealthier and bolder in their stance. Daily show murders became a reality of life for many Bulgarians.

Additionally the society grew quite cynical and started using profane language that I would have been ashamed of if used during my youth years. People lost faith in government, police and values and started looking for “alternative” ways of making ends meet since the official power holders didn’t seem to care.

Ultimately Boiko Borisov’s GERB movement came into the picture. He seemed to be the resolution to all previous deficiencies-he was tough talking, meaning business type of a leader. In fact he adopted somewhat of a “Vladimir Putin” aura with his pro-Bulgarian nationalist talk and anti-mafia rhetoric. The warning signs flashed immediately after his ascendance to power however. Mr. Boiko Borisov is a “private security” specialist and long term protégé of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. It is inconceivable that his “company” Ipon-1 didn’t get involved in the mafia wars that occurred in Bulgaria in the 90’s and the beginning of the 21^st century.  Mr. Borisov is using some sort of pseudo nationalistic stance against Bulgarian minorities as Roma and Turks which seemed to fit in somewhat with the general Bulgarian public at the time. The truth is that the society as such is far from nationalist and Mr. Borisov’s attempts at that are quite artificial and frankly dangerous. Bulgarian society is in fact quite tolerant and forgiving. I can attest to that as my family hails from the area of Nikopol on the banks of the river Danube where Bulgarians, Vlachs (Romanians) and Turks have lived together in harmony for hundreds of years. It was common for Bulgarians (Orthodox) to visit Muslim Turks for Ramadan and vice versa Muslims to visit Bulgarians for the Feast of Saint George in May.

What Mr. Borisov is doing is inciting a religious and ethnic intolerance in the Bulgarian society in hope that this tension would give him an upper hand while imposing his regime upon the people.  

Additionally he seems to be an absolute dilettante in terms of International Relations. When he came into power he decided to suspend or revise the ongoing international projects including the Nuclear Power Station in Belene, the Bourgas-Alexandroupolis oil pipeline and the South Stream gas line. Interestingly enough all of the aforementioned projects had some degree of Russian participation. This could and would cause a significant change in the Russian strategy towards Bulgaria. It is rather inauspicious that just recently Russia decided to pull out of financing the Belene Nuclear plant. It is obvious that the price of the endeavor is not the deciding factor-even junior students in International Relations know that building of nuclear plants is the Russian way of Realpolitik-as we have seen it in Iran, Armenia and Belorus-in diplomacy it is often referred to as “quid pro quo”.

The fact that Bulgaria is losing potentially economically important source of income has quite ominous signs for the general state of relations between Russia and Boiko Borisov (I detest referring to the country with Boiko Borisov’s name but that’s the reality).

Currently my contemporaries from the “lost generation” that left are performing rather well in Belgium, the United States, the UK and Australia.

We will always wonder if we could have made it in Bulgaria if we had stayed. The thought will always haunt us-probably for the rest of our lives.

The reality is that we who left had an opportunity to learn new skills and be able to think “outside of the box”. We are the true “unorthodox” Bulgarians who can bring change one day. We hope that such day will come and we’ll be able to help with our democratic knowledge and expertise. We “the lost generation” have not fallen through the cracks, we won't give up, yes we can and yes we will succeed however daunting our plight might be.

Egypt-the hope for democracy in the Middle East

It’s been a long time coming-the Middle East developing a basis for even a resemblance of a democratic society.

Historically the area has been marred by backwardness in terms of human development. Ironically the unresolved conflict with Israel only caused a stultification and expansion of the most retrograde and dysfunctional of all middle eastern type of societies-extremist, leaning towards dictatorship (on the basis of so called “stability”) and staunchly anti-Israel.

The peace treaty that occurred between Israel and Egypt in 1978, though turned the tide of the entire Arab world. For the first time a typical Muslim country signed an accord with the “enemy” Israel. By doing so in terms of “Raison D'Etat” (Richelieu would certainly have been proud) Egypt achieved something that so many prior wars have not been able to-it regained a lost territory-the Sinai peninsula. Even more importantly the country by the Nile gained enormous advantage in terms of promised and promptly delivered American aid reaching an average of $1.5 billion a year.

The creator and mastermind behind this development was Anwar Sadat and eventually his protégé Hosni Mubarak.

Coming after some disastrous wars with Israel it was quite understandable that the Egyptian leadership was eager to create some “stability” and work on possible re-match with Israel. The irony is that by doing so they actually tasted for the first time the success of re-gaining territory and receiving an enormous amount of material and monetary aid by concluding a peace agreement.

The huge achievement in terms of national strategy could be assessed by comparison with Syria’s intransigent (and largely unsuccessful) position towards Israel which has not been able to make any progress on its Golan Heights issue.

The overall success in international politics led by Anwar Sadat and later on by Hosni Mubarak gave some “borrowed” time for the regime to recuperate as it actually managed to achieve something no one in the Arab world has ever done before-get territory back from Israel.

This process allowed for the dictatorial regime from the 70’s (that started with military emergency rule in 1952) to establish itself and continue its suppression of dissidents based on the general thought of “stability”

The government, however, didn’t realize that the Egyptian society of the 21^st century is intrinsically different from the one in the 70’s. As the years passed by after Sadat and Mubarak came into power, the young people of Egypt received access to the internet, facebook, tweeter and generally more information about the world. They are well informed and keep tabs of the events occurring  in America and other countries and how people in developed nations live.

The breaking point for the Middle East came from an absolutely unsuspecting country-Tunisia. Interestingly enough the youth in Tunisia has grown internet and facebook savvy somewhat simultaneously with the ones in Egypt. The difference is that Tunisia is relatively small country with 10 million people while Egypt is much more populous, with close to 80 million.

Additionally the outgoing elite of Tunisia, has never been militarily trained or involved as much as the one in Egypt. Naturally that explains the differences between the developments in Tunisia where the dictator Ben Ali left quickly and Egypt where Mubarak seems to be digging in. He seems to be trying to employ the array of measures available to dictatorial governments-encouraging his “supporters” which are largely cronies paid by his regime to attack the people who protest against him.

What will happen in the near future in Egypt is some sort of a “stalemate”. That’s exactly what the ruling class is hoping for-“a no man’s land” where they can deploy the army to supposedly “restore order”.

Those politicians as Mubarak of the 70’s don’t understand that the Egyptian society is quite grown and different from what they are accustomed to. It also shows that they have lost touch with the very people they claim to represent.

They will be gone eventually after an enormous pain and suffering and after the military who is thought to be the real “king maker” in Egypt makes up its mind.

The world is hopeful that the proud country of Egypt will truly rise to what today’s global society expects from it-to be a democratic establishment with opportunities for its young citizens.

As for the “Muslim Brotherhood”, as much as they are feared, they are not near the head of the current rebellion. The regime change is being instigated by the “people” not by the islamists. This could be the only chance the world has to encourage a democratic development in the Middle East as the new democratic movement does need encouragement and support.

In light of that, the American and European leadership should certainly embrace the wave of democratization in Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen, Jordan and not be afraid to clearly state its commitment to people’s free will and the right to choose its own government.

Waiting idly in the sidelines would not only encourage dictators to hold on to power as it happened in Belorus but also have a devastating effect on the hopes of people for better lives and freedom.

“The ideas expressed in the article are sole property of the author”

Analysis on Ukraine

“Ukraine-a country torn between East and West”

Ukraine is a country in Eastern Europe with a population of 46 million people that consists of 78% Ukrainians, 17% Russians and 5% others among which Bulgarian, Hungarian, Tatar and other minorities.

Historically Ukraine is a relatively new country in terms of statehood and political development. Its past has been largely affected by the division between western, catholic influence brought by the ruling Polish-Lithuanian nobility, and the Russian and Eastern-Orthodox sphere of influence.

The fault line between East and West lies along the river Dniepr-its right bank showing the signs of a western culture and the left bank being largely associated with pro-Russian sentiments.

The regions of Galicia and Volhynia to the west for instance, played a significant role in forming of what is today’s Ukrainian cultural reality. For large tracts of history the abovementioned provinces were part of the Polish and later Polish-Lithuanian kingdoms. The Union of Lublin in 1569 that established the creation of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth confirmed the privileged position of Poland in Galicia and Volhynia. The ruling class was catholic and Polonized, whereas the peasantry was Eastern-Orthodox. Lacking any type of protection and representation the commoners had to turn to the Eastern-Orthodox Cossacks for help which led to the lengthy wars and upheavals among them the famous uprising of Bohdan Hmelnitsky.

The rise of the Russian Empire to the east resulted in gradual establishment of pro-Russian left bank part of Ukraine. Up until the partitions of Poland at the end of 18^th century, the geo-strategic status quo between the two major powers Poland and Russia contributed to the formation of “two” Ukraines-one under catholic rule and another to the east under Eastern-Orthodox Russian influence.

An example of that division is the creation of Greek Catholic or Uniate church in Galicia and Volhynia which preserved the eastern rites however accepted the Pope in Rome as part of the efforts of the ruling polish nobility to move the population closer to Catholicism.

Following the partitions of Poland the territory of what is modern Ukraine was divided between Russia and Austria later Austro-Hungary. The First World War brought yet another set of rulers as Poland was able to acquire Galicia and Volynha and the rest of Ukraine became part of the Soviet Union as one of the republics. Western Ukraine experienced another attempt of Polonization which ended with the dismemberment of Poland after the Ribbentrop-Molotov infamous pact. The years that followed during and after the World War II were marked by the actual cessation of Polish presence in western Ukraine. Major factor were the raids carried out by the branch of the “Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists” inspired by Stepan Bandera later on “Ukrainian Insurgent Army” (Ukrains’kaPovstans’kaArmiia). The political decision by Stalin to “move” the Ukrainian, Belorussian and Polish borders “west” and the consecutive population exchange further de-Polonized western Ukraine.

It must be noted though that the distinctive culture of Galicia and Volhynia however heavily influenced by years of Polish dominance is in fact a historical reality based on the fact that Orthodox population co-existed in a catholic and western environment. This fact has left a lasting mark on the formation of the Ukrainian nation as such.

The fault line between east and west in Ukraine could be witnessed in the country’s present political development. Ukrainian governments following the declaration of independence in 1991 have represented both pro-western and pro-Russian courses of action. For instance Viktor Yuschenko and YuliaTymoshenko who led the so called “Orange Revolution” in 2004 were campaigning on the basis of clearly pro-western path of Ukrainian political development. Marred by allegations of rampant corruption and severe economic crisis in 2009 they lost power to their “arch-rival” Viktor Yanukovich-a pro-Russian politician who favors closer ties with its eastern neighbor.

Such extreme swings of the political pendulum are clear indicators of the omnipresent undercurrents in the Ukrainian society that lay deep along the dividing line between what is considered eastern and western parts of the country. There are lots of similarities between the political reality in Ukraine at present and the destructive clash between eastern and western culture in former Yugoslavia in 1991. In the Balkan Peninsula there is also a historical fault line between western catholic and eastern Orthodox cultural influence that roughly follows the eastern borders of Croatia. There are some distinctive differences however. Ukraine faces a formidable “Great Power” as Russia to the east, which is not to be taken lightly in terms of foreign policy as well as a major supplier of natural gas and other raw materials. Yugoslavia on the other hand fell apart largely due to irreconcilable historical, ethnic and religious differences between the constituent republics. That being the case the Ukrainian political development seems rather closely dependent on the influence yielded by its eastern neighbor as the recent extension of Russian military bases in Crimea in exchange for cheaper gas supplies show. Russia on the other hand seems content with the existing opportunity to rely heavily on the “pro-Russian” part of the Ukrainian society as opposed to having to deal with a possible division of Ukraine into two separate entities-independent western and dependent eastern parts. It is worth noting that only 17% of the population consider themselves “Russian”, however much larger portion are Russian leaning based on cultural and confessional (Eastern-Orthodox) historical realities. Additionally a potentially smaller western Ukraine could create a new set of geo-political challenges as becoming a disgruntled staunchly anti-Russian “new Georgia”. Such smaller western Ukraine would most likely be tempted into a NATO membership following in the steps of the Baltic republics. The current “pro-Russian” president of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovich on the other hand had declared Ukraine to be a “non-aligned country” that would cooperate with NATO but would not seek actual membership-another bow to the eastern neighbor in terms of foreign policy.

In conclusion the road to stability in Ukrainian politics seems rather rocky at present. The division between “East” and “West” will continue to dominate the political landscape of Ukraine while the young nation is striving to develop a mature and modern society. Would such process be a success or cause a painful and destructive break like in former Yugoslavia only time will show. What is certain though is that the people of Ukraine deserve to be given a chance by its political elite to reach a state of prosperity and well-being regardless of what part of the country they live in, based on sound economic growth, diminished corruption and government accountability on all levels. Only then “East” and “West” would cease to be a dividing factor but rather become what they are meant to be- nothing else but geographical terms.

*“This article is created by the author- a graduate in International Relations from the University of National and World Economy, Sofia. All ideas are a sole property of the author”