Honest Conversation with Society: An Exam We Have No Right to Fail

As the saying goes, “If a man is digging his own grave, don't take away his shovel.” But what if society is digging its own grave? Can you, as a citizen, avoid this topic?

I will try to speak to those who are able to analyze and think objectively, systematically and strategically: avoiding public conversations about complex topics means giving strength to those who, through their aggressive ignorance or overly emotional reaction, destroy our chance for important, complex decisions. Ultimately, it destroys the chance for the modernization of society and the state.

Ignorance and search for treachery are always louder. Therefore, public figures and intellectuals often do not leave their communication bubbles. But there are times and topics when you cannot remain silent. You cannot be afraid of dirtying your hands with hateful comments.

Ukraine is a country of responsibility and opportunities: only by combining these two conditions can we achieve modernization and economic breakthrough. Therefore, I believe it is appropriate to raise social issues in a mature way. Unfortunately, very often not only officials, who are actually responsible for resolving these issues, are afraid of this. On the contrary, it is the statements of government officials that sometimes become catalysts for public debate: about future pensions, the need to extend yeas of active lifespan and the prospects for labor immigration.

What is more surprising is the fear of those whom we call moral authorities and opinion leaders. Even those who do not plan to run for office become “like addicted” in social media, afraid of hate and thus avoid difficult topics. This is one of the reasons for social degradation and the drift of public opinion from supporting liberal ideas to socialist rhetoric.

Meanwhile, a country that is at war without a victory strategy, that is unable to provide for public spending on its own, that already has a demographic catastrophe, that the enemy is trying to present as a “failed state,” dividing society and positioning us as a corrupt and incapable state in front of our partners, must break the trends by decisive joint actions. And by answering difficult questions.

Freedom of speech also means that not only women have the right to speak about women’s rights. Not only the military can talk about economic reservation. (In fact, why only the military? After all, mobilization is the responsibility of the government.) Not only people with disabilities can talk about barrier-free access. Veteran policies — not just veterans.

Because all of these topics ultimately concern our taxes, our desire to defend the country and make a contribution to the Victory, the development of the defense industry, education and economic progress. All of this is part of our social contract.

There can be no veterans’ policy that does not take into account the economic capabilities of the state. There can be no balanced gender policy without taking into account demographic realities.

Dialogue helps to find the best solution. Society has to learn how to dialog on complex topics. And for this, we need to speak. We need to declare our position on the image of Victory, compromises, mobilization, reservations, demobilization, freedom of speech, pressure on business and the future.

When public figures are afraid of difficult topics, it reinforces the paternalism of society. Without their willingness to speak out, it is impossible to demand courage in decisions from politicians and statesmen. The vast majority of decisions made by the government over the past 33 years are about how to please the people, not how to develop (modernize) society.

That is why we have depopulation. That is why we are the poorest country in Europe. That's why the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate (UOC-MP), pro-Russian parties like Opposition Platform – For Life, corrupt officials and security forces retain real power. That’s why we still have “patience and work will overcome everything,” “you have to fight for the honor of the school” — a mixture of unmodernized Orthodoxy and the paternalistic Soviet tradition.

Sometimes the state decides to take strong steps under pressure from civil society: the agricultural land market, privatization, medical cannabis, an independent National Bank of Ukraine, a reduction in the number of universities and schools... and it turns out that the land is not being exported to China, the banking system is stable (and it is not necessary to pay everyone for the affected depositors).

Strong decisions develop a country. Decisions “to please the electorate” kill. The reservation of critical personnel is a litmus test of public readiness to make difficult decisions for the sake of the country and the Victory. Even those who understand that this is extremely important for strengthening the country’s defense capabilities are afraid to talk about this topic because it will lead to “social unrest.”

The consequences of not making decisions on reservations for critical personnel in enterprises do not seem catastrophic. They say that the West will save us anyway, and there are not many businesses in the West. And the Armed Forces will cope without donations from it. And without new defense enterprises. The West will not let us lose. So, another 50 billion from frozen assets is on the way...

The main thing is for society to continue to consider the situation “fair” (in fact, it is not), “war is not only for the poor,” although everyone knows that some rich people are paying off, while others are volunteering. But the first is just plain corruption. We can ignore it. The main thing is that talents and skilled workers are not “wasted.” They should not have more opportunities than anyone else. “It doesn’t matter how someone else is doing, as long as they are not doing better than me.”

But this is only one topic. And even the decriminalization of prostitution, LGBT people and abortion are not the most difficult topics, although even more mature societies are breaking down over them. And the ban on the UOC-MP is not that incredible. We have bigger challenges ahead: pension reform, reintegration, the return of migrants, a new Constitution and a difficult decision about an interim (?) victory or reconciliation.

If Ukrainian business is destroyed, import-dependent Ukraine, having lost its human capital and control over resources, will become a country of beggarly pensioners. You don’t believe me? Look at the socio-economic dynamics.

We are going to see an increase in socialist tendencies. Denmark or Sweden can afford this as a result of significant economic development. And without a GDP of more than $30,000 per capita, Ukraine is facing a Venezuelan scenario. You don’t believe me? Take a look at the sociological dynamics. Those who call themselves “right-wing liberals” but are afraid of difficult decisions are playing on the side of the future Maduro regime.

We are facing catastrophic environmental changes. The climate is relentless. There is less and less drinking water. The subtropics are moving north. Drought in Vinnytsia region will become the rule, not an exception.

We see AI not only as an opportunity, but also as a significant challenge to humanity. But we have not learned to talk to each other yet. Will we be able to cope without reflexivity and critical thinking with what (who) is already mastering it?

Today, it seems, there is only one question: Victory. Which gradually became “survival” again. And society demands simple solutions. But leaders do not have the right not to think about the consequences of decisions made or not made.

As I wrote two years ago, winning the war and losing the Victory is exactly the path we will get if we put “or” instead of “and” between “defense capability,” “economy,” and “social development.”

Leaders have no right to focus on survival. Because those who seek to survive will not survive. Only those who seek development, growth and progress will. Those who think strategically. The one who is not afraid to make difficult decisions. And who takes responsibility for them.

There are still many challenges lying ahead. The challenge of war, the challenge of blackouts... and then the challenge of poverty after the reduction of aid. The demographic challenge, the scale of which could be catastrophic. The challenge of victory. The challenge of return. The challenge of reintegration. The challenge of money when it flows to the country.

At the moment, unfortunately, we are failing this exam.

Read this article in Ukrainian and russian.