“Questions of the past are heavily instrumentalized”

Georgiy Kasianov, your research focuses on the political use and misuse of history. What role does history play in the conflict in the Ukraine today?

I would not say that it is an exclusively Ukrainian feature to produce more history than it can consume (to recall a famous Churchill’s phrase about Balkans); it’s a general trend we’ve see in Europe for the last several decades. However, in Ukraine the level of instrumentalization of the past is extremely high and it critically affects the internal unity of the country which is divided culturally. Certain regions (East and South) are more inclined towards so-called Soviet nostalgic narratives of the past, while others lean towards classical national or ambivalent, mixed narratives (Central and Northern Ukraine) or even radical nationalist narratives (the West). These narratives have been instrumentalized and politicized so they provide grounds for internal conflicts. Even more so now that we have a war in the eastern Ukraine and both sides use the past to legitimize their position.

Where can these narratives be observed in everyday life?

For instance, the Russia-backed rebels in the East intensively use the narrative of the Great Patriotic War. When they call their opponents Banderowzy (a synonym for fascists’ collaborators) or Karately (punishers) they use the Soviet language of the Second World War. The Ukrainian side uses terminology which also has its roots in the past; they employ nationalist rhetoric from the Second World War nationalist guerilla and Kosak myths to underline their position and strengthen their spirit. This is nothing new, there are numerous cases in history where we can see, that in times of political power struggles, issues of the past are brought back up as placeholders for current problems.

Why are this historical narratives so powerful and seductive to people?

I do not believe that people think intensively about history in their daily lives nor that they are so obsessed by the past, that they actively bring it into the present. The past is being instrumentalized and manipulated to make it look more appealing. When people find themselves in complicated and frightening situations – political, economic, social, etc. – they are looking for something that gives them stable grounds. History is one of the tools that can be used for this purpose. In the Ukrainian case, I would say that history or an instrumentalized past serves as a kind of civic religion, and this is why it is so attractive and so compelling. And this is why politicians use it so intensively.

History is often misused in political discourses to derive rights or to assign guilt. Can history on the other hand also build bridges?

Yes, of course. We’ve been having this discussion in Ukraine since the end of the 1990s. It started with a debate on the history textbooks for secondary school. A majority of experts said that the books on Ukrainian history were ethnically exclusive; they portrayed the history of Ukraine as a history of ethnic Ukrainians only. This excluded other ethnic groups – which comprise about 24 percent of the Ukraine’s population – from the country’s history. Moreover, some of these groups, like Poles or Crimean Tartars, were presented as an evil “Other”. Different experts have alarmed this issue at the beginning of 2000 when a discussion started on the history taught in schools and ethnic diversity in general. Academics put forward proposals on how to present the Ukrainian national history from a multiethnic and multicultural point of view. The Ukraine can serve as a classic example of transnational history, where different cultures coexisted for centuries on these territories and influenced each other. So if you are willing to incorporate an ethnic and cultural perspective, you could easily present the past of Ukraine as a history of interaction between different cultures and ethnic groups. This would still be the history of Ukraine, but it would not be the history of ethnic Ukrainians only.

You are currently working at the University of Basel on a book about the politics of history in the Ukraine. Does the distance affect your perception of the current events in the Ukraine?

The majority of my books about Ukraine were written abroad. I use facilities of the international community and have the privilege to take advantage of the cultural globalization; it is great that I can leave and look at the problems of my country from a distance. When I am in Ukraine, I am very involved, also in activities related to policy making. I am not sure that I can always be objective. When I am away, that is easier because I have a much sharper sense of what is going on in Ukraine. When I am for example in Switzerland, in a safe and comfortable position, in a great academic environment with an excellent library, I have time to think, to read, and to “calm down”. This gives me a unique opportunity to reflect on the politics of history with a good deal of impartiality.