| Ukraine s societal division is often regarded as an important factor of social development of the country. Most local and Western scholars and political analysts consider the divide an impediment for its democratic transformation. However, no consensus exists over the nature of this divide. Researchers debate whether this is ethnicity, language, religion, region, certain demographic properties or some other essential variables that lead to the fragmentation problem. Contrary to the conventional essentialist approach of tackling the problem, I utilise a constructivist methodology. My approach derives from a comprehension of Ukrainian societal disunity as a social construct. While having deep historic roots, it is not naturally given or fixed and today is for the most part reified by social and political practices connected with politics of transformation . The main questions I address in this project are: how is Ukrainian divide socially constructed? and particularly how are societal fragmentation and post-communist transformation related? The hypothesis I try to validate is that the country is now significantly polarised over the choice between two largely incompatible trajectories for societal development. In the sphere of the political two dominant models for post-communist transformation dominate, manifesting themselves mainly in the form of specific transformation discourses. These models propose two conflicting strategies for modernisation: Western trajectory, associated with Euro-Atlantic integration, and Eurasian trajectory, emanating from the state of post-communism and corresponding to the prevailing model of development in Russia and other societies belonging to the Commonwealth of Independent States. Different factions of Ukrainian political elites endure the domination of the corresponding political discourses in the socio-political environment of the country through their political programs, day-to-day rhetoric and decisions. In this way, their political actions are also closely linked to reproduction and transformation of the societal divide. At the same time, the persistence of the transformation discourses has been made possible by corresponding ideas shared in the society. Certain group believes, values and attitudinal preferences make the two transformation trajectories meaningful both for the political elites and general public. These ideas constitute some forms of political culture and can be analogously defined as Western and Eurasian / post-Soviet . |
