[Article by Ivan Besyada: "Nationalism--an Ideology That Has a Future.... Subjective Remarks on One Conference". Lvov ZA VILNU UKRAYINU in Ukrainian 20 Feb 92 p 1]

[Text] The dynamic nature of the present political life in Ukraine is directly reflected in sociopolitical organizations that are active in our state. For example, prior to the proclamation of independence, the Ukrainian Interparty Assembly occupied extreme radical positions that amounted to absolute nonrecognition of the existing state organs of power; it united political structures that had the same platform. Today, after the transformation into a Ukrainian National Assembly [UNA], it has, in fact, become a new organization with a new structure of membership (the collective and associated types of membership have been supplemented by membership on an individual basis) that has chosen Ukrainian nationalism as a basis of its activity and that unites political forces sharing this principle. Besides, the UNA has occupied a central position among the advocates of the given political theory--between the radical Ukrainian Nationalist Union and the Ukrainian State Independence moderate political association; incidentally, the two latter are its collective members.

One of the principal problems of Ukraine's present sociopolitical life is the elaboration of a modern ideology and philosophy that could be acceptable nationwide, something that, according to Ukrainian President Leonid Kravchuk, we do not have today. Of course, one may agree or disagree with this thesis. However, the fact that the search continues, at any rate, among Ukrainian nationalists, has been confirmed by the theoretical conference "Nationalism and Problems of Ukrainian Policy" that was held by the UNA at Lvov University.

The theoretical spectrum of the conference was quite varied: It ranged from the question "Nation as a Factor in Political Life" to the problem of the future of the Ukrainian Navy. However, the essence of all the speeches that were delivered may be described by a single formula: the search for a modern theory of nationalism in general and Ukrainian nationalism, in particular. Precisely search, because it is premature to talk about a ready concept adhered to by the present young generation of nationalists. This may be exemplified by the discussion on what makes nationalism different from patriotism, with a wide variation of views on this question.

The broad range of views expressed by the participants in the conference that dealt with the notion of nationalism is also attested to by a listing of forms of its expression. These forms included respectable and non-respectable (meaning, perhaps, democratic and nondemocratic) nationalism and the denial of the appropriateness of such a view. Monarchic and "sociobiological" forms of nationalism were also represented. This was both a search for the sources of nationalism in the Bible and the defense of the principles of national hierarchy and of the caste and tribe structure of the nation. Finally, this amounted to a comparison between nationalism and religion.

A thesis was repeatedly advanced at the conference: So many people, so many opinions. A general impression was that, today, the very fact of professing the given ideology is more important for representatives of nationalist organizations than the adherence to a particular variety of nationalism. This is, undoubtedly, a positive fact. It is common knowledge that we are strong when we stick together. It is true that here it would be worth recalling yet another aspect of the proclaimed maxim:...and when there are no aliens among us. It is wonderful if there is an understanding of the main thing--the need to maintain and revive the originality of the Ukrainian nation. However, it is already a thing of the past to see the main enemy of this originality in the image of Moscow or in the nature of the Ukrainian people (as though they are lazy or whatever). (Although, it is clear that we will have to work hard in this direction.) It is therefore not worth underestimating a more serious threat, even though the mechanism to combat it is known.

One can argue and disagree with much of what was said at the UNA theoretical conference. However, I would like to point out one more thing. Contrasting nationally aware Ukrainians with other Ukrainians who are referred to scornfully as "little Russians" is, mildly speaking, an error. Instead of being opposed, the former must dissolve in the latter and, like sugar sweetens tea, make them like-minded. This is the task. This is an unlimited area for action.

As for nationalism as an outlook, it seems to me that it is precisely such a platform that may unite the Ukrainian nation. Nationalism as an outlook seems to have become more expressive than ever; it has developed and become stronger having awakened great numbers of peoples who are striving to create their own states.

As was pointed out at the conference, nationalism is closer to the human being than are socialism or liberalism, because nothing unites people better than belonging to the same nation. Of course, one may agree or disagree with this statement. However, the fact that today young Ukrainians are attracted to the ideas of nationalism indicates that this ideology has a future.