by Shawn Conroy, HUSI 2021
Dr. Serhiy Bilenky’s course Tradition and Modernity in Ukraine and HUSI’s Friday speakers have enriched my understanding of Ukrainian history, partlicularly the different roles that Ukraine has played in the visions of other powers and how those visions have continued to inform developments in Ukraine in the present. As a PhD student in Russian imperial and Soviet history, my course load has focused on events as they unfolded within the territorial bounds of those two powers. However, Poland and the Austrian (later, Austro-Hungarian) empire played just as powerful a formative role as Russia for Ukraine; the extent of this impact—culturally, socially, and politically—affected how the Russian empire addressed these spaces under its control. For example, the Russian imperial authorities invested immense mental effort and financial resources into the construction of Kyiv as the mother city of the Orthodox faith and the “people of Rus,” in good part to undermine the Polish cultural influence there. Because my own research focuses on Kyiv (city and oblast), understanding the area’s contested past and its influence on the perceptions of local, regional, and state-level political figures will prove beneficial for my analysis of the early 1990s.
In my dissertation, I look at the constitution of the center’s authority in the regions of early independent Ukraine (1992-4). In particular, I focus on how power struggles between the executive and legislative branch—taking place simultaneously within the capital and the regions—affected the development of center-region relations from top-down, horizontal, and bottom-up perspectives. Each branch had its own approach to the constitution of central authority outside the capital, which led to moments of contestation and collaboration. Local residents also had their own relations to these bodies.
Kyivs’ka oblast is a good case study for the constitution of central authority vis-à-vis the regions of Ukraine for three reasons. First, the proximity of Kyiv oblast to central authority raised the stakes for the imposition of central authority in all of Ukraine’s administrative regions. In short, if the center could not assert its authority in its own regional backyard, then it could not hope to do so in more peripheral regions. Second, Kyiv’s administrative layout and symbolism as the seat of political power made it a high-stakes target for the fight between the executive and parliament. At the time, Ukraine comprised 27 administrative regions: 24 oblasts, the autonomous republic of Crimea, and 2 special-status cities (Kyiv and Sevastopol). Kyiv, therefore, included 2 of the 27 administrative regions: Kyivs’ka oblast and Kyiv city. Third, political figures’ physical proximity in each institution and its administrative subsets meant that they frequently crossed paths. This proximity, coupled with low pay, also made it easy and convenient for many officials to hold two positions at the same time, thereby giving us a unique insight into the constitution of a post-Soviet political elite in independent Ukraine.
With the challenges of the pandemic ongoing, I have struggled to gain access to Ukrainian- and Russian-language resources in the United States. However, Harvard’s librarians have been a godsend for me in this regard, showcasing Harvard’s rich collection. I hope that my numerous requests for the table of contents page from obscure books were not too onerous. I am truly grateful to them and the staff at HURI for their assistance.