1. POVERTY OF NATION-BUILDING MODELS
IN UKRAINIAN UNIVERSITIES & POLITICS
Mykhailo Minakov
Associate Professor, National University of Kiev-Mohyla Academy
President, Foundation for Good Politics
Fulbright International Conference, 20-21 April 2012, Kyiv, Ukraine

2. A MIND-SETTING CONTRADICTION
• list of four primary University goals does not include Nation-Building
• University creates the cadres of national elites and symbolic capital
producers
In Ukraine, this contradiction is rather weak: University is centered on
educational function with strong focus on identity building

3. UNIVERSITY AND NATION-BUILDING
University has its stake in the Nation-Building in two possible ways:
• as champions of society, or
• as tools of social control from the side of the state.
In Ukraine, University is regarded to be a state-owned institution with state-determined goals

4. NATION-BUILDING ROLE OF UNIVERSITY
Views on Nation-Building role of University in Ukraine
• in-depth interviews (Feb – Mar 2012)
• 10 politicians (8 MPs, 2 party leaders; 6 with the Soviet higher education, 4 with
Ukrainian higher education)
• 12 university lecturers (6 from Kiev-based universities, 2 from Kharkiv
University, 2 from Zaporizhzhya University, 2 from Lviv University; 5 with the
Soviet higher education, 7 with Soviet/Ukrainian/Western higher education)
Consensus of the both groups on priority of the Nation-Building function of University
(9 out of 10 politicians, 10 out of 12 scholars)

5. CONSENSUS
Main consensus issues
• University should be state-owned (P 9/10; S 8/12)
• University autonomy should be limited since money come from the state budget (P 9/10;
S 8/12)
• University should provide state with highly educated professionals and patriots in return
for state’s money paid (P 10/10; S 10/12)
• State-Building depends on University’s success in educating state-minded (z
derzhavnytskym myslenniam) citizens (P 9/10; S 9/12)
University is responsible for production of political leaders and citizens

6. NO CONSENSUS
Least consensus issues
• model of Nation-Building
• model linking ethnic, linguocultural, etatist and nation identities (P 6/10; S 6/12)
• etatist/centralist model (P 6/10; S 8/12)
• pragmatic model (P 4/10; S 4/12)
• dia(poly)logue model (P 3/10; S 4/12)
• presence of different cultures is a resource of Nation-Building (P 3/10; S 6/12)
• Nation-Building should include multiple local/regional/minority identities (P 4/10; S
4/12)

7. IDENTIFIED MODELS : ETHNOCULTURAL MODEL
Politicians: 6/10; Scholars: 6/12
• primordial understanding of nation
• korinna ethnic group has a priority on all territory of Ukraine
• Ukrainian state is a result of ethnic conflicts in history
• teaching and researching history in Ukrainian universities should respond to the ethnic
interests of the Ukrainians
Some citations: NB should lead to
‘understanding the national interest and readiness to defend it’
‘trust to the national state, its institutions, to the members of national community, ability
to cooperate with them for the large scale aims’
‘society’s ability to share common civil and spiritual values as the national ones’

8. IDENTIFIED NB MODELS : ETATIST MODEL
Politicians: 6/10; Scholars: 8/12
• Ukraine should be a centralist country to avoid collapse
• Central Government should be responsible to citizens; local authorities should be
appointed by Central Government
• Nation-Building means State-Building
• All citizens are equal before the state
• State should be based on ethnic majority culture with respect to other minorities’ cultures
Citations:
‘Ukrainian state was created after centuries of fight for it’
‘Ukrainian state is a political mechanism to administer territory of Ukraine’
‘If local communities and regions to govern themselves, they will separate from Ukraine’

9. IDENTIFIED NB MODELS : PRAGMATIC MODEL
Politicians: 4/10; Scholars: 4/12
• republican logic: state to provide services to citizens
• technocratic logic: state should not intervene in ethnic cultures and NB issues
• small state logic: government should concentrate on economy and defense of territory
• subsidiarity: local issues must be solved by local governments
Citations:
‘Soviet citizens created this state, but it tries to work only for ethnic majority’
‘This state has never been effective in cultural issues. It should not intervene in
education and language spheres’

10. IDENTIFIED MODELS : DIA(POLY)LOGIC MODEL
Politicians: 3/10; Scholars: 4/12
• state should be based on inclusivity without preconditions
• mutual recognition of cultures imperative should be supported by governemt
• Nation-Building has nothing to do with the state; government proved to be inefficient in all
cultural issues’ solving
• seams to be utopian
Citations:
'Inclusive model is what's needed for Ukraine. But none supports it'
'The Ukrainians and the Russians will never agree how to build Ukrainian state'

11. CONCLUSIONS
• There is a fundamental consensus that the state has an essential role to play in Nation -
Building in Ukraine. But what type of Ukrainian identity state should be promoting is not
clear
• Widespread belief: state policies have never proved to be effective in reaching the
articulated aims. Ukraine’s state involvement into NB prevents society and communities to
be active participants of nation-building
• The politicians and scholars tend to look at the educational system as a tool to unify a
highly diverse Ukrainian population.
'In the age of nation-state, one's prime loyalty is not to a religion, monarch, or land, but to the
medium of one's literacy, the identity part of education, and its political protector… The
monopoly of legitimate education is now more important, more central than is the monopoly of
legitimate violence," he asserts (Gellner, Ernest 1983 Nations and Nationalism. Ithaca: Cornell
University Press, p. 34)

12. CONCLUSIONS 2
• Ukrainian universities are seen to be responsible for 'national elites and citizenry
production' as assigned by government with lesser role of universities' own mission
and poorer ideological toolkit for nation-building
• nation-building function of universities is seen by politicians as a form of social
control
• Ukrainian higher education effectively reproduces both leaders and citizens
• supporting etatist/centralist and ethnocentric models, and
• lacking civil and communal views
• political class and scholarly community are not ready to support Higher Education
reform aiming at diversified model of Nation-Building

13. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A REFORM
• enforce the University autonomy and diversify forms of University
ownership
• civic education should be reviewed in terms the nation-building
models it promotes
• civic education should be enriched with extra- and sub-territorial
models
• ethnocentric history views should be balanced in University history
curricula
• preserve the distance of Nation-Building and State-Building models

14. FINAL REMARKS
• balance among private and state-owned universities with substantive increase of
autonomy and participation in the global academic networks will lead to
diversification of ideas and models of nation-building for Ukraine, as well as to a
more strategic and effective participation in the global processes
• Ukrainian higher education reform should aim at creation of highly competitive
socio-economic system through provision of liberal legal, autonomous
institutional and multi-source financial environment to universities: the up-to-date
nation able to respond to the challenges globally and locally can be built only in
partnership of academic institutes, corporate sector, national government and
global networks
• the less there is a state control over universities, the more critical are the alumni
to dominating nation-building approaches

15. THANK YOU!