Yanukovych as self-fulfilling prophecy

As a result, public opinion was divided too – and the gap has only been growing deeper. It would probably make sense to analyze Mr. Yanukovych’s 100 days as a President as one of social phenomena.

The concept of self-fulfilling prophecy, deriving from the Thomas theorem, is basically the influence of people’s perception of the situation on the situation itself. In fact, social and political reality can be formed by a powerful level of expectations and beliefs related to it. Accordingly, “If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences”. This idea was further developed by American sociologist Robert K. Merton. According to his scheme, the self-fulfilling prophecy is, in the beginning, a false definition of the situation evoking a new behavior which makes the original false conception come ‘true’. Thus a false conception becomes true through logical confusion or fear in social consciousness, forming a new reality in the country.

This sociological approach can be easily applied when analyzing activities of President Yanukovych in office since Ukrainian society was bursting with all kinds of expectations. The public is far from being unbiased in its reactions to key events of political life as it is influenced greatly by political myths, stereotypes, and prejudices. So main events of the political scene are given subjective evaluation, which influences the actions of people defined by their beliefs regarding a certain situation. When it comes to high-profile events, this phenomenon evolves into a feedback with ‘fantasy’ becoming reality.

It might seem even mystical. Strong negative moods of a part of society lead to interpreting some rather insignificant events as ‘the writing on the wall’, signs or even expressions of the mysterious Higher Force. Opposition played this card well, saying it was a ‘bad sign’ when an old monument collapsed or a garland fell in a strong wind. The mass media and public react with a mutually supported resonance, often growing absurd and increasing panic and depression. Desperately seeking sensation, trying to win more readers, mass media only contribute to this irrational method of perception of political realities, playing with collective fears. Minimal critical attitude results in developing dubious reactions, which in their turn have a certain impact on authorities.

The 2009-10 election campaign often focused on the ‘strong leader’ issue and respective social opinions about a new influential leader who would be able to sort out the mess in the country. A number of political experts said an authoritarian regime would be established in Ukraine if the leader of the Party of the Regions came to power. His main election rival, Yulia Tymoshenko, did not waste any opportunity to threaten the country with all possible terrors it would suffer if her ‘white-and-blue’ opponent became the President. Moreover, it was often mentioned that Yanukovych would become a reincarnation of the Kuchma regime, reviving ‘manual control’ and non-democratic ways in politics. As a result, a strong public opinion was formed that if elected a President, Viktor Yanukovych would start a dramatic restructuring of the system, which actually happened.

A significant factor of social expectations should not be underestimated. But a part of society, integrated in the governing system – Members of Parliament, state officials, law-enforcement agents, public servants in different institutions and establishments – should not be ignored either. The fact that the ‘white-and-blue’ team came to power and was able to rapidly build a top-down command structure was mostly made possible by the confidence of MPs and public servants in plausibility of such a scenario. It was clearly predictable and expected that the Stability and Reforms coalition would be formed in the Verkhovna Rada. The majority of public servants were in advance prepared for this to happen, which made the actual implementation quite easier.

The actions of police and other law-enforcement agencies – controlling rallies and public meetings, blocking oppositional protests – could be explained in the same way. The change of the President became some kind of a switch in the perception of events – certain actions of law-enforcement bodies, virtually abandoned or even tabooed under the liberal Yushchenko, have become normal again.

Another factor which contributes greatly to destabilizing the situation is the media. There is growing criticism of the authorities which waste no time in providing more and more reasons for it. Alarming materials about the facts of censorship in mass media – which could have actually started as self-censorship as a result of expectations of the authoritarian regime – cause the authorities to fight back, increasing their control over the media. Everybody expects new blunders from Yanukovych and he does not disappoint. Representatives of nationalist political forces warn against total Russification – and they receive the reaction in the person of Dmytro Tabachnyk. Statements about the control over journalists can further increase paranoia of both, the authorities and society.  

The situation becomes real based on the results of our perception. The current political picture in Ukraine requires critical thinking, otherwise public servants actively trying to pertain usual management methods might appear as agents of an authoritarian regime or even Orwell’s 1984 totalitarian disaster. It also does not make sense to provide the authorities with a trump card of your own panic, trying to look alert and conscious at the same time.