Politics in the church, or the church in politics

By entering into an alliance with political power, religion increases its influence over some, but loses the hope of ruling over all Alexis de Tocqueville

The problem of unifying Ukrainian Orthodoxy in Ukraine is not new at all. For centuries, the struggle for Ukrainian lands and influences caused a struggle for the church as well, as the spiritual source and state-building inspiration of the Ukrainian people. Attempts to unite the church only led to its cloning and the emergence of inter-religious conflicts.

Since ancient times, Ukrainian priests, acting as authoritative public figures, have been mentors and guides of the nation, which obviously still prompts clergy to participate in election campaigns using their authority and often to try their own hand at elections. A telling example of this is the result of the 2006 elections in Khmelnytskyi region - 15 clergy of the Khmelnytskyi eparchy of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyiv Patriarchate became deputies of various levels. In Volyn, the first five of the "Pora-PRP" bloc included protoiereus Oleh Vedmedenko. Although political fortune smiled on him less. These are far from the only facts of the use of the church and clergy in political games.

The entire period of independence of our country is characterized by confrontation between the Kyiv and Moscow Patriarchates, an inter-confessional struggle for the "souls of Ukrainians."

In the inter-election period, inter-confessional struggle, as a rule, intensifies, and during the Orange Revolution it acquired somewhat sharp features, exacerbating not only the inter-confessional split of the nation but also the political one. Suffice it to recall how in the last presidential elections the struggle for the voter's voice was waged precisely through the church and its ministers, how successfully the Orthodox Church subordinate to the Moscow Patriarchate was used by certain political forces. This exacerbated the already tense relations between Orthodox confessions, which negatively affects the entire life of Ukrainian society, and therefore the state is obliged to help resolve this problem, since the stability of the development of society and the state depends on it. In this case, the state must protect the rights of believers and act as a mediator of dialogue between the UOC KP and the UOC MP.

After the revolutionary events caused by the falsification of the presidential elections in 2004, the church's influence on citizens' choice when voting decreased significantly. As evidence - the results of a sociological study conducted by the ASA "Socium XXI" in April 2005. Only 2% of Volyn residents were ready to vote for the political force that would be campaigned for in church.

In connection with the event that took place on January 23, 2007 in the city of Kovel, namely - the regional conference "Spiritual Security of Ukraine," initiated by the Party of Regions and the UOC MP, a threat arose of deepening the split of the Ukrainian nation and to the national security of Ukraine. Seven political forces, namely: NSHU, KUN, NRU, "Batkivshchyna," "Svoboda," URP "Sobor" issued an appeal in which they called "not to support and to condemn such actions on the part of the hierarchs of the UOC MP."

Orthodoxy has almost always oriented itself toward cooperation with political power. Therefore, on March 12, the UOC KP together with political forces initiated the forum "For a Single Local Ukrainian Orthodox Church" as a response to the Kovel conference. The co-chairs of the forum were Bishop Mykhail of Lutsk and Volyn and Bohdan Shyba - the mayor of Lutsk. This fact shows that today the Church is in close connection with the state, and especially with the ruling elite.

The overwhelming majority of citizens of Ukraine belong to Orthodoxy, hence the issue of peace and understanding between its branches must go beyond internal church problems.

In principle, the state should not interfere in the affairs of the church, however, if it is about the Church as an institution of stabilization and consolidation, then it should contribute to the creation of a Single Church. Political preconditions have always played a major role in the proclamation of autocephaly of any Orthodox Community.

Another proof of the Church's dependence on the state is that very often at the regional level the resolution of the Church's problem depends on the confessional preferences of the leadership of the oblast or district. Like the forum that took place in Lutsk, all subsequent meetings, I think, will be held in the presence of government representatives.

In addition to the UOC KP, Ukrainian politicians should also be no less interested in cooperation. It is quite possible that a Single Local Church will be able to unite the East and West of Ukraine, will be able to refute all misunderstandings, and overcome the barriers that exist today. To achieve this goal, politicians will be able to use the Church's influence on the population, but only of a Single Church that will act jointly, in one direction.

Although it is not excluded that for some, the destabilization of the situation in the country, including the religious one, is very beneficial. Therefore, they, using a wide variety of means, including manipulating representatives of other Orthodox confessions, postpone the consideration of these acute problems at the highest state level, ignore the intentions to create a Single Local Ukrainian Orthodox Church, and slow down the process of unifying Ukrainian Orthodoxy.

In my opinion, this problem will not be raised and resolved at the national level now. It will face the same fate as the status of the Russian language in Ukraine. Politicians and political forces will wait for an opportune moment to show interest and reveal their position on its resolution, and this moment will come before the next elections.

Current politicians are ready to use any "tribunes," including the church, to express their position. Statesmen, from the President to local politicians, begin their activities with the "expulsion" of unclean spirits from their offices and bow their heads in prayer before television cameras during major religious and state holidays. Without a doubt, some political forces and individual politicians, both at the local and all-Ukrainian level, will speculate on the issues of unification or separation of Orthodoxy in Ukraine. In order to win supporters and raise ratings, through speeches and statements on religious issues. Not a few political forces will put forward the slogan "For a Single Local Ukrainian Orthodox Church!" as a priority principle of their election campaign.

Thus, it is quite obvious that politicians depend on the Church exactly as much as the Church depends on the actions of politicians. This was once again proven at the church-public forum "For a Single Local Ukrainian Orthodox Church," which, in my opinion, will not fundamentally change the situation. After all, not even the appearance of dialogue was created: representatives of the Moscow Patriarchate did not speak, their position was not presented, as was the position of the opponents of those political forces that advocated the creation of a Single Local Ukrainian Orthodox Church, so this issue still remains open. And the problem lies in the unwillingness of politicians and clergy to seek a compromise.

Today one thing is obvious - the church and its ministers are strengthening their alliances and concluding new ones with current and potential representatives of power, and politics, together with politicians, manipulating the consciousness and faith of Ukrainians, have found their refuge in God's temple. And as George John Mitchell said at the beginning of the last century - "Although everyone asks Him to, God does not participate in our politics"

Mariana Karpinska, analyst of the Center for Political Analysis and Electoral Consulting