Viacheslav Chornovil | |
|---|---|
| В'ячеслав Чорновіл | |
 Chornovil in 1998 | |
| People's Deputy of Ukraine | |
| In office 15 May 1990 – 26 March 1999 | |
| Preceded by |
|
| Succeeded by |
|
| Constituency |
|
| Chairman of theLviv Oblast Council | |
| In office April 1990 – April 1992 | |
| Preceded by | Position established |
| Succeeded by | Mykola Horyn |
| Personal details | |
| Born | (1937-12-24)24 December 1937 Yerky, Ukrainian SSR, Soviet Union |
| Died | 25 March 1999(1999-03-25) (aged 61) NearBoryspil, Ukraine |
| Cause of death | Traffic collision |
| Political party | People's Movement of Ukraine (from 1989) |
| Other political affiliations | Komsomol (c. late 1950s–1966) |
| Spouses | |
| Children | |
| Alma mater | Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv |
| Awards | |
| Signature |  |
Viacheslav Maksymovych Chornovil (Ukrainian:В'ячеслав Максимович Чорновіл; 24 December 1937 – 25 March 1999) was a UkrainianSoviet dissident, independence activist and politician who was the leader of thePeople's Movement of Ukraine from 1989 until his death in 1999. He spent fifteen years imprisoned by the Soviet government for his human rights activism, and was later aPeople's Deputy of Ukraine from 1990 to 1999, being among the first and most prominent anti-communists to hold public office in Ukraine. He twice ran for thepresidency of Ukraine; the first time, in1991, he was defeated byLeonid Kravchuk, while in1999 he died in a car crash under disputed circumstances.
Chornovil was born in the village ofYerky, in central Ukraine, then under theSoviet Union. A member of theKomsomol from his time in university, he was affiliated with the counter-culturalSixtier movement, and was removed from the Komsomol after speaking out against communism. Hissamvydav, which investigated violations of intellectuals arrested during a1965–1966 Soviet crackdown, earned him Western acclaim, as well as a three-year prison sentence inYakutia. Upon his release he returned tosamvydav and began publishingThe Ukrainian Herald, a predecessor to the modern Ukrainian independent press. He was again arrested inanother purge of intellectuals in January 1972 and sentenced to between six and twelve years in prison.
Chornovil was described by fellow dissidentMikhail Kheifets as "general of thezeks" for his leadership of Ukrainian political prisoners, and recognised as aprisoner of conscience byAmnesty International. He was allowed to return to Ukraine in 1985 as part ofperestroika. Throughout the late 1980s he was active in organising a movement in opposition to Soviet rule over Ukraine. The movement later resulted in apopular revolution that toppled communism and led to Chornovil taking office as a member ofUkraine's parliament. He was one of the two main candidates in the1991 Ukrainian presidential election, though he was defeated by former communist leaderLeonid Kravchuk, and he actively promoted Ukrainian membership in theEuropean Union and opposition to the emergence of theUkrainian oligarchs.
Chornovil was a controversial figure in his lifetime, and the last months of his life were dominated by a split in his party, thePeople's Movement of Ukraine. His death in a car crash during the1999 Ukrainian presidential election, during which he was a candidate in opposition to incumbent presidentLeonid Kuchma, has led to conspiracy theories and several years of investigations and trials, which have neither confirmed nor eliminated assassination as a possibility. He is a popular figure in present-day Ukraine, where he has twice been placed among the top ten most popular Ukrainians and is a symbol of the country's democracy and human rights activism as well asPro-Europeanism.
Viacheslav Maksymovych Chornovil was born on 24 December 1937 in the village ofYerky, in what was then theUkrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, to a family of teachers.[1] His father, Maksym Iosypovych Chornovil, was descended fromCossack nobility, while his mother was part of the aristocraticTereshchenko family. In spite of the Soviet policy of state atheism and theRussification of Ukraine, the young Chornovil was raised in Ukrainian Christian traditions, with his family celebrating Ukrainian festivals in their home.[2]
Born and raised during theGreat Purge, Viacheslav's childhood was dominated by Soviet repressions; his paternal uncle, Petro Iosypovych, was executed, while his father lived as a fugitive. The family regularly moved from village to village in an effort by Maksym to evade arrest.[3] DuringWorld War II and theGerman occupation of Ukraine the Chornovil family lived in the village ofHusakove, where Viacheslav attended school. He later claimed in his autobiography that following the recapture of Husakove by the Soviet Union, his family was expelled from the village. They later lived inVilkhovets, where they had lived prior to Husakove, and where Viacheslav later graduated from middle school with a gold medal in 1955.[4]
Chornovil enrolled at theTaras Shevchenko University of Kyiv the same year, studying to become a journalist. At this time he also joined theKomsomol, the youth division of theCommunist Party of the Soviet Union. During his time in Kyiv Chornovil first acquired an interest in politics, becoming a strong believer infriendship of peoples and internationalism. The negative response by Kyiv's Russophone population to those who spoke the Ukrainian language disgruntled him and left him with an increased consciousness of his status as a Ukrainian.[5] Like other young Soviet activists of the time, Chornovil was also influenced by the20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in 1956, in whichNikita Khrushchevdenounced the rule ofJoseph Stalin.[6]
Chornovil's noncomformist views brought him into conflict with the faculty's newspaper, which condemned him for "nonstandard thinking" in 1957.[7] As a result, he was forced to pause his studies and sent to work as anudarnik[4] constructing a blast furnace in theDonbas city ofZhdanov (today known as Mariupol). He also worked as an itinerant editor for theKyiv Komsomolets newspaper. After a year, he returned to his studies, graduating in 1960 with distinction.[7] His diploma dissertation was on the publicist works ofBorys Hrinchenko.[8] The same year, he married his first wife, Iryna Brunevets. The two had one son,Andriy, before divorcing in 1962.[9]
Following his graduation Chornovil became an editor at Lviv Television (nowSuspilne Lviv) in July 1960, where he had previously worked as an assistant from January of the same year. During this time, he possibly met and interacted withZenovii Krasivskyi, who was studying television journalism at theUniversity of Lviv. Much like Chornovil, Krasivskyi would later become a leader of the dissident movement. Chornovil wrote scripts for the channel's broadcasts, primarily concerning the history of Ukrainian literature.[10] At least three (onMykhailo Stelmakh,Vasyl Chumak, and theYoung Muse group) were broadcast in 1962.[11] During this time, Chornovil also took upliterary criticism, focusing particularly on the works of Hrinchenko,Taras Shevchenko, andVolodymyr Samiilenko.[12]
Chornovil left his job at Lviv Television in May 1963 to return to Kyiv. There, he was the Kyiv Komsomol secretary for the construction ofKyiv Hydroelectric Power Plant.[12] He simultaneously worked as an editor for the Kyiv-based newspapersYoung Guard andSecond Reading,[4] and was part of theArtistic Youths' Club, an informal group of intellectuals affiliated with the counter-culturalSixtier movement.[13] In June 1963, Chornovil married his second wife,Olena Antoniv, and by 1964, Chornovil's second son,Taras, was born.[9] Chornovil also passed exams for post-graduate courses at theKyiv Paedagogical Institute in 1964, but he was denied the right to take courses on the basis of his political beliefs.[12] In particular was his involvement in the Artistic Youths' Club.[13]
TheShevchenko Days on 9 March 1964 was marked by celebrations throughout the Soviet Union marking the 150th anniversary of Taras Shevchenko's birth. As part of the Shevchenko Days celebrations Chornovil gave a speech to the workers of the Kyiv Hydroelectric Power Plant. During his speech, he described Shevchenko as a uniquely Ukrainian hero, rejecting official interpretations, which emphasised Shevchenko's role in anti-serfdom activities. Tying Shevchenko's life to Ukrainians' history, Chornovil said, "Let's readKobzar together, and we shall see that in all the poet's work, from the first to the last line, a red thread passes through with trembling love for the disgraced and despised native land," and that Shevchenko's works themselves argued, "every system built on the oppression of man by man, on contempt for human dignity and inalienable human rights, on the suppression of free, human thoughts, on the oppression of one nation by another nation, and in whatever new form it may hide – it is against human nature, and must be destroyed."[14]
Historian Yaroslav Seko notes that Chornovil's speech placed him as a member of the Sixtiers. However, he also advises that the speech was far from the most important work of the Sixtier movement and that Chornovil's role was minimal in comparison to individuals such asIvan Dziuba, writer ofInternationalism or Russification?, andYevhen Sverstiuk.[15] On 8 August 1965, during the opening of a monument to Shevchenko in the village ofSheshory, Chornovil gave a speech with strongly anti-communist overtones. As a result, he was fired from his Komsomol job. Following his firing, Chornovil wrote several letters to the leadership of the Komsomol in an effort to demonstrate his innocence.[9]
The next year marked the beginning ofa series of mass arrests of Sixtier intellectuals following Khrushchev's removal and replacement byLeonid Brezhnev. In protest of the arrests, Chornovil, as well as Dziuba and studentVasyl Stus, held a protest inside theUkraine [uk] Kyiv film theatre during the 4 September premiere ofSergei Parajanov'sShadows of Forgotten Ancestors. Dziuba said that the film's greatness was overshadowed by the ongoing purge, and, as he was being escorted off-stage, Stus called on those "against the revival of Stalinism" in the audience to stand up. The protest was one of the first open protests by Ukrainians against their status in the Soviet Union.[16] On 31 September his Lviv flat was searched by theKGB, and 190 books were confiscated. Included in the confiscated literature was theGalician–Volhynian Chronicle, theBooks of the Genesis of the Ukrainian People, and monographs and articles by authorsPanteleimon Kulish,Volodymyr Antonovych,Volodymyr Hnatiuk,Dmytro Doroshenko,Ivan Krypiakevych, andVolodymyr Vynnychenko, as well as history books about the First World War andinterwar period.[17]
Later that year, with the purges continuing, Chornovil was called upon to give evidence at the trials ofMykhaylo Osadchy,Bohdan andMykhailo Horyn, andMyroslava Zvarychevska [uk]. Chornovil refused, and as a result was fired from his editor position atSecond Reading. He turned tosamvydav, publishingCourt of Law or a Return of the Terror? in May 1966. On 8 July he was charged under Article 179 of the criminal code of the Ukrainian SSR, and sentenced to three months of hard labour with 20% of salary withheld. In this period, he worked various jobs, including as a technician in expeditions of theAcademy of Sciences of Ukraine to theCarpathian Mountains, as an advertiser for KyivKnyhTorh, and as a teacher at the Lviv Regional Centre for Protection of Nature.[12]
In 1967 Chornovil published his second work ofsamvydav. Known asWoe from Wit: Portraits of Twenty "Criminals", it included information on those arrested during the 1965–1966 crackdown. Chornovil sent the work to theCentral Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine, theCommittee for State Security of Ukraine, theWriters' Union of Ukraine, and theUnion of Artists of Ukraine. On 21 October 1967 it was read during a broadcast ofRadio Liberty, and it was professionally printed by the end of the year.[12] Chornovil'ssamvydav was published in the West in 1969 under the title ofThe Chornovil Papers, drawing attention to the purge at a time when public consciousness was focused largely on theSinyavsky–Daniel trial.[18] Chornovil's work established him as one of the leading figures among Ukrainian activists at the time, and, along with Dziuba'sInternationalism or Russification?, demonstrated to those in the rest of Europe that Ukrainians were not fully accepting of Soviet rule.[19]
In addition toWoe from Wit Chornovil also wrote letters to the head of the Ukrainian KGB and theProsecutor General of Ukraine complaining that investigators had violated the laws during the arrests of Sixtiers. On 5 May 1967 he was summoned to the office of the deputy Prosecutor General ofLviv Oblast, E. Starykov, who informed him of the existence of article 187-1 of the criminal code of the Ukrainian SSR, which forbade defaming the Soviet system or government, including by writing letters complaining about actions committed by members of the government, under the threat of as much as three years' imprisonment. Although not a secret, the law had gone unpublished at the time, and it was only due to Starykov's informing him after the fact that Chornovil learned that his acts may have been illegal.[9]
Chornovil was arrested in August 1967 in response toWoe from Wit and charged under article 187-1.[20] Another search of his flat resulted in the seizure of a copy ofWoe from Wit, as well asValentyn Moroz'ssamvydav bookletReport from the Beria Reserve, which served as the basis for the charges against him. Chornovil chose to forgo a lawyer, as the latter option at the time carried the risks of having one's arguments distorted and manipulated during interrogations. Chornovil argued his innocence, as well as that of those who had been arrested during the purge, saying,[9]
Representatives of the Ukrainian intelligentsia were arrested in August and September 1965 in Kyiv, Lviv, and other cities of Ukraine. They were charged with anti-Soviet propaganda, and the majority of them were convicted in 1965 in closed court processes. I personally knew several of those arrested and convicted; I never noticed anything anti-Soviet in their actions and words, but, on the contrary, I saw sincere concern for the state of Ukrainian culture, the Ukrainian language, for the restoration of normal socialist law and socialist democracy, which were trampled during the years of the tyranny of Stalin and Beria. None of this differs from the 20th Congress of the CPSU. Later, M. Osadchy, interrogated and searched as a witness in the case of a teacher and a former instructor of the Lviv Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine, came to the conclusion that the KGB bodies, which conducted the investigation, allowed violations of procedural norms, fitting the investigation to preconceived qualifications.
He also stated that the process, and the lack of Soviet authorities' action on his complaints, had significantly reduced his faith in the Soviet system. He continued to insist, however, that he had no ill-will towards the Soviet government, alleging that he was being targeted by certain officials who wished to illegally prevent him from informing high-ranking officials about the state of the country.[9] Chornovil was convicted on 13 November 1967 and sentenced to three years' imprisonment.[20] During this period, he lived in the village ofChappanda in theYakut Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic.[21]
In 1969 Chornovil married fellow activistAtena Pashko, whom he had met at the home ofIvan Svitlychnyi. The two were formally wed in the town ofNyurba. As a result of Chornovil's exile, holding a traditional wedding ceremony was impossible. Pashko later recalled that, on the way back to Chappanda, Chornovil made an impromptu bouquet ofSt. John's wort, while Pashko herself made one from wild roses. The newlyweds chose to leave their wedding rings in a large tree rather than wear them, intending that they stay there forever.[21]
Chornovil was released as part of a general amnesty in 1969. Struggling to get a job, between October 1969 and 1970 he variously worked at a weather station inZakarpattia Oblast, as an excavator during an archaeological expedition toOdesa Oblast, and as an employee atSknyliv railway station [uk].[22] In September 1969 he also met Valentyn Moroz, another dissident who had been imprisoned as part of the 1965–1966 purge. The two quickly formed a friendship, as they both sought to strengthen the dissident movement and further confront government abuses. Moroz travelled to meet Chornovil no less than four times between his release on 31 September 1969 and his re-arrest on 1 June 1970, and Chornovil in turn visited Moroz's home inIvano-Frankivsk multiple times. During this time period, Chornovil, alongside Svitlychnyi and Sverstiuk, also led a donations campaign to prevent Moroz (unable to find employment due to his criminal record) from falling into poverty. The campaign collected 3,500 rubles.[23] He organised further donation campaigns for other formerly-imprisoned dissidents, such asSviatoslav Karavanskyi andNina Strokata.[24]
In January 1970 Chornovil launched a new samvydav newspaper, known asThe Ukrainian Herald. The newspaper contained other samvydav publications, as well as information on human rights abuses by the Soviet government and police which Chornovil believed to be contrary to theconstitution of the Soviet Union,Great Russian chauvinism andanti-Ukrainian sentiment, and other information regarding the dissident movement in Ukraine.[25] Chornovil was the chief editor ofThe Ukrainian Herald, and one of its three editors (alongsideMykhailo Kosiv andYaroslav Kendzior).The Ukrainian Herald maintained a large professional staff, with correspondents throughout Ukraine (ranging as far east asDnipropetrovsk andDonetsk),[26] and has been described by biographer V. I. Matiash as the forerunner to independent press in Ukraine.[27]
Fearing arrest, in June 1971 wrote a declaration to theUnited Nations Human Rights Committee, which he intended to be released in the event he was to be taken into custody. In the letter, he outlined examples of violations of the law by Soviet legal bodies, and argued that Soviet political prisoners lacked the right to defend themselves and were subject to a campaign of eavesdropping, surveillance, blackmail, and threats. He rejected the possibility of cooperating with investigators, writing, "I would rather die behind bars than give in to the aforementioned principles."[28]
At this time, Chornovil also departed from principles ofMarxism–Leninism, instead adopting a cautiously favourable view oflibertarian socialism as exemplified byMykhailo Drahomanov. In an October 1971 letter to Moroz Chornovil remarked that in his studies of anarchist revolutionariesPierre-Joseph Proudhon andMikhail Bakunin he had come to reject unconditional support for Drahomanov's policies, but believed that the earlier intellectual's libertarian views on self-government were worth supporting. This attitude later informed his support for federalism.[29]
Chornovil established the Civic Committee for the Defence of Nina Strokata on 21 December 1971, following the eponymous activist's arrest. This marked a change in his attitude towards the formation of human rights organisations; he had previously rejected them in favour of petition campaigns, viewing the formation of an organisation as impossible due to the circumstances of Ukraine's status within the Soviet Union, but this position had come under increasing criticism from dissidents (notably Moroz) and the Ukrainian public, who viewed them as too slow and without significant results. The committee had its roots in public committees established for the legal defence ofAngela Davis, an American civil rights activist whose case was popular in the Soviet Union. Chornovil believed that by delivering information on the case to the U.N. Human Rights Committee Strokata could be freed, and additionally requested the support of Ivan Dziuba, Strokata's close friend Leonid Tymchuk, Moscow-based activistsPyotr Yakir andLyudmila Alexeyeva, andZynoviia Franko, granddaughter of the writerIvan Franko.[30]
Dziuba and Franko both refused to take part in the committee. Franko believed that it should be subordinated toAndrei Sakharov'sCommittee on Human Rights in the USSR and felt that it was pointless to form a group to defend a single individual. Dziuba, on the other hand, refused to join forces with Sakharov's committee, believing that they were insufficiently attentive to repressive activities occurring in Ukraine, and further stated that he would issue a statement about Strokata when he believed the time was right. Other dissidents, such as Svitlychnyi,Mykhailyna Kotsiubynska, andHryhorii Kochur also refused to support the committee. These refusals impacted Chornovil, particularly that of Franko, whose familial ties he believed could help protect the committee from being attacked by the Soviet government.[30]
Tymchuk ultimately joined the committee, as did Vasyl Stus. The group based its reasoning on the Soviet constitution, theUniversal Declaration of Human Rights, and theInternational Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The committee's publications included, in a first for Soviet activists, the addresses of its members, where submissions for materials on Strokata's behalf were to be sent. It was the first human rights organisation in Ukraine's history, but it would be destroyed the next year after all but one of its members (Tymchuk) were arrested.[31]
.jpg)
Anotherwide-reaching crackdown on Ukrainian intelligentsia began in January 1972, sparked by the arrest of the Belgian-Ukrainian Yaroslav Dobosh, anOrganisation of Ukrainian Nationalists member tasked with smugglingsamvydav out of the Soviet Union. Chornovil was arrested on 12 January following aVertep celebration at the Lviv flat of Olena Antoniv. He was charged under articles 62 (anti-Soviet agitation) and 187-1 (slander against the Soviet Union) of the criminal code of the Ukrainian SSR.[32] The Vertep ceremony had been organised as a protest against Soviet cultural and religious policy, additionally serving as a fundraising effort forThe Ukrainian Herald and for political prisoners and their families. It raised 250 rubles, which were used to assist those who had been arrested during the crackdown instead. Chornovil was imprisoned at theKGB pre-trial detention centre in Lviv, alongsideIryna Kalynets,Ivan Gel,Stefaniia Shabatura, Mykhaylo Osadchy andYaroslav Dashkevych.[33]
Chornovil's trial took place behind closed doors.[9] Prosecutors cited as justification for the charges the belief that he was responsible for the contents ofThe Ukrainian Herald, which he denied.[34] During the investigation, other dissident activists refused to give evidence of Chornovil's role in the paper; it relied on guesses from other individuals, such as Zynoviia Franko, for its arguments.[35] Chornovil likewise refused to give evidence against fellow dissidents or cooperate with investigators, stating during a 2 February 1972 interrogation that he believed his trial to be illegal and unrelated to that of other dissidents. He was interrogated more than one hundred times during his trial, with 83 interrogations in 1972.[9]
Chornovil's employment of several different conflicting forms of writing and spelling formed a significant part of his defence, and he used it to argue that he had been blamed without linguistic analysis of the text. In the minutes of a 15 January 1973 court appearance Chornovil asserted, "Any investigation into my case does not exist, there is open preparation of a massacre against me, and no means are being spared. From this moment on, I refuse to participate in such an 'investigation'."[34] Wiretapping of Chornovil's cell led KGB investigators to discover that Chornovil intended to declare a hunger strike if sent into exile outside of Ukraine, and that he desired to be allowed to leave the Soviet Union for Yugoslavia.[36]
The sentence given at the conclusion of Chornovil's trial has been disputed;Amnesty International stated in 1977 that he had been sentenced to seven years' imprisonment and five years' exile;[37]The New York Times in March 1973 claimed that he had been subject to twelve years' imprisonment and exile, without differentiating between the two;[38] TheEncyclopedia of Ukraine in 2015 asserted that he received a term of six years' imprisonment and three years' internal exile,[7] which historians Bohdan Paska[39] and Oleh Bazhan similarly professed. According to Bazhan, Chornovil was sentenced on 8 April 1973 by the Lviv Oblast Court,[36] though Chornovil recollected in 1974 that he had been sentenced on 12 April.[40] Chornovil made three appeals to higher courts regarding his case; the first two were rejected, while the third was formally accepted in part – although no changes were made to Chornovil's sentence.[9]
Following his trial Chornovil was sent to acorrective labour colony in theMordovian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic. From 1973 to 1978 he was variously imprisoned at two camps; ZhKh-385/17-A[a] and ZhKh-385/3.[b][12]
Despite his imprisonment, Chornovil continued to actively lead prisoners' protests, leading him to be nicknamed "General of thezeks" by author and dissidentMikhail Kheifets. He was placed in achamber-type room [ru][c] after refusing to obey any of the rules which prisoners were meant to follow.[41] B. Azernikov and L. Kaminskyi, two individuals who were imprisoned at the same camp as Chornovil, also described him as having "great authority among all political prisoners," and wrote an open letter to global society urging his release after they left the Soviet Union in 1975.[42]
Chornovil's activities continued to draw international attention during his imprisonment. He was recognised as aprisoner of conscience by human rights group Amnesty International,[37] and awarded the Nicholas Tomalin Prize for Journalism, recognising writers whose freedom of expression is threatened, in 1975.[43] Around this time Chornovil also began to smuggle his writings out of prison, and used the opportunity as a means to continue to demonstrate Soviet human rights abuses.[44] He wrote a letter to U.S. PresidentGerald Ford urging him to match the policy ofdétente with increased attention towards human rights in the Soviet Union, alleging that the Soviet authorities had used détente as a means by which to suppress dissident voices.[45] He further urged him to support theJackson–Vanik amendment, which sanctioned the Soviet Union in an effort to allow forfreedom of migration from the country.[46] Alongside Boris Penson, he wrote thesamvydav booklet "Daily Life in the Mordovian Camps", which was smuggled toJerusalem and published in Russian before being translated into Ukrainian in theMunich-basedSuchasnist journal the next year.[7]
TheHelsinki Accords were signed between 30 July and 1 August 1975. The signatory nations comprised all of Europe (aside fromAlbania), the Soviet Union, the United States, and Canada. In the Soviet Union, the Helsinki Accords were seen as marking a new beginning for dissidents, who found that they had a means to reveal Soviet human rights abuses. Referring to themselves as "Helsinki monitors", they found support from the United States Congress, which established theConference on Security and Co-operation in Europe in July 1976 to organise responses to human rights violations.[47]Mykola Rudenko, a dissident living in the Kyiv neighbourhood ofKoncha-Zaspa, declared the formation of theUkrainian Helsinki Group on 9 November 1975 in an effort to highlight abuses.[48] Chornovil was imprisoned at the time of the group's founding, and would not be able to become a member until he was released from prison in 1979.[49]
Along with Moroz and other political prisoners, Chornovil's resistance activities continued after the establishment of the UHG. The duo took part in a 12 January 1977 hunger strike in which they called for an end to persecution on the basis of national beliefs. At this time, however, a split was forming among Ukrainian political prisoners over whether it was better to actively resist the Soviet prison system (as represented by Moroz, Karavanskyi and Ivan Gel) and those who favoured self-preservation above all else (as represented by refusenikEduard Kuznetsov,Oleksii Murzhenko andDanylo Shumuk). With influence from the KGB, the two factions began to clash openly. Chornovil, imprisoned in a different camp from Moroz and Shumuk, refused to take a side in the conflict and served as a mediator. In early 1977, during a meeting with Shumuk at a hospital, Chornovil accused the former of artificially intensifying his conflict with Moroz, and compared letters by Shumuk to Canadian family members (in which he disparaged Moroz) as being equivalent to police complaints. Following his release from prison, Chornovil accused Shumuk and Moroz of being equally responsible for the feud as a result of their egocentric attitudes.[50]
Chornovil was released from prison and again sent to Chappanda in early 1978. There, he continued to write about the status of political prisoners and human rights within the Soviet Union.[51] He also continued to get involved in the conflict between Moroz and Shumuk; in a letter to Moroz's wife Raisa, he called for a public "boycott" of Shumuk, while arguing that Moroz was being inflexible. Moroz's nine-year imprisonment had seriously impacted his mental and emotional state; Chornovil characterised him as self-aggrandising and narcissistic. During his exile, Chornovil's friendship with Moroz came to an end as the former sought to distance himself from the latter, owing to the conflict with Shumuk.[52]
During his exile, Chornovil continued to send letters to the Soviet authorities. In a 10 April 1978 letter to theProcurator General of the Soviet Union, he criticised the fact that the theoretically wide-reaching rights granted by the Soviet constitution were absent in reality, asking "Why do Soviet laws exist?".[53] He also wrote asamvydav pamphlet, entitled "Only One Year",[54] and was admitted toPEN International that year.[51] At the time, he was working as a labourer on asovkhoz farm in Nyurba,[54] where he had been sent in October 1979. As previously, much of Chornovil'ssamvydav works served to illustrate human rights abuses and the conditions faced by prisoners of conscience.[55]
Chornovil joined the Ukrainian Helsinki Group from exile on 22 May 1979.[49] From November 1979 to March 1980 he was placed under constant surveillance by the KGB, which recorded that he established contacts with dissidents Mykhailo Horyn,Oksana Meshko, andIvan Sokulskyi. He also made contact with several other individuals who wished to establish chapters of the UHG in theoblasts of Ukraine. Unbeknownest to Chornovil, Meshko, at the time leader of the UHG, had also fallen under heavy KGB surveillance, and had ceased to admit individuals in order to prevent their arrests. Zenovii Krasivskyi, a leading UHG member, dispatchedPetro Rozumnyi to visit imprisoned and exiled dissidents. Among them was Chornovil, who was asked to replace Meshko as head of the UHG.[55]
Chornovil was arrested yet again on 8,[56] 9,[57] or 15[12] April 1980 on charges of attempted rape. The charges are frequently described in Ukrainian historiography as a total fabrication,[12][56][22] and were likewise referred to as such by the AmericanTime magazine.[58] The charges of attempted rape reflected similar such accusations against several other leading dissidents at the time, such asMykola Horbal,Yaroslav Lesiv, andYosyf Zisels.Myroslav Marynovych, a member of the UHG, later accused the KGB of outright falsifying information which led to Chornovil's arrest, quoting a KGB officer as stating that "we will not make any more martyrs" by arresting individuals exclusively on political charges.[59] Chornovil's arrest, as well as those of several other dissidents from Ukraine and throughout the Soviet Union, took place amidst a meeting of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe inMadrid, andTime stated that some observers believed the arrests were done to demonstrate Soviet umbrage towards the Helsinki Accords.[58]
Following his arrest, Chornovil declared a hunger strike,[57] characterising his arrest and those of others as contrary to Leninist ideals and an effort to stifle dissent in the leadup to the1980 Summer Olympics.[60] He was moved to a prison camp inTabaga, Yakutia, where he was placed into a cell smeared with vomit and feces. At one point, he was transferred to a "recreation room", where he had no access to water. Lacking strength as a result of his hunger strike, Chornovil crawled on all fours to reach the prison's toilet, which was one storey below his cell and across the prison yard. Several times, he passed out from exhaustion, and was awoken by being doused in water by guards. During an epidemic of dysentery at the camp, Chornovil was infected, and he promptly ended his hunger strike after doctors stated that they would refuse to treat him if he did not end his hunger strike. Chornovil was later held in solitary confinement from 5 to 21 November 1980 as a response to the hunger strike.[57] He was found guilty by a closed court in the city ofMirny and sentenced to five years imprisonment.[12]
Chornovil continued to write in prison, including a February 1981 open letter to the26th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in which he accused General Secretary Leonid Brezhnev and KGB chairmanYuri Andropov of orchestrating massive purges against the UHG. He also wrote to his wife, urging "no compromises" in dissidents' reactions to the congress. He wrote another letter on 9 April 1981, this time to the United Nations Human Rights Committee, Amnesty International, theCommittee for the Free World, and theHelsinki Committees for Human Rights urging increased attention towards Soviet persecution of the UHG in formulating their diplomatic policies towards the Soviet Union.[61] Chornovil was released in 1983, but was barred from returning to Ukraine. He remained in the town ofPokrovsk,[12] working as a fire stoker.[22] On 15 April 1985[12] he was given permission to return to Ukraine by Soviet leaderMikhail Gorbachev as part of hisperestroika.[5][6] Chornovil spent a total of 15 years imprisoned by the Soviet government.[5]
By the time Chornovil returned to Ukraine, the country had changed dramatically since his 1972 arrest. First SecretaryPetro Shelest had himself been removed and replaced byVolodymyr Shcherbytsky, a hardliner and a member of Brezhnev'sDnipropetrovsk Mafia. Shcherbytsky had dramatically escalated Russification policies and a crackdown on Ukrainian culture during his rule. Partially as a result of Shcherbytsky's policies, by the time ofBrezhnev's death in 1982, less books had been published in Ukrainian than during the rule of Joseph Stalin.[62]
On 26 April 1986an explosion occurred at the No. 4 reactor ofChernobyl Nuclear Power Plant. The explosion resulted in the discharge of radiation across northern Ukraine, as well as western Russia and most of Belarus. The disaster's consequences (including the evacuation of thousands of individuals), as well as the early inaction of the Ukrainian communist government, significantly worsened public attitudes towards Shcherbytsky's government. In the aftermath of the Chernobyl disaster, the Communist Party of Ukraine experienced a crisis of public confidence, which led Chornovil and other Ukrainian dissidents to begin the process of building a unified group in opposition to communist rule.[63]
Chornovil formally re-launchedThe Ukrainian Herald on 21 August 1987. The first issue of the renewed newspaper was dedicated to Vasyl Stus, who had died in prison in 1985. The new editorial board comprised Chornovil, Ivan Gel, Mykhailo Horyn, andPavlo Skochok, and several leading Ukrainian intellectuals contributed essays.[64] The editorial board was based in Chornovil's home,[65] and theHerald became part of the Ukrainian Helsinki Group.[51]
In the summer of the same year, Chornovil was visited by Martha Kolomiyets, an American journalist for Ukrainianian diaspora newspaperThe Ukrainian Weekly. Kolomiyets interviewed Chornovil in a video that was subsequently broadcast on television in Lviv, Kyiv, and Moscow as part of an effort by the Soviet government to create a poor impression of Chornovil. On the contrary, the interview, during which he was allowed to freely articulate the dissident movement's attitude towards religion and Ukrainian culture, only boosted Chornovil's image and that of the dissident movement. Kolomiyets was later arrested as an "American saboteur", but by then the interview had already been widely-publicised and shared.[66]
Human rights activities continued to be a significant focus for Chornovil's efforts following his release. On 24 February 1987 he travelled to theLubyanka Building, the KGB's headquarters in Moscow, where he spoke to employees and demanded the release of all political prisoners, the clearing of their sentences, and the return of objects seized from them during searches. While at Lubyanka, he announced that, in response to official celebrations of the1000th anniversary of the Christianization of Rus', the dissident movement would launch a campaign to reverse the decision of the 1946Synod of Lviv that merged theUkrainian Greek Catholic Church into theRussian Orthodox Church.[67]
Chornovil was one of the founding members of the Ukrainian Initiative Group for the Liberation of Prisoners of Conscience, led by Mykhailo Horyn. The two joinedVasyl Barladianu, Gel,Zorian Popadiuk, andStepan Khmara in advocating for the removal of anti-Soviet agitation from the criminal code and the release and rehabilitation of all political prisoners.[68] Despite Gorbachev's reforms, the Soviet government continued to intervene against Chornovil and other dissidents. In one instance, Chornovil was blocked from attending a planned December 1987 seminar on the rights of non-Russian nations within the Soviet Union by being called to a "preventive" interview in Lviv, where he was warned against involvement in "anti-social" activities.[69]
Meanwhile, Shcherbytsky was facing internal revolt over his policies of Russification. The Writers' Union of Ukraine, the state organ of writers, held a plenum titled "Ukrainian Soviet literature in the patriotic and international education of working people" in June 1987. The meeting was dedicated to the preservation and strengthening of the Ukrainian language.[70] In Moscow, Gorbachev was putting increasing pressure on Shcherbytsky, by then the leading conservative member of the Central Committee, to resign from his positions. In response, the Soviet Ukrainian leader launched a public relations campaign against Chornovil and other dissidents, accusing theHerald's editorial board of being supported by "foreign subversive services". A press release was issued by Shcherbytsky's office on 22 December 1987 pledging to increase KGB surveillance of dissidents, particularly Chornovil. Newspapers throughout the country, includingSoviet Ukraine [uk],Evening Kyiv, andLviv Pravda were mobilised to attack the dissident movement, as were radio and television stations.[71] Chornovil responded with a letter upbraiding the writers of one such article in the Lviv newspaperFree Ukraine [uk], saying that the treatment of himself and Horyn was comparable to that ofAleksandr Solzhenitsyn 15 years prior.[72]
On 11 March 1988 Chornovil formally re-established the Ukrainian Helsinki Group in a letter co-signed by Mykhailo Horyn and Krasivskyi, although the group had already resumed activity in the summer of the previous year. By this time, several independent organisations existed, such as theLion's Society,Spadshchyna, and theUkrainian Culturological Club. The fragmented nature of the dissident movement (now united under the label ofNational Democracy) led Chornovil to begin the process of bringing the organisations together into one unified structure in April 1988.[73] Further attention was brought to the idea of unifying independent groups in June, after thousands of people attended protests commemorating the Chernobyl disaster in Lviv. Those present called for apopular front of independent organisations, in line with similar proposals in theBaltic states at the time.[74]
Chornovil created theUkrainian Helsinki Union (Ukrainian:Українська Гельсінська спілка,romanised: Ukrainska Helsinska spilka, abbreviated UHS) on 7 June 1988. Contrary to its name, the new structure was a political party, though it was not referred to as such in order to avoid giving the Soviet government justification to crack down on activists. It was the first independent political party in Soviet Ukraine.[75] During the founding meeting of the UHS on 7 July 1988, Chornovil presented the party's programme, co-written by him and Bohdan and Mykhailo Horyn.[76] It called for Ukrainian independence, which was described as being beneficial to both Ukrainians and Ukrainian minorities, as well as a confederation between the countries of the Soviet Union. The latter position was one of pragmatism, taken in order to prevent the UHS from being banned.[77]
Chornovil's activities during this time period were not limited to Ukraine; he maintained extensive contacts with other dissidents, particularly those from the Baltic states, Armenia, and Georgia. A 8 September 1988 internal notice of the Ukrainian KGB informed employees that an organisation known as the International Committee for the Protection of Political Prisoners, established by Chornovil and Armenian dissidentParuyr Hayrikyan in January 1988, was actively involved in efforts to repeal articles on anti-Soviet agitation, to close prison camps andpsikhushkas, and to solidify cooperation between the nationalist movements of Ukraine and other countries within the Soviet Union.[78] At a 24–25 September conference of dissident groups inRiga, Chornovil (along withOles Shevchenko and Khmara) represented the UHS. Chornovil wrote the conference's concluding statement, which read, "Hearing the report about the situation in Latvia, Lithuania, Ukraine, Moldavia, Estonia, that theCrimean Tatar movement has, in Georgia [...] We call on the participants of the National-Democratic movements of the peoples of the USSR to join us, rallying under the slogan that has always united the peoples of the world who suffered internal or external violence:For our freedom and yours!"[79]
TheRevolutions of 1989 sweeping Central and Eastern Europe throughout 1988 and 1989 greatly interested Chornovil, particularly in their adherence to non-violence. Their success later in the latter year would lead Chornovil to abandon his public support for Marxism–Leninism in favour of anti-communism, which he had supported in private since the mid-1960s but avoided publicly stating in an effort to appear as moderate.[80] Other Ukrainian intellectuals, too, began to back anti-communism, and the Writers' Union of Ukraine began to develop a popular front in late 1988, justifying it as encouraging the populace to become more active in local government and take a greater interest in economic concerns. The Writers' Union published a draft programme for its proposed group inLiterary Ukraine on 16 February 1989, in which it called for the establishment of Ukrainian as the state language of the Ukrainian SSR, a national and cultural revival, and Ukrainian self-government, as well as the strengthening of linguistic rights for minorities within Ukraine.[81] Chornovil additionally supported the spread ofMemorial, a human rights movement in the Soviet Union, to Ukraine, writing a positive letter to the presidium of the group's Ukrainian chapter upon its founding in March 1989.[82]
On 18 July 1989, coal miners in the city ofMakiivka, in the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine, began striking. The strikes, part of abroader, union-wide wave of mining strikes, was primarily motivated by declining social conditions in the region and both Ukraine and the Soviet Union as a whole. Promises made by the Twelfth Five-Year Plan had gone unfulfilled,[83] and severe shortages in basic goods, such as soap, infuriated miners.[84] Soviet leaders, Gorbachev among them, sought to implementStakhanovite policies, and worker safety was sacrificed as a result.[85] The striking miners of the Donbas first demanded increased social protections and wages. From the outset, however, several miners had also viewed the Ukrainian independence movement with sympathy as a potential path to self-governance.[86]
Chornovil supported the strikes from their early days, issuing a statement on 21 July 1989 in part saying,
Mass strikes of miners in Russia and Ukraine are tearing down the veil of party demagoguery regarding the unity of the party and the people, which, they claimed, is being attacked by various "extremists" there. A new stage of Perestroika is beginning, one may say its workers' stage, being characterised by mass people's movements, not only national, but also social.[87]
On the contrary, Shcherbytsky reacted harshly to the strikes. He again mobilised the government against the perceived threat, disparaging the miners in state media and preventing communications between strike committees in various cities.[86] This radicalised the miners, who soon began to call for the resignations of Shcherbytsky andValentyna Shevchenko,Chairman of the Supreme Soviet of Ukraine.[88]
While the strikes were unfolding, Chornovil continued to be active in other political sectors. He published a pre-election programme for himself in August 1989, ahead of theMarch 1990 Supreme Soviet election, in which he called for "statehood, democracy, and self-government", cooperation with non-ethnic Ukrainians, and federalism. Chornovil's concept of a federal Ukraine was based on twelve "lands" (Ukrainian:землі,romanised: zemli), with internal borders being roughly defined by the governorates of theUkrainian People's Republic plus a separate land for the Donbas. Crimea was to exist as either an independent state or an autonomous republic of Ukraine, and theCentral Rada was to be reestablished as a bicameral body including deputies elected in equal numbers byproportional representation and from the lands.[89] According to Vasyl Derevinskyi, a biographer of Chornovil, at this time he was also one of the primary individuals pushing for the adoption of pro-independence positions within the UHS at this time, proposing that the question of independence be proposed in the party's programme.[90]
On 8 September 1989, thePeople's Movement of Ukraine (Ukrainian:Народний рух України,romanised: Narodnyi rukh Ukrainy, abbreviated as'Rukh') was established on the basis of the programme of the Writers' Union.[91] Fully named as the "People's Movement of Ukraine for Perestroika", its first leader was poetIvan Drach. Despite this, however, Chornovil was thede facto leader of the party and organised its establishment, according to historianRoman Hrytskiv [uk].Rukh's founding meeting was the largest gathering of Ukrainian anti-communists ever,[92] comprising around 1,100 delegates, 130 journalists, representatives of the Polish government and theSolidarity trade union, members of the Ukrainian diaspora in Latvia and Lithuania, and a select few members of the Communist Party (among themLeonid Kravchuk, Chornovil's future political rival).[93] Coincidentally, Shcherbytsky was forced to resign the same month, a combination of pressure from the miners' strikes[88] and from Gorbachev, whose reforms were at odds with Shcherbytsky's status as one of the few remaining conservatives to hold high office.[94]
Late 1989 and 1990 were marked by the consolidation of anti-communist groups as part of the electoral campaign, with the opposition disseminating information via leaflets and amateur newspapers. This was a reaction to the Communist Party's domination of most channels of information, and proved largely successful, forming the basis for Ukraine's later independent media.[95] Another noteworthy part of the anti-communist campaign in 1990 was a human chain from Lviv to Kyiv commemorating the anniversary of theUnification Act, signed on 22 January 1919. Around three million people participated in the chain in what was at that point the largest protest undertaken byRukh.[96] Chornovil played a significant role in the event being realised, having pushed for the Unification Act's anniversary to be recognised as a holiday.[97] Chornovil, along with other dissidents and the Writer's Union, also pursued a strategy of strengtheningRukh's position in rural Ukraine.[98]
The Supreme Soviet election, the first multi-party vote in Soviet Ukraine's history, was held on 4 March 1990. It was marked by high turnout, with 85% of registered voters participating. In most of Ukraine, the result was beneficial for the communists, with 90% of previously-elected deputies being re-elected and 373 of 450 deputies belonging to the Communist Party. In all three Galician oblasts,[e] however, theDemocratic Bloc, aRukh-led coalition,[99] won the majority of seats.Ivan Plyushch, who was elected as Deputy Chairman of the Supreme Soviet, wrote in 2010 that the communist majority was unable to command the same influence at a parliamentary level as the Democratic Bloc was.[100] Chornovil was elected as a Democratic Bloc deputy from the city of Lviv'sShevchenkivskyi District by an absolute majority, winning 68.60% of all votes against seven other candidates.[101] Within the Supreme Soviet Chornovil was among the leaders of the Democratic Bloc's radical wing.[98]
Chornovil was also elected Chairman of theLviv Oblast Council in April 1990, making him the first non-communist head of government of Lviv Oblast.[98] He quickly adapted from life as a dissident to politics, moving to the right and becoming one of the first Ukrainian politicians to explicitly endorse an anti-communist revolution.[102] In the economic sector, he launched land reforms by abolishing collective farms and redistributing the lands to peasants, privatised the housing market and light industry.[98] Socially, he actively supported Ukraine's cultural and national revival; Ukrainian, rather than Soviet symbols were used by his government, soldiers of theUkrainian Insurgent Army were recognised as veterans, the ban on the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church imposed by the Synod of Lviv was repealed and religious holidays were recognised as public holidays.[97]Statues of Vladimir Lenin weredemolished for the first time under Chornovil's government,[103] with the statue in Chervonohrad (nowSheptytskyi) being toppled on 1 July 1990. This launched a wave of demolitions of Lenin monuments in Galicia throughout 1990 and 1991.[104]
Chornovil's policies were directly at odds with the laws of the Ukrainian SSR and the Soviet Union at the time, and his government was castigated in Ukrainian and Union-wide pro-government media. Despite this, the other Galician oblasts, which had come under the control ofRukh, soon followed Chornovil's example in pursuing reforms.[105] The Soviet government imposed a blockade of Galicia in response, leading to the formation of theGalician Assembly by the oblasts in an effort to strengthen economic ties amongst one another. Chornovil was appointed as head of the Galician Assembly upon its formation.[97]
As a deputy of the Supreme Soviet, Chornovil devoted himself to increasing Ukraine's sovereignty within the Soviet Union with the eventual aim of independence, as well as land reform, environmental conservation, minority and religious rights, federalism and the enshrining of Ukrainian as the sole language of government.[106] He was nominated as the Democratic Bloc's candidate for Chairman of the Supreme Soviet, though he refused the nomination and endorsed the coalition's leader,Ihor Yukhnovskyi. Ultimately, neither were elected, as the communists pushed throughVladimir Ivashko.[107] During voting, Chornovil openly called for Ukraine's independence from the Soviet Union, arguing it was the only possible way to end what he referred to as the "economic, environmental and spiritual catastrophe" facing Ukraine at the time.[103]
Chornovil continued to advocate for federalism, saying in a May 1990 press conference that "Kyivan centralism" would lead to the emergence of Russian nationalism in the Donbas and aRusyn identity in Zakarpattia Oblast.[108] Historian Stepan Kobuta has argued that the rejection of Soviet laws by Galicia was an expression of Chornovil's federalist beliefs.[109] The same month, as conflicts between rural Greek Catholics and Orthodox Christians broke out, the government of Lviv Oblast experimented with holding referendums in villages to determine which church would be given control of churches. As part of the system, which was conceived by Chornovil, after a decision was reached the majority sect would carry responsibility for building a church belonging to the minority's faith. This system successfully prevented a sectarian conflict from emerging in the region.[110]
On 12 June 1990, Russiadeclared sovereignty within the Soviet Union. This gave a boost to efforts by the Democratic Bloc to push for voting on theDeclaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine, which had been blocked by communist deputies. During a 5 July debate on the declaration, Chornovil and fellow coalition memberMykhailo Batih accused the communists of being told how to vote by the Party. Chornovil subsequently revealed that several deputies had received instructions to amend the draft law on sovereignty in order to strip it of measures such as the establishment of an independent military or legal system. This revelation led acting Supreme Soviet chairman Ivan Plyushch to launch an investigation, which intensified after it was discovered that several deputies had quoted the instructions word-for-word.[111]
Chornovil and an unknown communist deputy then attempted to begin a vote on the declaration. Plyushch refused, noting that members of theCongress of People's Deputies of the Soviet Union had not yet returned and that quorum was therefore impossible. In response, Chornovil moved to demand the immediate return of Soviet People's Deputies, which was then endorsed by pro-sovereignty communists and passed by a wide margin. Four days later, the deputies returned and debate on the Declaration of State Sovereignty resumed. The anti-declaration group was led byStanislav Hurenko and Leonid Kravchuk, who claimed that the matter of sovereignty would be resolved in Moscow rather than Kyiv.[112]
Ivashko formally resigned from his Ukrainian government positions on 11 July to become deputyGeneral Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. This move came as a shock to the Ukrainian public, as the CPSU was perceived as collapsing, and Ivashko's resignation from Ukrainian positions to serve the party demonstrated apathy towards the Ukrainian population. Following Ivashko's resignation, the communists were left demoralised, allowing Chornovil to push the declaration through office. It was eventually passed on 16 July 1990, giving precedence to Ukrainian laws over the laws of the Soviet government.[113] This was a major victory for Chornovil, who had privately sought a declaration of state sovereignty since July 1989.[106]
Ukrainian public sentiment continued to turn against the government through the remainder of 1990. A series of student protests, known as theRevolution on Granite, began in October after groups of students claimed that the government had manipulated the results in order to prevent the Democratic Bloc from achieving a majority. The students launched a hunger strike on October Revolution Square in Kyiv (nowMaidan Nezalezhnosti), and were subsequently mocked by communist deputies. This insensitive attitude led almost all moderates and national communists to abandon the Communist Party, following the lead of writerOles Honchar. These individuals defected to the National-Democrats, further weakening the remaining communists.[114]
TheJanuary Events, in which the Soviet government deployed the military on 16 January 1991 in an attempt to prevent Lithuania from becoming independent, led Chornovil to temporarily reorient his policies towards the establishment of a Ukrainian military separate from theSoviet Army. In order to achieve this, he co-founded the Military Collegium ofRukh alongsideIhor Derkach,Mykola Porovskyi,Vitalii Lazorkin andVilen Martyrosian, which was tasked with creating theArmed Forces of Ukraine and preventing the usage of Ukrainian troops in Soviet government crackdowns.[115] Chornovil continued to advocate for integration of the Galician oblasts, particularly in expanding access to education and inter-oblast trade, at the second meeting of the Galician Assembly on 16 February 1991.[116] Chornovil also oversaw aMarch 1991 independence referendum [uk], in which the majority of the Galician oblasts voted for Ukraine to separate from the Soviet Union.[117]
The Supreme Soviet passed a law on 5 July 1991 establishing the office ofPresident, with its holder to be determined byelection.[118]
Hardliners opposed to Gorbachev's leadership of the Soviet Unionlaunched a coup d'état on 19 August 1991. At the time of the coup, Chornovil was in the city ofZaporizhzhia on a business trip. Upon learning that a putsch had occurred, he immediately returned to Kyiv and began calling for an emergency session of the Supreme Soviet of the Ukrainian SSR; he also banned the Communist Party's activities in Lviv Oblast. In the Supreme Soviet, the deputies of the Democratic Bloc began to advocate for Ukrainian independence, arguing that Ukraine was a part of Europe and not the Soviet Union.[119] Following the failure of the coup, the Supreme Soviet adopted theDeclaration of Independence of Ukraine on 24 August 1991.[116]
The campaign for the presidential election officially began on 1 September 1991.[120] The National-Democratic camp was fractious, with three major candidates (Chornovil, Yukhnovskyi and Levko Lukianenko), while Kravchuk was already a well-established figure as the incumbent, ifde facto, head of state.[121] The race soon narrowed to an effective two-man campaign with Chornovil against Kravchuk, as they were the only candidates with the necessary organisation to compete at a national scale; in spite of Yukhnovskyi's leadership of the Democratic Bloc he was unpopular outside of intellectual urban centres and western Ukraine, while Lukianenko, despite being a popular pro-independence figure, lacked an organised campaign and was unknown in most of Ukraine.[122]
Chornovil travelled throughout Ukraine to spread the message of Ukrainian independence, including staunchly pro-Russian regions such as Crimea. Appealing to both Russophone and Ukrainian-language audiences by speaking in both languages, Chornovil argued for a programme in which he would transition from a planned economy to free-market capitalism within a year via a series of decrees and acquiring the attention of Western investors,[123] as well as membership in theEuropean Economic Community and a hypothetical pan-European collective security organisation.[124] Chornovil condemned Kravchuk as "a sly politician" who was "trying to get [Ukraine] back into the union," warning that he would re-establish political and economic ties with Russia.[123]
Chornovil was initially unpopular due to decades of Soviet propaganda against his beliefs, which Kravchuk had previously directed.[123] The inability of the National-Democrats to nominate a single candidate also contributed to the belief that the dissidents were unfit to rule in the public consciousness.[125] Despite this, Chornovil's campaign gradually began to close the gap outside of Galicia in opinion polling; a poll from November 1991 showed Chornovil with 22% of the vote inOdesa compared to 28% for Kravchuk, with the number of undecided voters growing from a quarter to one-third of the local electorate.[123] Northwestern Ukraine (Khmelnytskyi,Rivne andVolyn oblasts) served as a significant battleground from October, as surveys initially forecasted a practical tie before later giving Chornovil a slight lead.[126]
Ukrainians voted in both the presidential election anda referendum confirming Ukraine's independence on 1 December 1991. 84.18% of the population participated in the referendum, with 90.32% voting in favour.[127] Kravchuk won the presidential election, with 61.59% of the election. Chornovil placed a distant second with 23.27% of the vote, avoiding a runoff. In contrast to the prior predictions of a Chornovil victory in northwestern oblasts, he ultimately only won in Galicia, though he performed well inChernivtsi,Cherkasy,Kyiv, Rivne, Volyn and Zakarpattia oblasts, as well as the city of Kyiv. Chornovil accepted defeat on election day, saying "The pre-election campaign gave me the opportunity to travel all over Ukraine, to meet the people and to politicise the East."[128] He later stated that another six months of campaigning, rather than the truncated campaign that occurred in 1991, would have allowed for a victory.[129]
Following the presidential election, fissures developed withinRukh over the future of the group. One faction, led by Drach and Mykhailo Horyn, sought to dissolve the organisation and support Kravchuk'snation-building efforts, while Chornovil and his supporters sought to reformulate the organisation into a party to support Chornovil's future presidential ambitions.[130] Tensions withinRukh had also been aggravated by the presidential election, in which several members threw their support behind Yukhnovskyi or Lukianenko, rejecting aRukh resolution pledging support for Chornovil as purely recommendatory.[131]
At theThird Congress ofRukh [uk] on 28 February 1992, a split in the organisation was briefly averted. Drach, Horyn and Chornovil were elected as co-chairs ofRukh as a compromise between the two factions.[132] Nonetheless, theUkrainian Republican Party and theDemocratic Party of Ukraine, which had formed out ofRukh, decided to cooperate with Kravchuk.[133] This unity was brought to an end at theFourth Congress [uk] in December 1992, when Chornovil's supporters reorganisedRukh into a centre-right political party under his leadership.[132]
Meanwhile, a crisis was brewing over the future of Crimea. Crimea's ethnically-Russian population now sought to break away from Ukraine and unify with Russia. On 5 May 1992, tensions came to a head as the local government of Crimea voted todeclare its independence from Ukraine. The flag of Ukraine was replaced with the flag of Russia, and a wave of repressions against the indigenous Crimean Tatar population began.[134] Chornovil, who had maintained an interest in Crimean Tatars since his imprisonment,[135] called for theVerkhovna Rada (Ukraine's newly-independent parliament, replacing the Supreme Soviet) to cancel Crimea's declaration of independence and demand new elections to theVerkhovna Rada of Crimea. Privately, Chornovil expressed a desire to deploy the Ukrainian military to Crimea, but he did not publicly state this as he felt that such a demand would go unfulfilled by Kravchuk or the rest of the government.[134]
As the crisis in Crimea continued, the Ukrainian economy collapsed, a result of the government's failure to adapt to changing economic realities within the former Soviet Union and its economy dominated by imports. Hyperinflation began and productivity rose. At one point, the Ukrainian government considered sellingits nuclear arsenal in order to alleviate economic pressures. These political and economic crises led to fears among many deputies that Ukraine would soon lose its independence;[136] Chornovil, on the contrary, believed that by securing Ukraine's sovereignty, it would lead to an improvement in political and economic conditions, and he continued to oppose Kravchuk, with whom he continued to maintain an acrimonious rivalry.[137]
Independent trade unions, incensed by the refusal of Kravchuk's government to guarantee workers' benefits and compensation, launched wide-reaching strikes on 2 September 1992. Like the strikes of 1989–1991 the strikers were largely coal miners, but in contrast to the previous strikes they failed to gain wide-reaching support, a fact thatLafayette College professor Stephen Crowley attributes to it having been called by a nation-wide union instead of by local, Donbas-based strike committees. The coal miners were joined by Kyiv's public transportation workers in February 1993, a measure that made the strike deeply unpopular among the public. Rather than endorsing the strikes, as they previously had,Rukh condemned them (as did almost all other parties) and called upon the government to "punish the real organisers of the strike". Chornovil in particular argued for the curtailing of political activity, especially strikes, in order to ensure stability.[138]
Russia waded into the Crimean crisis later in 1993.Valentin Agafonov [ru], deputy chairman of theSupreme Soviet of Russia, pledged to recognise Crimea if their independence was confirmed by referendum. In June, the city ofSevastopol additionally applied to join theRussian Federation. Pro-Russian activistYuriy Meshkov became the impromptu leader of the movement for Crimea's annexation into Russia, forming an army comprising soldiers of the SovietBlack Sea Fleet and seizing control of police and media buildings with supporters.[139] The increasing perceived threat from Moscow over Crimea led the Ukrainian population to favour maintaining the nuclear weapons that had come under its control following the Soviet Union's dissolution. Chornovil was among the politicians who supported an independent nuclear arsenal, or alternatively membership in theNATO military alliance, which he felt was the only possible deterrent to Russian expansionism in the case that they were required to relenquish their weapons.[140] Despite this, Chornovil insisted that war would not occur over Crimea in the immediate term; he believed that within half a year to a year Crimean separatism would lose popularity and that Russian actions would be limited to financing Crimean separatists and aninformation warfare campaign against Ukraine. Both of these predictions would eventually prove accurate.[139]
Kravchuk's government dissolved the Verkhovna Rada and called snapparliamentary andpresidential elections on 17 June 1993 in a bid to stem the miners' anger.[141][142] Chornovil initially chose to contest a Kyiv seat in the parliamentary election, as he felt this would establish him as a national figure and give him the opportunity to tour all of Ukraine to spread his ideological vision. His close ally and friendMykhailo Boichyshyn [uk] was nominated byRukh as the candidate for Lviv's Shevchenkivskyi District. At the time Boichyshyn was Chairman of the Secretariat ofRukh.[143]
On 14 January 1994 Boichyshyn was abducted by armed individuals shortly after leavingRukh's campaign headquarters in Kyiv.[143] He has not been seen since, and he is believed to be dead. Boichyshyn'senforced disappearance was a watershed moment in Ukraine, being the first in a series of mysterious deaths of anti-communist politicians and journalists in Ukraine.[144] At the time of Boichyshyn's abduction, Chornovil was campaigning in the southernMykolaiv Oblast, and the two had spoken by phone shortly before Boichyshyn was "disappeared". Boichyshyn's disappearance had a significant effect on Chornovil. He later chose to instead contest the 357th electoral district (located in Ternopil Oblast) rather than a seat in Kyiv, and he was successfully elected[145] with 62.5% of the vote against 14 opponents.[7]
The results of the parliamentary election boded poorly for Kravchuk's chances in the presidential election: 75% of the population turned out to vote, far exceeding expectations of low turnout and apathy. A split developed between eastern Ukraine, which elected candidates of the newly-reestablishedCommunist Party of Ukraine, and central and western Ukraine, whereRukh performed particularly well.The New York Times noted after the election that Chornovil was regarded as an expected competitor to Kravchuk, alongside former Prime MinisterLeonid Kuchma and Ivan Plyushch, who both won by significant margins after being established as potential opponents of Kravchuk. In the aftermath of the election, Kravchuk argued in a 25 March 1994 address that the presidential election, scheduled for June 1994, would need to be cancelled and petitioned the Verkhovna Rada to grant him emergency powers to undertake economic reforms and fight organised crime.[146]
120 deputies, largely belonging to the national-democratic opposition, lent their support to Kravchuk in his efforts to cancel the elections and obtain greater powers.Rukh gave a reluctant endorsement of Kravchuk's call to postpone the elections under the justification that not doing so without reform of electoral laws would lead to a political crisis, though Chornovil refused to back an expansion of his powers and argued that he would use it to empower former communist officials and agree to hand over both nuclear weapons and the Black Sea Fleet (the ownership of which was disputed) to Russia. Chornovil argued that to expand presidential powers would lead to the emergence of "a quiet dictatorship of the oligarchy". Ultimately, neither proposal was passed as communists took control of the Verkhovna Rada's leadership following the election and blocked any efforts to postpone or cancel the election.[147]
In spite of his electoral success in the parliamentary election, Chornovil decided not to run in the 1994 presidential election and instead endorsed economistVolodymyr Lanovyi,[7] who had been removed from the government by Kravchuk after proposing reforms to end the economic crisis.[146] Journalist Taras Zdorovylo has claimed that it is possible this decision was taken out of fear for his life and the future ofRukh; according to Zdorovylo, Chornovil used his connections from his time in prison to secretly meet with leadingUkrainian mafia figures, who denied responsibility and claimed that the government had ordered Boichyshyn's abduction. Zdorovylo also notes that Kravchuk's government launched a politically-motivated investigation into the finances ofRukh during the election and placed both Chornovil and high-ranking party memberOleksandr Lavrynovych under a security escort, which monitored their conversations.[143]
Leonid Kuchma defeated Kravchuk in the election, becoming the second President of Ukraine. Kuchma's subsequent crackdown on independent media caused Chornovil to become one of the foremost critics of his government.[148] Though power transitioned from one individual to another as a result of Kuchma's victory, the political situation did not significantly change; the country remained controlled by the post-communistnomenklatura, which Chornovil would refer to as a "party of power" in 1996, and an emerging class ofindustrial oligarchs associated with them.[149]
The process of drafting and ratifying aconstitution for independent Ukraine began in 1995. Chornovil, like much of the rest of Ukraine's right-wing and centrist politicians, found himself aligned with Kuchma as the parliamentary left pushed for constitutional articles forbidding the sale and purchase of land and the preservation of Soviet-era local government bodies. Chornovil indicated on 25 March 1995 that he backed Kuchma's proposed constitution, though he expressed thatRukh had "eleven serious objections" to its adoption.[150]
Kuchma's proposed constitution was characterised byOleksandr Moroz (leader of theSocialist Party and then-Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada) as creating an overly-centralised state with strong powers for the executive and lacking an independent judiciary. He rejected Kuchma's constitution, and in June of that year created a second constitutional draft along with Kuchma and 38 other individuals as part of a "Constitutional Commission". This draft was in turn rejected by the right and centre as placing too much power in the president's hands and giving insufficient authority to the judiciary. Chornovil wrote in hisChas-Time [uk] newspaper on 24 November that the draft was "anti-parliamentary" and accusing the drafters of seeking to obstruct the Verkhovna Rada.[150] A constitution was eventually adopted on 28 June 1996, though several provisions supported byRukh, such as private property rights, the affirmation of Ukraine as a unitary state and the right of the Ukrainian people to self-determination, were not adopted.[150]
Aside from the constitution, Chornovil began working as president of the Vasyl Symonenko International Human Rights Foundation in 1994 and became chief editor ofChas-Time in January 1995. He was also appointed as among the first Ukrainian delegates to theParliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe the same year,[151] and along with theUkrainian Red Cross Society organised the donation of 50 tonnes of humanitarian aid to Chechen civilians during theFirst Chechen War.[152] NewspaperGazeta.ua wrote in 2017 that Chornovil was one of the supporters of theUkrainian Orthodox Church – Kyiv Patriarchate during thefuneral of Patriarch Volodymyr, who he had been imprisoned alongside, as protesters attempted to bury him inSaint Sophia Cathedral,[153] though online news portalgalinfo indicates that he instead sought to prevent violence and continue the burial.[154] Chornovil praised Kuchma on a number of occasions during the early years of his presidency for his appointment of National-Democrats to governmental positions.[155] Chornovil also paid a visit toOdesa from 14–16 September 1994, where he hosted a conference at theOdesa National Polytechnic University on the future ofRukh. Chornovil's speech at the Odesa Polytechnic advocated for the strengthening of democratic norms and the creation of a middle class via economic reforms. At the same time, he continued his critique of the emerging oligarchy.[156]
In 1997, Chornovil escalated his feud with Moroz, condemning his speeches as "primitive populism" and blaming him for the escalation of political polarisation in Ukraine.[157] Chornovil also increasingly advocated for Ukrainian integration with other Central and Eastern European states, calling for the establishment of a "Baltic-Black Sea Union", orMizhmoria (Ukrainian:Міжмор'я,lit. 'Intermarium'), the demilitarisation of the Black Sea (thus leading to the abolition of the Black Sea Fleet, which had by 1997 been transferred to Russia) and Ukrainian membership in NATO. Along with Belarusian dissidentZianon Pazniak Chornovil actively promoted the idea of the Baltic-Black Sea Union until his death. Western partners such as U.S. Secretary of StateMadeleine Albright, former British Prime MinisterMargaret Thatcher and Czech PresidentVáclav Havel met with Chornovil on multiple occasions, and he increasingly was regarded by Western leaders as a more trustworthy interlocutor than the largely ex-communist leadership of Ukraine.[158]
Along with a handful of other politicians, Chornovil attended the inauguration ofAslan Maskhadov as President of theChechen Republic of Ichkeria in 1997.[159]Rukh formally declared itself to be in opposition to Kuchma's rule in October of the same year.[160]
Chornovil again ledRukh in the1998 Ukrainian parliamentary election, this time running as the first candidate on the party'sproportional representation list.[161] During the election,Rukh reversed course on federalism, with Chornovil arguing that calls for Ukraine to become a federal republic were "clan federalism".[162] Chornovil was joined byVolodymyr Cherniak, Foreign MinisterHennadiy Udovenko, Drach and Environment MinisterYuriy Kostenko as the leading party-list candidates, along with Crimean Tatar activistMustafa Dzhemilev.Rukh did not form a coalition with any other parties to contest the election, though its candidates included members of non-governmental organisations such asProsvita and theUkrainian Women's Union. The party generally campaigned against the left.[160] Chornovil called on all National-Democratic parties to form a coalition against the left and the right-wingCongress of Ukrainian Nationalists, additionally arguing for agrand coalition with the pro-KuchmaPeople's Democratic Party and theSocial Democratic Party of Ukraine (united).[159] No party agreed to Chornovil's requests for a coalition.[163]
Though they were the second-largest party in the Verkhovna Rada, the result was positive forRukh, which doubled its seats compared to 1994.[164] For the right in general, however, the election was a disappointment, as onlyRukh passed the 4% threshold for party-list representation and the right in general underperformed its traditional result of 20–25% of seats.[165]Rukh announced its intention to challenge the election results as illegitimate following the election. The Communist Party of Ukraine again became the largest party in the Verkhovna Rada, with left-wing parties forming a majority. Though he noted that the results were not as bad for the right as the prior election,[166] Chornovil was left exhausted by the campaign and obtained a public image as being constantly fatigued.[163] At the time, he was sleeping no more than five hours per day due to his balancing of commitments betweenChas-Time and politics. In Lviv Oblast, his traditional support base and a holdout against the privatisation that had occurred throughout Ukraine,Rukh's government was replaced by that of theAgrarian Party, under which political scandals involving kickbacks, money laundering and violence resulting from business feuds became frequent.[167]
AtRukh'sninth congress [uk], held from 12–13 December 1998, Chornovil announced the party's strategy for the1999 presidential election. Titled "Forwards, to the east", it called for greater focus on the populations ofeastern andsouthern Ukraine while maintaining its opposition to the establishment of Russian as a co-official language with Ukrainian.[168]
At the same congress, Chornovil announced his intention to contest the presidency for a second time in the 1999 election.[f] Chornovil andHennadiy Udovenko were the two primary candidates fromRukh to be nominated for the presidency; the final decision was intended to be made at a later date.[169] According toViktor Pynzenyk, leader of the centre-rightReforms and Order Party, he and Chornovil also attempted to persuadeViktor Yushchenko, Governor of theNational Bank of Ukraine, to run for the presidency in 1999.[171]
By this time, a split between members ofRukh who regarded Chornovil as an outdated figure and those who supported him was becoming increasingly apparent. Opponents of Chornovil within the party regarded him as overly-authoritarian, disrespectful of party rules[172] and too close to Kuchma;[173] Chornovil's supporters likewise regarded his opponents as too close to Kuchma[173] and supported by monied interests.[174] Ukrainian historianPavlo Hai-Nyzhnyk has said that Chornovil withdrew his name from the presidential nomination in January 1999[169] and according to theJamestown Foundation he endorsed Udovenko,[175] though Chornovil's sonTaras has disputed this, saying he was still campaigning for the presidency until his death.[170][g]
The split came to a head in February 1999.Yuriy Kostenko led a contingent ofRukh in declaring Chornovil to be removed as leader in a 17[172] or 19 February[180] parliamentary meeting, and declared himself leader of the party in a 27 February meeting of his supporters.[172] Chornovil responded at a 22 February press conference where he compared them to theState Committee on the State of Emergency that led the1991 Soviet coup attempt and accused them of taking $40,000 per month from the Ukrainian government, of taking 4,000 hryvnias from aRukh office, and of taking a million-dollar bribe fromRukh People's DeputyOleh Ishchenko.Kyiv Post deputy editor Jaroslaw Koshiw wrote in a 25 February opinion article that only 17 deputies remained loyal to Chornovil following Kostenko's defection.[180]
The multitude of newspapers belonging toRukh were split by the feud; 11 supported Chornovil, while five backed Kostenko.Dzerkalo Tyzhnia took an independent stance, but generally blamed Chornovil for the split, along with Kuchma and presidential candidateYevhen Marchuk.[179] Chornovil and his followers were scornful towards Kostenko's faction following the split;Les Tanyuk said that "These are people more concerned right now with getting their Mercedes and building their dachas", while Chornovil referred to Kostenko's attempted takeover as a "privatisation of the party" and blamed Kuchma and the government for orchestrating the split.[174]
In a 2012 court proceeding relating to Chornovil's death, Udovenko testified that in February 1999 he was contacted by Viacheslav Babenko, a Ukrainian citizen employed by the RussianFederal Security Service (FSB). According to Udovenko, Babenko warned him that there would be an attempt on Chornovil's life involving Russian intelligence agencies. Chornovil dismissed Babenko's warning as an attempt at intimidation. Mykola Stepanenko, aMinistry of Internal Affairs employee tasked with investigating Chornovil's death, noted Babenko as an individual who had substantial knowledge of Chornovil's daily routine and travel plans.[181]
Chornovil renamedRukh's parliamentary faction to "People's Movement of Ukraine – 1" on 24 February. On 28 February, Kostenko's supporters organised what they referred to as the tenth congress ofRukh, during which they declared that Chornovil had been officially removed as leader and that the party's period of opposition would be replaced by one of "equal partnership". A congress of Chornovil's followers, referred to as the "second stage" of the Ninth Congress by Chornovil, was held on 7 March and attended by 520 delegates of theRukh assembly, more than the two-thirds requirement under the party's statutes.[182]
On 24 March 1999, Chornovil was at a campaign event in the city of Kirovohrad (nowKropyvnytskyi), either for himself or Udovenko.[176][h] While in Kirovohrad, he gave an interview where he expressed the belief that Ukraine's financial and organised crime clans[i] were targetingRukh in an attempt to destroy it and secure the further accumulation of financial capital. He further claimed that Kuchma could only win by assassinating his opponents or turning them against one another. Details of his last phone calls are disputed; his sisterValentyna [uk] has said that he wished her a happy birthday and describedRukh's split as being "all behind us",[184] while Kostenko alleged that he indicated that he had changed his mind and wished to support him, rather than Udovenko, for the presidency.[185]
Shortly before midnight on 25 March 1999,[7] Chornovil was returning to Kyiv from Kirovohrad with aide Yevhen Pavlov andRukh press secretary Dmytro Ponomarchuk.[j] Five kilometres fromBoryspil, while travelling at a speed of 140 kilometres per hour (87 mph),[178] Chornovil'sToyota Corolla collided with aKamaz lorry carrying grain that was stalling at a bend on the highway. Chornovil and Pavlov were both killed instantly, while Ponomarchuk was hospitalised with serious injuries.[183]
Chornovil's funeral was held at Kyiv'sCity Teacher's House (where theUkrainian People's Republic had been proclaimed in 1917) on 29 March,[176] with a procession travelling toSt Volodymyr's Cathedral[7] before his burial atBaikove Cemetery.[186]The Guardian reported that "tens of thousands of Ukrainians" were present;[148] theMilitsiya claimed a figure of 10,000; whileThe Ukrainian Weekly wrote that nearly 50,000 attended "what many consider the largest funeral this city [Kyiv] has ever seen". He was granted a state honour guard, as well as a military orchestra. Most of Ukraine's political elite was present at the funeral, including Kravchuk (who cried at Chornovil's funeral despite their long-running rivalry), Kuchma, Prime MinisterValeriy Pustovoitenko, and Chairman of the Verkhovna RadaOleksandr Tkachenko, as well as several former dissidents and the leaders of almost all political parties, with the notable exceptions of the Communist Party (led byPetro Symonenko) and theProgressive Socialist Party of Ukraine (led byNataliya Vitrenko).[187]
Suspicions of Ukrainian government involvement in Chornovil's death emerged almost immediately,[188] inflamed by Chornovil's controversial nature and the impending presidential election. Minister of Internal AffairsYuriy Kravchenko said in a televised speech on the evening of Chornovil's death that an assassination would not be considered in investigating Chornovil's death. Prior to his burial, Tanyuk and Christian Democratic Party deputyVitaliy Zhuravskyi both alleged that Chornovil had been murdered, while journalistSerhii Naboka noted that the circumstances of his death were similar to other suspicious deaths of Soviet leaders' political opponents.[189] The lorry driver was initially charged with recklessness,[183] but amnestied within a month,[188] and one passenger died under unclear circumstances.[9] Karatnycky, citing an anonymous member of Kuchma's 1999 campaign, notes that Kuchma's other non-communist rivals failed to form a coalition against him, ultimately leading to his victory;[190] Ukrainian political scientistTaras Kuzio likewise describes Kuchma andYevhen Marchuk as the only serious non-leftist contenders for the presidency following Chornovil's death.[191]
The first attempt to investigate Chornovil's death began with a Verkhovna Rada commission in April 1999.[192] Following the 2004–2005Orange Revolution, Kuchma's successorViktor Yushchenko announced that the investigation into the circumstances of the death of Chornovil would be renewed at a 23 August 2006 ceremony inaugurating a statue of Chornovil.[193] On 6 September 2006, Minister of Internal AffairsYuriy Lutsenko declared that Chornovil had been murdered and that evidence proving it had been handed over to theProsecutor General of Ukraine.[194] Prosecutor GeneralOleksandr Medvedko criticised Lutsenko's statements regarding the case as "to put it mildly, unprofessional," and alleged that the information came from an individual convicted of fraud and for whom anInterpol notice had been issued.[195] Since then, investigations into Chornovil's death have been repeatedly closed and reopened without concluding whether Chornovil was the victim of an assassination plot or a simple car crash. The Boryspil District Court declared that an assassination plot did not exist in January 2014 and closed the case, but as of March 2015 it was again the subject of an investigation by the Prosecutor General's office.[7]
Peter Marusenko, a journalist forThe Guardian, argued while reporting Chornovil's funeral that his contribution to Ukrainian history was not recognised by many Ukrainians until after his death.[148] In his 2017 bookThe Near Abroad, professor Zbigniew Wojnowski described Chornovil as "a more inclusive vision of Ukraine, unambiguously pro-European and united by commitment to the rule of law and parliamentary democracy," in contrast to early and mid-20th century nationalist leaderStepan Bandera, and noted that a large poster of Chornovil was present during the 2013–2014Euromaidan protests.[196] Wojnowski defines Chornovil's ideology of "reformist patriotism", advocating for Ukraine to follow reforms of and maintain historical links with Central Europe, as spreading throughout Ukrainian society following Euromaidan and the Orange Revolution.[197]
More critically, Chornovil has been accused of ignoring political realities in lieu of "romanticism" and having a naïve attitude towards politics, as in a 2017 Radio Liberty article by philosopher and writerPetro Kraliuk [uk]. In particular, Kraliuk notes Chornovil's belief in federalism and refusal to work with Kravchuk following his 1991 election defeat as unconstructive.[198]
Chornovil was posthumously awarded the title ofHero of Ukraine in 2000, in recognition of his significance in reestablishing a Ukrainian state.[199] He was also awarded theShevchenko National Prize in 1996 for his investigative journalism, particularly hissamvydav (among themCourt of Law or a Return of the Terror? andWoe from Wit).[200] He has twice been placed among the ten most popular Ukrainians of all time. In the 2008Velyki Ukraïntsi poll, he was placed as Ukraine's seventh most-popular figure, with 2.63% of individuals polled naming him as the greatest Ukrainian of all time.[201] In the 2022 "People's Top" poll, he was the ninth most-popular Ukrainian, with previous polling indicating that his support had increased from 3.5% in 2012 to 8.7% in 2022.[202]
In 2003, theNational Bank of Ukraine issued a commemorative coin with the nominal of 2hryvnias dedicated to Chornovil.[203] In 2009, a Ukrainian stamp devoted to Chornovil was issued.[204]
| Fourth wave | |
|---|---|
| Third wave | |
| Second wave | |
| First wave | |
.jpg)
