The value of freedom: a case study of Ukraine

Abstract

The instrumental and terminal values of freedom are differentiated and considered in the context of its particular forms: freedom to, freedom from and freedom together. It is demonstrated that the contradiction between power and freedom does not hold for all these forms. Namely, freedom to has a very similar meaning to power to and freedom together – to transformative power. This approach sheds new light on the Ukrainian case. The case study involves using two types of analysis: statistical analysis, namely with the help of a multiple regression model, of the World Values Survey data-set (N = 1000 in Ukraine in 2006) and content analysis of the official programmes of 10 presidential candidates in 2010.

Keywords:

• Ukraine
• freedom
• power
• post-socialist
• transition

Acknowledgements

The draft of this text was initially presented as the Seventh Memorial Lecture on Freedom (May 2010) regularly organized at the Ukrainian Catholic University in Lviv, Ukraine, in memory of Olelksandr Krivenko, a prominent Ukrainian journalist and civic activist. The author is especially indebted to one of its organizers, Orest Drul, for his valuable assistance and discussions. The paper was also presented at the Canadian Association of Slavists annual conference in May 2014 (Brock University, St. Catharines, ON). Sheryl Curtis did an excellent job of style editing. The author thanks two anonymous reviewers of the Journal of Southeast European and Black Sea Studies for their comments and suggestions. All remaining inaccuracies and errors are the author’s own.

Notes

1. Namely, Shekhovtsov and Umland (2014, 59–60) note that even representatives of Ukraine’s nationalists become increasingly open supporters of this country’s closer integration into Europe.

2. The micro-to-macro transition in the social sciences always has a problematic character. A comprehensive discussion of various strategies for accomplishing it exceeds the scope of the present article. The approach chosen here lies close to premises of methodological individualism, namely, ‘the interaction among individuals is seen to result in emergent phenomena at the system level’ (Coleman 1990, 5).

3. The 2014 presidential elections took place in the conditions of an external intervention and the contents of the candidates’ programmes were heavily influenced by this fact.

4. This rather awkward construction is used for the sake of consistency with the template ‘freedom plus a preposition’ commonly used in analytical philosophy; the concept ‘fraternity’ from the democratic discourse would also do the job (Touraine 1994, 109; Timokhin 2009).

5. It is worthwhile to compare the proposed approach with that of Milton Rokeach. According to the latter, only freedom from (freedom defined as independence, free choice) has a terminal value, whereas freedom to (independence defined as self-reliance, self-sufficiency) – has only an instrumental value (Rokeach 1969, 554). He also attributes some instrumental value to power over (obedience defined as dutifulness, respectfulness). Rokeach (1969, 551) argues that values cannot be assessed separately: they form a value system, which implies their relative assessment, i.e. a rank-ordering.

6. The sample does not have a random character and, hence, only a descriptive meaning shall be attributed to r.

7. This includes a series of questions as to whether fair electoral laws, equal campaigning opportunities, fair polling and honest tabulation of ballots exist; there is a significant opposition vote, de facto opposition power and a realistic possibility for the opposition to increase its support or gain power through elections.

8. This refers to freedom of expression and beliefs, associational, organizational and individual rights, the rule of law.

9. The values of the PDI can be found at http://www.geert-hofstede.com/hofstede_dimensions.php. For Ukraine, its value was roughly approximated using outcomes of the above mentioned July 2009 poll by the Kiev Gorshenin Institute of Management Issues.

10. The assumption of homogeneity of variance was assessed by the Levene test, F = 3.679, p = .055, which does not indicate significant violation of the equal variance assumption. Therefore, the pooled variances t-test was run. The mean scores differed significantly, t(874) = 3.149, p = .002, two-tailed.

11. The assumption of homogeneity of variance was assessed by the Levene test, F = 6.988, p = .008, which indicates significant violation of the equal variance assumption. Therefore, the separate variances t-test was run. The mean scores differed significantly, t(394) = 2.413, p = .016, two-tailed.

12. For an empirical test of a similar assumption regarding Leader–Member exchange within an organization see Ashkanasy and O’Connor (1997, 647–62).

13. For instance, when comparing mean scores of freedom between two age groups, 25–34 years old and 55–64 years old, the assumption of homogeneity of variance was assessed by the Levene test, F = 13.202, p < .001, which indicates significant violation of the equal variance assumption. Therefore, the separate variances t-test was run. The mean scores differed significantly, t(181) = 2.443, p = .016, two-tailed. The mean score for the younger group (M = 6.40, SD = .134) exceeds the mean score for the older one (M = 5.74, SD = .237).

14. When comparing the mean scores of freedom between these two groups, the assumption of homogeneity of variance was assessed by the Levene test, F = 6.667, p = .01, which suggests some violation of the equal variance assumption. Therefore, the separate variances t-test was run. The mean scores differed significantly, t(466) = 5.316, p < .001, two-tailed. The mean score for Western Ukraine (M = 6.83, SD = .147) exceeds the mean score for Eastern Ukraine (M = 5.77, SD = .136).

15. When comparing the Freedom House data and the WVS data, one has to bear in mind the caveat regarding connections between the micro- and macro-levels in the analysis stated in the Introduction.