Why do Ukraine and Ukrainians support Democracy? An Analysis of Historical Origins of Pro-Democratic Attitudes in Ukraine

Many studies showed that Ukraine and Russia have been heading in different political directions since early 2000. Ukraine was leaning towards a more democratic system, while Russia was gradually returning to authoritarian governance. This divergence was primarily attributed to Ukraine having a more democratic culture compared to Russia. Democratic values like political resistance and activism were present in Ukraine even during the Soviet era and gained momentum after the collapse of the communist bloc. Ukraine, with a strong civic component, managed to incorporate the voice of its citizens into the post-soviet oligarchic structure, moving towards more democratic elections and increased public influence. In contrast, Russia, lacking a  similar civic component, developed more authoritarian and centralized forms of governance, while maintaining a free-market framework for its economic system.

Although research acknowledges that initial differences in political cultures influenced recent political developments, explaining why a more democratic culture emerged in Ukraine but not in Russia remains a puzzle. This article seeks to provide a response to this question by utilizing psychological theories to examine Ukraine’s historical experiences. Similar to the individual-level psychological analysis, the historical encounters are viewed as early “childhood” experiences of the nation, contributing to the formation of collective memories that have influenced present-day political values among Ukrainians.

Due to its strategic location at the crossroads of Eastern Europe and the Eurasian Steppe, Ukraine’s history was characterized by two specific features: (1) frequent invasions from neighboring states and (2) territorial fragmentation. Ukraine’s territory was contested, divided, and ruled by a variety of external powers for more than 600 years, including the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Austrian Empire, the Ottoman Empire, Moscovia (later Russian Empire and the Soviet Union). Consequently, the country has faced persistent challenges in establishing and maintaining a unified state throughout its history. These historical encounters could influence the psychology of the nation by triggering specific psychological reactions among individuals, ultimately shaping collective political values and behaviors. 

Specifically, during periods of occupation by foreign states, Ukrainians faced deprivation of autonomy, coupled with restrictions on the use of the Ukrainian language and suppression of their cultural identity. Historical events, such as the 1932-33 genocide (Holodomor), illustrate that occupation of Ukrainian territories often led to the exploitation of the local population and their resources without integrating Ukrainians on equal terms. These negative experiences of occupation could have a dual impact on the psychology of Ukrainians. On the one hand, the harsh governance and oppression could instill a profound distrust towards governing bodies, fostering a tradition of skepticism among Ukrainians about the authorities that remains even today. On the other hand, the dynamic nature of occupation, with changing political powers taking control and relinquishing Ukrainian lands, contributed to linking Ukrainians’ attitudes towards the authorities to their experiences with them. Even presently, Ukrainians continue to associate their overall level of institutional trust with the success of government-led reforms.

The oppression experienced by Ukrainians during occupations could also shape attitudes towards freedom, political resistance, and civic engagement. In accordance with the self-determination theory, autonomy represents a fundamental psychological need: individuals possess an innate desire for freedom, choice, and control over their actions and decisions. When autonomy is denied, individuals may experience frustration and dissatisfaction, prompting them to actively seek opportunities to regain their sense of independence and self-direction. Applied to Ukraine, the prolonged historical experience of occupation may have cultivated a deep-seated desire for self-determination among Ukrainians, elevating freedom to a foundational value of the nation. On a collective scale, this elucidates the aspirations of Ukrainians for an independent state.

The pursuit of freedom is directly correlated with political resistance. According to the reactance theory, individuals experiencing constraints on their autonomy may develop a psychological state known as “reactance.” Specifically, when people perceive limitations on their autonomy, they are motivated to restore their freedom by resisting the controlling influence and reclaiming a sense of control over their lives. Examined collectively, this process is expected to foster the practice of political resistance to the occupiers. Applied to Ukraine, the numerous upheavals during the country’s history of occupation and unwanted political influences substantiate this line of reasoning and underscore the significance attributed by Ukrainians to the value of resistance as a means of opposing oppression.

Similarly, occupation has the potential to instigate civil activism among individuals. The empower and agency approach posits that oppression can diminish an individual’s sense of agency, i.e. the belief in their ability to influence their environment and make decisions that affect their lives. The desire to regain a sense of empowerment and control can motivate individuals to become agents of change, striving not only for their personal freedom but also for the liberation of others facing similar challenges. Psychological empowerment, or the belief in one’s capacity to instill change, can drive people to engage in efforts to advocate change for themselves and others. This mechanism could contribute to the formation of civic values in Ukraine, which manifests in a vibrant civil society with active non-governmental organizations, grassroots movements, and a history of civic activism. 

Simultaneously, the fragmentation resulting from the partitioning of Ukrainian territories among various, often shifting, political powers could result in a divergence of values and attitudes among Ukrainians, instilling a preference for plurality. Drawing from social identity and intergroup relations theories, the process of fragmentation tends to give rise to numerous subgroups within the population. As these subgroups converge, individuals are compelled to negotiate and integrate diverse perspectives and values to forge a cohesive national identity. In accordance with this perspective, when unified, Ukrainians had to assimilate different views and opinions into a single system of values, fostering a culture of plurality. 

Additionally, unifying subgroups into a singular identity demands communication among various population groups and branches of power. Positive interactions between members of different subgroups can mitigate prejudice and cultivate understanding, thereby enhancing social dialogue. When diverse subgroups converge, positive intergroup contact becomes an opportunity, fostering the development of social bonds within society. Consequently, Ukraine’s history of territorial fragmentation might have contributed to the promotion of social dialogue, laying the further groundwork for the emergence of the value of participation among the Ukrainian population. 

In summary, Ukrainians, due to prolonged occupation by foreign powers and territorial fragmentation, prioritized societal ties and activism over their connections with authorities. Occupation stimulated skepticism about the authorities and an intrinsic yearning for independence, fostering political and civic resistance, and active civic engagement. At the same time, territorial fragmentation during occupations introduced diversity in opinions and values, promoting pluralistic ideals and fostering participation. Collectively, these factors contributed to the formation of a more democratic political culture in which individuals are active participants in the formation of the state and nation. 

To verify the claims mentioned earlier, I conduct a comparative analysis of political values between Ukraine and Russia. The main assumption is that if historical experiences have shaped Ukrainians’ pro-democratic values, then the chosen indexes for Ukraine should indicate stronger support for democracy compared to Russia in spite of their shared Soviet Union history. I rely on the World Values Survey as the primary data source, using all available waves for both countries (from 1996 to 2020) in order to reduce the influence of the post-communist experience with democracy. The analysis includes calculating mean values for selected criteria and conducting pairwise comparisons based on the pooled dataset.

The key indicators chosen for this investigation cover three categories of measures. The first pertains to the consequences of occupation and includes the percentage of individuals favoring freedom over equality or security, the percentage of those trusting the government, the percentage of people participating in lawful demonstrations, and the proportion of respondents claiming membership in at least one civic organization. The second category captures the consequences of territorial fragmentation and involves the percentage of respondents trusting those of other nationalities or religions, the share of the population always voting in national elections, and the share of respondents expressing a sense of belonging to the community. 

Finally, I measure the prevailing attitudes towards democracy by calculating the percentage of respondents who agreed with arguments that: (1) in a democracy, the economic system functions poorly, (2) democracies are indecisive, (3) they are not effective at maintaining order, or (4) they have flaws but are still preferable. Figure 1 depicts the mean values for the selected measures calculated for each country separately. Table 1 provides a t-test for the statistical significance of differences in these mean values between Ukraine and Russia.

The data reveals that Ukrainians, despite enduring Russian occupation during the Soviet era, exhibit a more democratic culture than their Russian authoritarian counterparts. Specifically, Ukrainians place significant importance on autonomy and freedom. Notably, 70 percent of Ukrainians prioritize freedom over equality, and nearly 31 percent prioritize freedom over security, as opposed to 54 percent and 24 percent, respectively, in Russia. Furthermore, Ukrainian respondents tend to express more skepticism towards their authorities: Only 33 percent of respondents in Ukraine express confidence in their government, whereas almost 44 percent of Russians declare such confidence. Overall, these findings support the occupation argument, suggesting that prolonged exposure to occupation has instilled values of freedom, autonomy, and skepticism about authorities in Ukraine.

Moreover, Ukrainians are much more politically active than Russians, as measured by the percentage of people who declared to have participated in lawful demonstrations. In Ukraine, this percentage was 29 percent among respondents, whereas in Russia, it was only 17 percent. Additionally, a notably higher proportion of the Ukrainian population declares civic engagement compared to Russia. More specifically, 42 percent of Ukrainian respondents stated that they actively belong to at least one organization, including religious groups, sports or recreational clubs, arts and music groups, educational organizations, labor unions, political parties, environmental groups, professional organizations, charitable or humanitarian organizations, consumer groups, or mutual aid groups. In Russia, this figure is lower, reaching only 32 percent. While the differences are not very large, they are still statistically significant (see Table 1). These findings support the proposition that prolonged occupation tends to foster sentiments of political resistance and increased civic participation.

Furthermore, Ukrainians demonstrate a higher level of tolerance towards differences in nationalities and religions, as measured by the level of trust expressed toward these respective groups. Specifically, approximately 50 percent of respondents in Ukraine declared trust in people of other nationalities, and 45 percent expressed trust in individuals of other religions. In contrast, these percentages are lower in Russia, averaging 41 and 40, respectively. Ukrainians are also more inclined to consistently participate in national elections compared to Russians, with a rate of participation averaging 59.87 percent  versus 44 percent in Russia. These findings align with the notion that territorial fragmentation can instill values of pluralism and tolerance for differences, along with participation. Lastly, the World Values Survey data indicates that Ukrainians feel a greater sense of belonging to their community compared to Russians, pointing to the presence of a robust civic component in Ukraine. While 58 percent of respondents in Ukraine declared a sense of belonging to their community, this figure was notably lower, reaching only 27 percent in Russia. 

Finally, Ukrainians exhibit a greater presence of democratic values than Russians, which contributes to the stronger support for democracy in Ukraine compared to Russia. Specifically, Russians tend to be more skeptical about democracy. Approximately 60 percent of Russians believe that economic systems run poorly under democracy, compared to 43 percent in Ukraine. 78 percent of Russians also consider democracies to be indecisive, while the corresponding figure in Ukraine is only 61 percent. Finally, around 71 percent of Russians doubt that democracies can effectively maintain order, as opposed to 55 percent in Ukraine. This skepticism in Russia explains why only 59 percent agree that, despite these shortcomings, democracies are a superior form of governance, whereas in Ukraine, this figure reaches 77 percent. 

In summary, even though Ukraine may still need some effort to align with EU countries in terms of enhancing democratic values, it is clear that Ukrainians demonstrate more pro-democratic attitudes than Russians. Importantly, these disparities are not recent phenomena but have persisted well before full-scale Russian invasion since the indexes were calculated based on the data from 1996 to 2020. Pro-democratic attitudes among Ukrainians are deeply rooted in the psychological makeup of individuals, shaped by their collective historical experiences. 

The robust pro-democratic political culture in Ukraine plays a pivotal role in supporting the country’'s democratic political system. This cultural foundation has fostered an environment that emphasizes representative governance, transparency, and active citizen engagement. This culture also holds the potential to establish and promote the rule of law to create favorable conditions for the expansion of businesses and entrepreneurship. Lastly, this democratic culture has laid the foundations for a political system in Ukraine that is inherently resistant to authoritarian governance methods, capable of generating opposition to oppression, control, and restrictions on freedom.

This means that the ongoing war is not just between two countries but represents a clash between democratic and authoritarian political cultures. Hence, it is imperative for the global community to recognize the connection between the war in Ukraine and the value of democracy. If Ukraine wins, it's a win for democracy. If Ukraine loses, it's a loss for democracy, allowing authoritarian regimes to grow and threaten other democratic nations. 

Regardless of Russia's initial motivations for attacking Ukraine, the potential outcome of Ukrainians losing this war should raise concerns about the proliferation of autocracies. Russia's taking over Ukraine should be interpreted as democracies succumbing to autocracies and, hence, as a sign that democracies are less capable of maintaining their governance and territorial unity compared to autocracies. Paradoxically, the present circumstances demonstrate that authoritarian regimes are more formidable and cohesive than their democratic counterparts on the global stage. The continued support and provision of weapons to Russia by autocratic states such as China, North Korea, and Iran, coupled with insufficient and declining assistance to Ukraine from its democratic allies, suggest that autocracies exhibit greater unity in international conflicts than democracies. The message from the current situation with Ukraine is that invasions of democratic states by authoritarian ones are not only possible but might go unchecked. 

Hence, if Ukraine loses, it will essentially provide a green light for authoritarianism because behind every act of violence, powerful international authoritarian giants will stand ready to endorse the action to support the spread of their political culture and, hence, of their regimes. By withholding support from Ukraine now, the international community inadvertently promotes the proliferation of authoritarian regimes, posing a direct threat to their own states. To safeguard their countries, the democratic world must take immediate action, starting with providing Ukraine with necessary weapons to defeat Russian aggression.

Notes: *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1.