Solidarity and trust were on the Maidan. The Ukrainian protest was open to all - no language, no level of income, no geography of residence registration was not an obstacle. This made the Maidan attractive, massive and, as a result, doomed to victory.
People did not disperse into frosts. Sacrificed to strangers. Were standing next to those who did not know. And when the war began - trust and solidarity migrated to the front. Without them there would not have been volunteerism and kindness. But as the defensive agenda faded, the crisis of trust began to reappear, "writes journalist Pavel Kazarin for the Crimea. Realities.
And this is the problem.
Because solidarity and trust are needed not only to protect against an external aggressor. They are simply beneficial for the country as a whole. Sociology is impartial: people with a large volume of social capital often choose an active strategy of economic behavior. For example, in the case of financial problems, people with a large number of contacts seek additional earnings three times more often.
It is generally accepted that the volume of social capital is great if a person has about 100 "weak" ties (for example, colleagues at work) and more than 10 "strong" ties. These indicators directly correlate with the willingness of people to do business. A simple illustration: in northern Europe, the level of confidence is about 60-65%. In Central Europe - 40-45%.
But Ukraine on this indicator today is quite similar to Russia. In both countries, the level of confidence fluctuates at the level of 25%. The result is a situation where an atomized country is not ready to unite on a horizontal level to solve the most elementary domestic tasks.
Color the porch? Repair the children's playground? Hire a concierge? Each of these tasks turns into an insoluble problem - in the event that there is no trust between neighbors. And this gives a projection in the policy space. The crisis of solidarity does not create new political projects. Automatically gives rise to skepticism towards those who are trying to do something. Provides a vote on the basis of the principle "against", not "for".
Alexander Paskhaver in one of his public lectures explained this reality with the historical experience of Ukraine. In his opinion, the country remains a hostage of "colonial" values ??- those that have taken root here over the centuries. Lack of experience of their own statehood has led to the fact that modern Ukrainians do not trust the institutions by inertia. The state is habitually perceived as an "occupation" phenomenon.
As a result, the modern Ukrainian survival strategy is quite simple. Do not trust the state, because it is "alien", and therefore will come and take away. Do not equip public space, because you do not control it. Invest only in their own well-being, without being distracted by the collective.
All these schemes work when you live in a conquered colony. When the capital makes decisions in the interests of the metropolis. When institutions are alien, and it is not possible to privatize them initially. But this strategy becomes a ballast, if you need to equip your own state.
However, trust and solidarity can be a resource even in the conditions of occupation. It is no coincidence that Crimean Tatars in the Crimea were the most cohesive group, capable of collective fronts. As a result, for the last four years Moscow has been trying to dissolve this solidarity. Apparently - not particularly successful.
No, Ukrainian reality does not look like a verdict - otherwise in 2014 the country would not survive.
But in any future strategy, one must take into account the fact that our ability to trust remains at the level of Pakistan. That this indicator will change quite slowly. That all the talk about the fact that "Ukrainians do not trust the parliament / president / cabinet" should be supplemented by clarification: Ukrainians generally trust very few people.
Proper treatment begins with the diagnosis. If you do not know why you should be friends and love, then remember. It's profitable.