MENTAL Callisthenics With
Uncle Ilko: Speaking With One Voice;
Speaking With Many
“They need to clarify what is meant by
“speaking with one voice.” I wait.
“Every Canadian has a right to call a Member
of Parliament and voice opinions; it’s a democratic right. 'One voice' on
behalf of all, on all issues, at all times diminishes power and influence of
member organizations and individuals. Not being involved becomes the
mantra rather than taking ownership of issues and action.”
I realize Vujko Ilko is referring to the
Ukrainian Canadian Congress’s long-standing position, restated recently at
“I gather you dislike this position?”
“It must not be an absolute. Some situations call for consensus, others
need many voices.”
“Vujku, would you not agree that the
Holodomor issue was a good one for UCC to push in a united way before our
government?”
“Of course, but look at how many years and
individuals it took to get there. I was on the case in the early
nineties; people like Roman Serbyn devoted a lifetime to the issue; and the
President of Ukraine had to commit before other states would step in.
There were many voices.”
“Your point, Vujku?”
“Many political issues are not historic,
like Holodomor. They require swift and immediate response which the UCC
can’t deliver.”
“An example, s’il vous plait.”
“Sure. Here’s one that put an egg on
the diaspora’s face right around the world. Not only was there no single
voice, there was no bloody voice at all!
UCC folks were on holidays, at weddings for goodness sake, while
Vujko is getting agitated. I wait.
“I’m talking about that Putin fella saying
he’ll point nukes at
“What should have been done?”
“The UCC should have cried 'charge' to its
members allowing dedicated groups to blanket MPs with calls; tie up phone lines
at Russia’s embassy; hold protests in front of Russian institutions - embassy,
consulates, churches affiliated with Moscow’s pawn Patriarch Kirill.”
“A handful did protest.”
“Pah! A handful. You’ve got a nuclear
threat to the country you purport to be “engaged” with and a handful is
sufficient?? I tell you, I called a few key folks to move their
blankety-blanks and everyone told me it was UCC’s issue. That’s the
problem of hoarding positions without the capacity to deliver. With
voluntary groups: the wider the base, the more gets done; the greater the power
to act, the more gets done; the bigger the ownership of an issue, the more gets
done. Zrozumilo?”
“Yes, Uncle Ilko, I get it.”
“Look at the current situation.
“Not easy to balance equally desirable
results.”
“Precisely why politics is a sophisticated
game. There’s room for bad cop - good cop strategies: we want peace with our
neighbours but we’re building settlements contrary to agreements nonetheless,
for example. Not the same folks doing both, mind you. Look, some
organizations need to be activists, others to take a longer view. In
emerging day-to-day issues there is always a dichotomy. ‘One voice’ is
restrictive.”
“Your point Uncle. What about the
protests?”
“I’m worried. There’s no clear
champion. Too much ‘don’t let politicians on stage’ verbiage, meaning
lack of faith in opposition leaders. Declarations like ‘this is an economic not
a political protest’ foretell weakness. How can an economic protest not be
political? Without a unifying champion, the protests will dissipate,
achieving little other than mass venting. As Stalin said: ‘Ukrajintsi
pospivaut’, poplachut, I pidut’ dodomu’ - Ukrainians will sing, cry and go
home. The protestors need to focus on their end game.”
“You’re contradicting yourself, Unk.
You say UCC’s position of one voice has limitations while
“Not a contradiction, my dear, only
recognition of situational differences.
“So, in some cases one voice is too weak and
in others, too many voices are ineffective?”
“Yup. Remember, harmony is not
produced by playing one note. Sophistication, my dear, sophistication”