About three servants of the Ukrainian people

The institute of political and ethno national researches of Ivan Kuras published two-volume work of Mykola Mikhal'chenko and Viktor Andruschenko «Ukraine parts in itself: from Leonidiya to Viktoriya». This book, as authors mark, is not «scientific documentary research» [s. 9]. It is experience of political philosophy.

Due to texts of Mykola Berdyaev, Oswald Spengler, Arnold Toynbee, Samuel Hartington and other authors was strengthened discourse and special stylistics of political philosophy. It usually a historysophy with a slope in geopolitology. Mikhal'chenko and Andruschenko avoid this classic canon. They look on relatively short segment of history – second half of XX century, and thoroughly analyze only eighteen years of independences of Ukraine. Not succeeded and to elevated rhetorical forte which inherent metaphysical thoughts. And the Ukrainian walks of life contemplate in space exceptionally. However much they succeeded to connect an original micro political analysis and politico-philosophical generalization.

This book is about three Ukrainian Presidents. Already Marxist discussions went away in the past about status of personality in history. Peeping in the library of beginning of the last century it may seem that spears, broken Marxists round this problem from pole to the tip are quite scholastic. But it not quite so. This was a scientific dispute about that whether a politician has a right to break society through a knee. And also about that, whether it is possible, falling down in whom some remarkable day to regain consciousness in the light communist future. Actually speech went about sense of policy, revolution and political science. Complication of Marxist position consisted in that social and political development was proclaimed appropriate. Therefore phlegmatic inactivity would be most appropriate. At the same time, it was considered that social and political contradictions can be overcame only a revolutionary way. Therefore and avoidance of revolutionary enthusiasm became embodiment, if to not reactionaries, at least to opportunism. To understand all these contradictions it was possible only by dialectics. Consequently and it went out: conformities to law are a thing useful, but foremost as motivation and ethics duty for the political performing. As though grain from parable of Jesus. As though and it is capable to emerge, but will allow a root and will force one's way through a green stroke only subject to condition, if a young rook will not eat him and will not burn out a sun, but get it in suitable soil.

These discussions took place in a medieval epoch. A reign Divine will come. No doubts. However, when? And at what terms? And how it does not cost to become that suitable soil which coming Reign will come into ear on Christians? Reasoning’s of medieval finders of God and Marxists on verge of ХІХ–ХХ of centuries are fully identical. And one and the second renounced from agnosticism. And one, and the second, trusting in unavoidable, wanted to become his creators. But history lasts.

Volodymyr EVTUKH, Valentyn BUSHANSKIY