To build on progress, the government should continue structural reform and be vigilant in supporting the independence of state cultural agencies. Foreign donors could do more to promote culture outside Kyiv and fund national heritage restoration.
In the aftermath of the Euromaidan revolution, Ukraine experienced a significant revival of arts and cultural production, as well as unprecedented levels of civic engagement through culture, all of which consolidated a sense of shared identity and cultural space. Through state cultural policy interventions and the enthusiasm of its creative community, Ukraine started building a ‘firewall’ against Russia’s coercive narratives by creating its own distinct cultural space while preserving a plurality of views and cultural diversity.
Looking to the future, it is important that the development of Ukraine’s civic identity continue to be compatible with the inclusive approach of institutions such as the UCF, and that de-communization laws serve as a trigger for an open discussion about history rather than promoting a prescriptive view of the past. It appears that a number of policies aimed at limiting access to the Ukrainian market for Russian media and cultural products have proven effective, not only functioning as steps towards the securitization of identity but also encouraging the development of a distinctly Ukrainian cultural product.
Cultural activism across Ukraine’s regions has proven to be a starting point for the mobilization of local communities. It has helped them to chart a path for viable development, has established a basis for further civic engagement and mature citizenship, and has strengthened democracy. It has also helped individual members of communities to overcome personal war traumas, challenge entrenched stereotypes and move towards reconciliation.
In spite of resistance and inconsistencies, the Ukrainian state has made significant progress in reforming its cultural policies. It has established a number of new institutions for culture, based on the idea of open access and stakeholder engagement. The culture ministry – rebranded as the MCIP – has taken important steps towards restructuring, but its reforms are incomplete and the danger of a rollback remains real.
Ukraine’s experience has shown that reforms are possible when an alliance of civil society activists and key figures in positions of power in the creative and political elites supports change. External cultural relations organizations have been catalysts in this process, investing in human capital and opening venues for new partnerships and skills development.
Ukraine’s experience has shown that reforms are possible when an alliance of civil society activists and key figures in positions of power in the creative and political elites supports change.
The EU’s continuous funding and engagement of national cultural relations organizations has ensured Ukraine’s gravitation towards European blueprints of cultural policy management. It has also instilled important values around inclusivity, openness, transparency, consensus-seeking and partnership-building in the Ukrainian cultural policy scene.
Although many of the changes in cultural management in Ukraine have been revolutionary, they continue to coexist with obsolete Soviet-style practices, such as state support for loyal artistic unions and corrupt exploitation of cultural heritage for personal gain.
Although Ukraine has received significant assistance from Western partners, the success or failure of cultural reform will largely be determined by domestic factors and political will. Ukraine’s cultural sector has demonstrated a high degree of coordination between different groups of players – NGOs, managers of state cultural institutions, reform-minded politicians – in pushing for legislation or lobbying for funding. This coordination has also helped the sector to negotiate less severe COVID-19-related budget cuts. Despite this, state institutions for culture remain vulnerable to political interference and external shocks such as global health crises.
Recommendations
Recommendations for the government of Ukraine
The restructuring of the MCIP needs to be completed, and the new State Agency for Arts and Arts Education must reach full functionality.
It is essential that state expenditure on culture is maintained at the level established in previous years, as envisaged by the draft budget for 2021, submitted by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine.
There should be no political interference in the work of arm’s-length cultural institutions such as the Ukrainian State Film Agency. Funds should be disbursed in a timely manner. The independence of bodies providing additional checks and balances – such as the Council for Cinematography and external experts’ committees – needs to be upheld.
Government ministries need to ensure that new arm’s-length bodies enjoy meaningful agency in their decision-making, as stipulated in their funding documents. In the case of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and its arm’s-length agency, the Ukrainian Institute, the latter’s priorities and content-selection criteria need to be better communicated among the ministry’s network of diplomatic missions abroad. The institute should be allowed to reaffirm its status as Ukraine’s leading state institution for cultural diplomacy.
The MCIP needs to complete by 2022 its evaluation of the cultural needs of local communities across Ukraine (as envisaged in its strategy), come up with a plan for restructuring the country’s basic network of state cultural institutions, and develop new uniform standards for cultural services provision.
With assistance from donors, reform of the state system of arts education needs to proceed swiftly, with cultural management skills being integrated into curriculums. The State Agency for Arts and Arts Education should take the lead in this process.
NGOs that focus on the cultural and creative industries are already actively involved in shaping the development agenda in Ukraine’s cities. Both the MCIP and the Ministry of Regional Development should coordinate their efforts to develop a programme of support for such NGOs, especially in smaller towns and rural communities. This would allow for the goals of political decentralization to be aligned with those of cultural infrastructure reform, thereby empowering local communities.
The allocation of UAH 3.5 billion for the restoration of national heritage, approved at the first reading of the 2021 draft state budget, is an important milestone. The allocations of funds go hand in hand with a comprehensive heritage policy, folded into which are tourism, the empowerment of communities and efforts to generate opportunities for cultural and creative industries (such as through handicrafts and festivals). The Agency for National Heritage created at the end of 2019 needs to be staffed and made operational. Closer collaboration between the Ministry of Regional Development, the MCIP, local governments and civil society would help to ensure that culture and heritage development are seen as important factors in regional development. Reintegration of Donbas remains an important policy priority for the government of Ukraine. As cultural activism has proven an effective tool for post-conflict reconciliation, dealing with trauma, and reinventing and revitalizing old industrial spaces, these objectives could be included in a dedicated state grant programme to be developed and run by the state.
A number of regulations should be introduced to reduce red tape and streamline the use of state funds, including changes to the tax and labour codes. The government needs to allow state cultural institutions, such as museums, to retain their profits and reinvest them in future development. The government also needs to promote the idea of cultural investment among business. It needs to create an environment conducive to corporate sponsorship of museums, investment in regional cultural projects, and redevelopment of abandoned heritage sites.
A communications campaign is needed to combat entrenched attitudes among the public and some of the political elite. Although attitudes are gradually changing, in many cases culture continues to be regarded as a luxury good or residual budget item that is expendable in times of crisis. It is important to articulate the idea that culture creates economic growth and employment, and that culture contributes to strengthening a sense of shared identity, developing local communities, overcoming trauma and helping reconciliation.
Consistent state policy and sustained funding are needed to support media outlets with a focus on culture. The first successful steps in this direction, such as the launch of Radio Kultura, a public radio station, are commendable. The creative community in Ukraine remains in a bubble, and the majority of the public is unaware of the myriad cultural products that have been developed or come on to the market in recent years. More effective promotion and awareness-raising around cultural products and activities would also prepare the ground for involving Ukrainian businesses in philanthropic support for cultural production.
Recommendations for donors
Donors should consider providing support for grassroots cultural actors outside Kyiv, as such NGOs have the potential to influence local development and regeneration agendas and strengthen social capital through culture.
The disparity between the cultural offering at the centre and on the periphery, and between the competencies of cultural managers in these respective contexts, needs to be addressed. Donors should continue expanding training opportunities for cultural managers in Ukraine’s regions, where demand remains high. It is essential that a cultural component be worked into existing donor assistance programmes which focus on decentralization and the empowerment of local communities.
As considerable funds are likely to be allocated to national heritage restoration projects next year, donors should facilitate the transfer of expertise and provide funds, in order to turn these projects into important vehicles for regional development.
Much-needed donor infrastructure grants for the refurbishment of cultural centres in Ukraine’s provinces are now available through the EU-funded House of Europe programme. However, fund-seekers are not required to build consensus with local stakeholders or present a long-term vision for the role of such centres in their communities. It is essential that donors make funding contingent on improvements in human capital and cultural management competencies. It is also essential that they introduce a co-funding requirement, which would encourage communities to mobilize funding from multiple sources. The volume of funding available needs to increase significantly.
Donors have invested considerable efforts and funds into strengthening the competencies of Ukraine’s creative entrepreneurs. Further efforts should be made to develop these networks, so that they can become catalysts for the formation of sectoral associations and for lobbying before state authorities.
Donors should continue and expand funding opportunities for the development of content to help Ukraine strengthen its cultural agency against ever-present Russian cultural influence. This should include systemic support for established cultural events and platforms, which should promote the notion of a culturally diverse and inclusive Ukraine.
