Ukrainian National Democratic Party ID: 91

The Ukrainian National Democratic Party (1899-1919) was the leading Ukrainian political party of Galicia in the early 20th century. It was formed as a result of a merger of two important political movements, namely, the national-radical wing of the Ruthenian-Ukrainian Radical Party (RURP) and the so-called populists (or narodovtsi), members of the Narodna Rada (People's Council). After the 1907 elections, the party had the largest parliamentary representation in Vienna. The UNDP also played a leading role in the preparation and proclamation of the West Ukrainian People's Republic (ZUNR) on 1 November 1918. The party's main board and press were invariably located on the Rynok square 10 in Lviv. The only exception was the period of Russian occupation in 1914-1915.

The constituent congress of the party was held in Lviv on 26 December 1899. It was preceded by the work of an inter-party committee which, given the presence of non-party persons, was called the "Committee of Lviv Ruthenians." The initiator of the reconciling action between Ukrainian political groups of Galicia was historian Mykhaylo Hrushevsky. As a citizen of the Russian Empire, he could not be in the lead of the unification process. However, he began to work on establishing a new party as soon as he moved to Lviv in 1894. The new party was conceived as a political force for Galician Ukrainians who sought to unite all Ukrainian lands into one Ukrainian state. The ideology, strategy and tactics developed for the Party were to serve as the basis for the entire Ukrainian movement; nevertheless, the attempt to implement all this in practice failed.

Formation of a united party became possible due to the accession of Yulian Romanchuk`s group to the leadership in the populist movement and the secession of the clerical-conservative wing of the People's Council into a separate party, which conciliated the ideological positions of the populists and national radicals. The loss of leading positions in the RURP by the followers of Drahomanov was caused by the transition of party`s left wing to social democratic positions ending up eventually in the formation of the Ukrainian Social Democratic Party (USDP). Within the Ruthenian-Ukrainian Radical Party, the formation of the right (national-radical) wing, known as "young radicals" (Hrytsak, 1991, 71), ready to unite with the populists, brought new ideological and theoretical concepts to the Ukrainian movement.

The ideological and political platform of the new party was developed by a periodical called Buduchnist (Future), edited by Yevhen Levytsky, Volodymyr Okhrymovych, and Ivan Trush; it was in this periodical that drafts of the party’s program and charter were published. The Buduchnist played the role of a discussion platform, where visions of the future Ukrainian party were presented by the leading Ukrainian intellectuals, among whom Ivan Franko took a prominent place. It was Franko who made clear the need for a new national party. Speaking at the RURP congress, he said: "We need intellectuals, the movement should rely on richer men having their hands free, not on the poor. We are not only simple men, but also Ruthenians; our policy must be not only popular, but also Ruthenian; not to be just old chaps, not only economically, but also nationally, we must oppose not only the Moscophiles, but also the Poles" (Hromadsky Holos, 1899).

The first issue of the Buduchnist was published in June 1899. It was very difficult to determine the political orientation of the periodical by its first issues. The topics of the articles varied from the analysis of the latest social-democratic editions to the assessment of international relations. The nation theory and the national question, as well as the analysis of the situation of Ukrainians in the Austro-Hungarian monarchy, were widely presented. There was also a significant shift in emphasis and a reappraisal of previous views in the Buduchnist publications. In particular, the opinion on the role of Mykhaylo Drahomanov's teaching in the Ukrainian political movement and his thesis on "formal nationalism" changed. According to the periodical's publishers, Ukrainian "nationalism" was really formal previously, when it came down to the question of language and ritual. However, according to the author of the article, over time and due to changing circumstances "…by nationalism, we understand not only language and ritual, but economic and political independence, organization and development of the people, when by nation we mean not an ethnographic mass but a solid national body with all its economic and intellectual, political and social functions."

The Buduchnist took on an ambitious task of developing a unified platform for the entire Ukrainian national and political movement, including the Dnieper Ukraine. However, later on, the emphasis on Galician autonomy and pigeonholing unifying plans led to a sharp ideological and political conflict. As a result, in 1904 Mykhaylo Hrushevsky and Ivan Franko left the party.

The democracy of the UNDP’s ideological foundations was manifested in the desire to eliminate the curial electoral system and to introduce universal, direct and secret vote. The 1907 reform of the law on the Austrian parliamentary election greatly increased the Ukrainian representation. Of the 27 parliamentary seats that went to Ukrainians, UNDP members won 17.

The UNDP's executive body was the Close People's Committee, which was subordinate to the Broad People's Committee. The party`s leading figures were: Yulian Romanchuk (chairman), Kost Levytsky (secretary), Oleksandr Borkovsky, Ivan Beley, Mykhaylo Hrushevsky, Yevhen Levytsky, Vasyl Nahirny, Yevhen Ozarkevych, Volodymyr Okhrymovych, Damyan Savchak, Omelian Temnytsky, and Ivan Franko. The party congresses were held once a year and almost always on December 26. The second day of Catholic Christmas allowed even peasants to tear themselves away from everyday work and to devote some time to political activity. As a rule, congresses were held in the hall of the Jewish Society Yad Haruzim.

The old organization of the populists relied on a system of the so-called “men of trust”, which had a number of disadvantages. The UNDP structure combined the old populists’ organizational network and, thanks to national radicals, added some new modern party elements: a fixed membership, elections at the conferences of the executive bodies of the Close People's Committee (CPC) and the Broad People's Committee (BPC). However, since the UNDP emerged as a result of a compromise between the populists and the radicals, it had to agree to the preservation of a dual structure: the party was partly formed by a completely autonomous unit, the People's Council.

On the one hand, it was a new, modern party with a clearly fixed membership, and on the other, it was a broad political movement. By preserving district branches of the People's Council, the Prosvita and cultural and economic societies network, the UNDP became the most powerful Ukrainian political force in Austria-Hungary from the very outset. In Stryy, for example, there was a well-organized "Submountaineous People's Council" whose main activity was to organize election campaigns; the party affiliation was determined there by participation in the Prosvita work (ЦДІАУЛ, 372/1/12:1-5). As Ivan Lysiak-Rudnytsky wrote, “the Prosvita was the maternal body from which other institutions and organizations came out over the years. Populism gradually spread among the masses and laid a solid organizational foundation” (Lysiak-Rudnytsky, 1994, 430).

The formation of the UNDP marked the transition of Ukrainian society to a new stage of political development, that is, to its mass phase. The new political structure combined a broad organizational network of populists and the intellectual heritage of Ukrainian radicals. Based on a clear national platform, it united different sections of Ukrainian society and became the first real force to resist the Polish nationalist pressure in Galicia.

The party concentrated the main media in its hands and, thanks to the opening of foreign press offices, made the Ukrainian cause known on the international level. The party had its own periodical, the Svoboda (Liberty) weekly (1899-1939). At different times it was edited by Volodymyr Okhrymovych, Yevhen Levytsky, Vyacheslav Budzynovsky, Lonhyn Tsehelsky, Volodymyr Bachynsky, Mykola Zayachkivsky and Stepan Baran. The Dilo (Cause), Bukovyna and Ukrainske Slovo (Ukrainian Word) periodicals also adhered to national democratic positions.

For better communication with voters, the UNDP established the so-called People's Office, which provided legal services to Ukrainians free of charge. The services of the People's Office lawyers were paid for by the party itself. The emergence of such a structure and especially the quarterly reports in the Dilo, visibly recorded the UNDP’s success in respect of national and political mobilization.

After the 1906-1907 parliamentary election reform, the political life in Galicia underwent significant changes. From 1907, the party was led by Kost Levytsky. After Yulian Romanchuk receded to the background (mostly because of being too advanced in years), an internal struggle started in the party. A powerful tandem of two members of the Austrian parliament was formed in Vienna: Kost Levytsky and Yevhen Olesnytsky, who represented Galicia, joined by Mykola Vasylko from Bukovyna. The "usurpation" of power in the Party by these politicians was opposed by a group led by Yevhen Petrushevych. The inner-party strife became particularly aggravated during the First World War, when the party leadership and its deputies had to move to Vienna.

In Vienna, the groups opposed to each other resorted to creating parallel structures. Thus, after the beginning of the war, the Main Ukrainian Council (MUC) was formed, and then under the blows of opponents of Kost Levytsky, the latter had to transform it into the General Ukrainian Council (GUC). The followers of Yevhen Petrushevych fell back on the creation of their own organization, the Ukrainian Parliamentary Representation (UPR). All of these organizations were above-party, but their leadership was in the hands of national democrats. It is clear that such inner-party strife did not contribute to the development of a common party and political position in times of war.

The UNDP's ideological and political platform was a combination of the radical and populist programs. Its creators, having successfully used the theoretical heritage of the Ukrainian radicals (socialists) and the long-standing experience of the populists, created a centrist party program. The Ukrainian national democrats’ moderate and loyal attitude to the existing government seriously affected the formulation of their national-political ideal. The postulate of Ukraine's political independence was not clearly defined in the party program, and the idea of ​​state independence was viewed as a very distant prospect.

The autonomist idea (the idea of ​​dividing Galicia and forming a separate Ukrainian autonomous region) as the most real requirement of the then policy was central to the party’s program. The party stressed the need for a deep political and economic organization of Ukrainian society.

The political postulate itself remained almost unchanged till 1918. The initial wording of the programs did not reveal even a clear formulation of the requirement to create national autonomy. The populists, as consistent legitimists, merely hoped that loyalty to the state and to the ruling dynasty would be enough to "merit" an improvement of the legal and political situation of Ukrainians. They believed that the processes of general democratization of the empire would certainly affect the Ukrainians. "Our desire is as follows: in the Austrian state, respectful on the outside and strong inside due to the consent and satisfaction of all its peoples, on the basis of the constitutional, lawful means, to acquire for the Ruthenian people a political position which belongs to them among the various peoples of this state," said their program (ЦДІАУЛ, 146/7/4529:12).

It was the hope that a situation similar to the events of 1848 would recur, when the achievements of the revolution did not go past the conservative Ukrainian population of the monarchy, and therefore it was merely necessary to remain faithful and loyal to the dynasty, the government and the state: "From the government, we want constitutional defense of the Ruthenian peoples’ rights and interests, and we will support the government, which will take steps to satisfy the just desires of the Ruthenian people" (ЦДІАУЛ, 146/7/4529:13).

The desire to resolve all cases in a legitimate way had a considerable impact on the Party's tactics and political platform. The impact of this factor was decisive almost till the very last days of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy.

The position of the UNDP on the idea of ​​the unification of Ukrainian lands was interesting. For example, the party did not envisage an active influence on the further fate of the Ukrainian lands in the Hungarian part (Transleithania). It was only going to impose a "close relationship" with the aim of "creating a similar national movement, which is between the Galicians and Bukovynians." Following the example of the Main Ruthenian Council, which in 1848 proclaimed the ethnic unity of Ukrainians on both Austrian and Russian sides of the border, the UNDP sought only to "consolidate and develop the sense of national unity with the Russian Ukrainians", aiming at "developing cultural unity with them" (Buduchnist, 15 December 1899). Politically, national democrats supported in their attitude to Russia the idea of ​​transforming the Russian empire "from an absolutist and centralist state to a constitutionally federalist one, based on the autonomy of nationalities."

This ideal was to be attained step by step in the following order: 1) elimination of the old provincial statutes for Galicia and Bukovyna; 2) division of Galicia by ethnographic principle into Polish and Ukrainian parts; 3) division of Bukovyna into Ukrainian and Romanian parts; 4) formation of a national province "with a separate administration and a separate national Diet" (Buduchnist, 15 December 1899). Since the party postponed the formation of the Ukrainian autonomy for the future, the minimum requirements of its program were as follows: division of the current regional administrative institutions into "separate governments and authorities for the Ruthenian part of Galicia with the center in Lviv" and formation of separate administrative bodies for the Polish part (Buduchnist, 15 December 1899).

With regard to the democratic foundations of the party platform, it can be said that it included all the basic requirements of European democratic movements. The program proclaimed that the national democrats had chosen, as their primary goal, obtaining the influence of the Ukrainian people on the legislation and administrative bodies in the state, province, county, and community by reforming and democratizing the main representative institutions (Buduchnist, 15 December 1899).

At the same time, the UNDP continued to actively influence the cultural and educational life of Galicia. Throughout the existence of the party, the demands of reforming the Austrian school system and forming a Ukrainian university were the most relevant areas of its practical policy. The idea of ​​dividing the Provincial School Council and opening a Ukrainian university in Lviv was considered by the party as part of the concept of the division of Galicia and the formation of Ukrainian national and administrative autonomy within the Habsburg Empire.

On the eve of the First World War, the party, under pressure of circumstances, had to make significant changes to its program. Some changes were also related to the postulate of Ukraine's political independence. In 1913, formulating the party’s purpose in the preface to the revised program, Stepan Baran wrote: "The purpose of the party is to achieve national, political, economic, and cultural independence and to unite all Ukrainian lands into one independent Ukrainian state" (Baran, 1913, 10). At the same time,  however, he made a significant reservation as to the interpretation of the formulated national political ideal in real conditions: "Nevertheless, given that our people live in three different states, namely, Austria (Galicia and Bukovyna), Hungary (northeastern Hungary), and Russia (southern and southwestern part of Russia), our immediate, present goals must be adapted to the boundaries of these states" (Baran, 1913, 10).

To this it can be added that the members of the UNDP were supporters of evolutionary developments. So, for them, every power was to be legitimate. In this case, the Austro-Hungarian monarchy was considered by the UNDP as the source of legitimacy for the future Ukrainian state. Because of this, almost all their state-oriented models relied on Austrophilia. Kost Levytsky later characterized the new version of the UNDP’s political demands as follows: "It was self-evident that we Galician Ukrainians could not claim from the central powers, Austria-Hungary and Germany, the separation of Galicia and Bukovyna from Austria, because we were on their side. Therefore, we raised our main claim: the liberation of Great (Dnieper) Ukraine from the Russian (tsarist) yoke, and it was argued that when Great Ukraine became an independent state, the Galician land would soon join it" (Levytsky, 1928, 10-11).

In its corrected form, the main political demand was to liberate Great Ukraine from tsarist Russia and to create an independent Ukrainian state on its basis, as well as to liberate Galician Ukrainians from the Polish domination, "without renouncing Austria" (Levytsky, 1928, 10-11). The congress, which considered the case of orientation policy, was attended by Ivan Franko, who, summing up, also expressed support for the Austrophilic trend: "It is a requirement of real politics to raise claims, which have the prospect of being accomplished. The call for an independent Ukraine requires from us to make our political orientation clear. Our orientation can only be based on the firm ground of Austria, where we can obtain the conditions for development and freedom of our people" (Levytsky, 1926, 494).

The Austrophilic trend became the UNDP’s dominant policy due to the impact of the following three factors: 1) introduction of universal suffrage in Austria-Hungary; 2) repression of national movements in Russia; 3) tensions between Austria-Hungary and Russia as a result of the Balkan crisis of 1908-1909 (Mitter, 1984, 211). The path chosen by the Ukrainian politicians resulted from the very nature of the then Ukrainian national democratic camp. The main sources of Ukrainian political Austrophilia were as follows: 1) loyalism; 2) legitimacy; 3) pragmatism.

Among the Austrian Ukrainians, loyalism to the state and dynasty was not only historic but also political. Vasyl Kuchabsky explained the sources of Galician loyalism: "In view of the impotence of the Ukrainian people, even the slightest obstacles on the part of the occupying states, Austria and Russia, were very undesirable. Therefore, one of the principal functions of Ukrainian policy was persuading the occupying states that growing national self-awareness and culture of the Ukrainian people would not reduce their loyalty to these states. The tactics of loyalism, which, for the benefit of the Ukrainian national interest, was to remain above suspicion, turned into one of the main postulates of Ukrainian political thought" (Золоті ворота. Історія Січових Стрільців 1917-1919, 1937, 6). The original class interests of the national democrats’ leading circles should also be considered. It was not just a centrist party, but a party of minor officials, lawyers, financiers, etc., so their vital interests and possible prospects, which largely depended on the state power, were not in the last place for them.

Although the Austrophilic orientation dominated the political course of the party, it still had a faction of independence supporters. This can be proved by the formation, as soon as the war broke out, of a secret committee by the UNDP’s radical wing, which worked on the development of Ukrainian state models (ЦДІАУЛ, 372/1/17:3-8). The meetings of this committee were held in extreme secrecy. All participants of the meetings pledged, "under the word of honour, to keep all these meetings in highest secret." Each time, the members of the committee confirmed their commitments with their personal signatures on the meeting minutes. The committee included well-known national democratic politicians: Lonhyn Tsehelsky, Andriy Luniv, Vasyl Paneyko, Stepan Rudnytsky, Rev. Yosyf Folys, Ivan Bobersky and Volodymyr Bachynsky. The committee not only worked out a plan for the formation of an independent Ukrainian state, but also discussed the future state constitution (ЦДІАУЛ, 372/1/17:4).

However, it was decided not to record in the program of intentions that Ukraine would become an independent state. There was also no common consent as to the proposal to draft a constitution modeled on the Hungarian one. The participants of the meetings had different approaches to the provisions of the future state’s constitution, and this was an obstacle.

The desire of the Ukrainian movement to create a broad national democratic platform based on the principle of being above any class differences determined the specific character of all national and political concepts emerging during this time in the UNDP environment. Rejecting socialism, the UNDP program formulated the basic principles of the liberal democratic doctrine. In particular, with regard to the economic block of requirements, it can be said that, given the principle of "organic labour" forming the basis of these requirements, this party can be quite rightfully qualified as a liberal democratic one.

The party deviated from the foundations of the populist movement’s initial stage, that is, it shifted the educational and cultural affairs to a secondary level, replacing them with the demand for deep political and economic organization of the Ukrainian society in Austria-Hungary. It made the demand for the formation of an independent Ukrainian state depending on the existing political situation in the states, which included Ukrainian territories. It considered the requirement for the formation of the Ukrainian autonomous region within the Austro-Hungarian Empire as a necessary step towards the establishment of the Ukrainian statehood. During the First World War, the UNDP chose the territory of Russian Ukraine as a polygon for the Ukrainian state concepts implementation. Although the Ukrainian national democrats began to develop a plan of practical measures aimed at establishing an independent Ukrainian state, in view of the current circumstances in Austria-Hungary, this requirement was not officially formalized in the UNDP program.

The party considered its main task before the First World War to be the struggle and the implementation of the Galician Diet electoral reform. However, with the onset of the war, this issue lost its relevance.

In 1918, the party played a leading role in the creation of the Western Ukrainian People's Republic. In April 1919 it changed its name to the Ukrainian Labour Party (Ukrainian People's Labour Party).

People

Mykhaylo Hrushevsky (1866-1934) — historian and political figure, one of the initiators of the creation of the Ukrainian National Democratic Party in Lviv
Yulian Romanchuk (1842-1932) — public and political figure, co-founder of the Ukrainian National Council and Ukrainian National Democratic Party, Austrian Parliament member, delegate of the Ukrainian National Council of the ZUNR
Yevhen Levytsky (1870-1925) — social and political figure, co-editor of the Buduchnist periodical
Volodymyr Okhrymovych (1870-1931) — public and political figure, co-editor of the Buduchnist periodical
Ivan Trush (1869-1941) — painter, public figure, co-editor of the Buduchnist periodical
Ivan Franko (1865-1916) — writer, translator, social and political figure, co-founder of the Ruthenian-Ukrainian Radical Party and, later, of the Ukrainian National Democratic Party
Kost Levytsky (1859-1941) — political figure, scientist, founder of the Ukrainian National Democratic Party, chairman of the Ukrainian National Council and of the ZUNR State Secretariat
Oleksandr Borkovsky (1841-1921) — public and political figure, one of the Ukrainian National Democratic Party leading members
Ivan Beley (1856-1921) — journalist, one of the Ukrainian National Democratic Party leading figures
Vasyl Nahirny — architect and public figure, one of the Ukrainian National Democratic Party leading members
Yevhen Ozarkkevych — doctor, one of the Ukrainian National Democratic Party leading figures
Damian Savchak — public and political figure, lawyer, Austrian Parliament member, one of the Ukrainian National Democratic Party leading figures
Omelian Temnytsky — public and political figure, one of the Ukrainian National Democratic Party leading figures
Vyacheslav Budzynovsky — public and political figure, one of the founders of the Ruthenian-Ukrainian Radical Party and, later, of the Ukrainian National Democratic Party
Lonhyn Tsehelsky (1875-1950) — public and political figure, Austrian parliament member, one of the Ukrainian National Democratic Party leading figures, editor of the UNDP’s periodical Svoboda, the ZUNR State Secretary of the Interior
Volodymyr Bachynsky (1880-1927) — political figure, one of the UNDP’s periodical Svoboda editors
Mykola Zayachkivsky (1870-1938) — entrepreneur, public and political figure, one of the UNDP’s periodical Svoboda editors
Stepan Baran (1879-1953) — lawyer, well-known publicist, public and political figure, one of the UNDP’s periodical Svoboda editors
Yevhen Olesnytsky (1860-1917) — lawyer, public and political figure, cooperative movement participant, Austrian Parliament member, one of the Ukrainian National Democratic Party leading figures
Yevhen Petrushevych (1863-1940) — lawyer, political figure, Austrian Parliament member, one of the Ukrainian National Democratic Party leading figures, president and dictator of the ZUNR
Andriy Luniv — public and political figure, member of a secret committee within the UNDP, which worked on the development of an independent Ukrainian state models
Vasyl Panayko (1883-1956) — public and political figure, editor of the Dilo newspaper, member of a secret committee within the UNDP, which worked on the development of an independent Ukrainian state models, member of the ZUNR government
Stepan Rudnytsky (1887-1937) — geographer and member of the Ukrainian Free Academy of Sciences, politician, member of a secret committee within the UNDP, which worked on the development of an independent Ukrainian state models
Yosyf Folys — Greek Catholic priest, public and political figure, Austrian Parliament member, member of a secret committee within the UNDP, which worked on the development of an independent Ukrainian state models
Ivan Bobersky (1862-1917) — educator, organizer of the sports movement in Galicia, politician, member of a secret committee within the UNDP, which worked on the development of an independent Ukrainian state models, chairman of the Sokil-Batko society

Sources