 When Age Equals Wisdom |
Volodymyr Senchenko,
The Professor
Interview by Glen WILLARD
I have wanted to interview the man we call "The Professor" for some time. He has been an invaluable contributor to the UO since its inception. Originally he answered questions (usually ones we provided for him) in a column in our original online UO called Ask the Professor as well as frequently contributing his own articles. This continued in the print UO until in February of this year when we discontinued Ask the Professor and asked the professor to begin his own regular column titled simply The Professor. Our objective was to further showcase his talents and utilize his vast knowledge on topics he felt important to the day. This has worked well but as always the Professor has done more and frequently contributes other articles in addition to his own column.
Unfortunately, I don't get to speak to the Professor as often as I would like. This is partly due to the language barrier-my handicap (the Professor is fluent or has an understanding of seven languages but not English). So, I had wanted a one on one interview with the Professor for some time. We finally got around to it in late afternoon on July 22nd when the Professor came to my home office and we had an approximate two-hour discussion. Nazar Kudrevskyy served as our translator. But first a little background on the Professor some of which appeared as a part of his introductory column in February.
Volodymyr Ivanovych Senchenko was born in the small town of Ladyzhyn in Podillya (Vinnitska Oblast, Ukraine) on June 16, 1929. His father was a schoolteacher and his mother worked at a collective farm. Professor Senchenko's education includes degrees in law as well as in political economy from Taras Shevchenko Kyiv State University. Further postgraduate study followed when he was accepted to the Academy of Social Sciences under the management of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union - the most privileged higher education institution of the former U.S.S.R.
Space does not allow for the listing and categorization of the various institutions the Professor has taught at or chaired or the many special projects he has been assigned to and led over a half century of work. He has been awarded "The Honorary Certificate of the Presidium of the Supreme Council of Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic" - the highest award in Soviet Ukraine. For one project he chaired in the 1970s he received the Order of Labor Red Banner and was awarded a title "Honored Worker of Higher Education".
In 1965 he began an association with Ukrainian TV and radio. Until 1989 he directed (prepared scripts, was an emcee, etc.) programs on economics on radio and TV. In 1990 he refused to be an emcee of these programs, but remained to be a consultant of Ukrainian TV.
As the Professor says, "The failure of perestroika put an end to my 40-year-long hesitations regarding favoring either planned or market economy, and the coup d'etat of Communists in 1991 put an end to my membership in the Communist Party."
Later the Professor worked as an economics consultant and then as full-time economics specialist at The Ukraine Market Reform Education Program sponsored by USAID.
Currently the Professor works at The Willard Group.
The Professor has said:
The most important periods of life that influenced him
the most were:
famines in 1933 and 1947;
The Great Patriotic War 1941-1945;
The "thaw" under M. Khrushchev (1953-1964);
And failure of M. Gorbachev's perestroika.
He also has said: "The most important event in my personal life is my happy marriage. Probably my marriage was made in heaven. My wife is
a teacher by profession, currently a pensioner."
I began my interview with the professor by asking him his impressions and thoughts on the four most influential Soviet leaders during his lifetime: Stalin, Khrushchev, Brezhnev and Gorbachev.
As to Stalin, the Professor paused for a long time, seemingly collecting his thoughts. His response was at first cautious. He began, "I knew the name of Stalin since the time I was four." He told of his father who was a schoolteacher and the rooms where children were taught and as in all such rooms pictures of Stalin were present. He then talked of how others spoke of Lenin and Lenin's policies after the revolution. He said Lenin's economic policies were basically market policies. He referred to others as talking of the times after the revolution and with Lenin as being "paradise". Reverting to Stalin he said Stalin was associated with collectivization. That the people thought of him as "making rich people poorer". He said Stalin's collectivization didn't begin in his village until 1935. He talked of many being forced to flee, of being taken away and sent other places. He discussed the peoples "intolerance and irritation" with Stalin and then of the period of purges that began throughout the Soviet system and continued in 1937-1938.
To my summation question "So Stalin was good/bad for the people?" He responded that Stalin was the State. That like Catherine the Great, Stalin knew his own greatness would be related to the success of the country.
On Khrushchev the Professor again began slowly, but as he talked I could begin to see enthusiasm. Khrushchev he said "did not get a proper education". Khrushchev realized this and seemed to always apologize for it as though his own personal embarrassment. I gathered that the Professor felt Khrushchev knew people though. And that he thought Khrushchev was undoubtedly good for the people.
From the time of the 1930's it had been the goal of Soviet planners and the charge given to them by Stalin to catch and surpass the United States in wealth and influence. Khrushchev took this seriously. From the beginning Khrushchev began to make changes. He restructured the system on a "raw materials" basis. (This term or change I didn't understand but failed to get back to.) The Professor then began to rattle off the improvements that came with Khrushchev: trains were converted from steam to electric, the mechanization of agriculture was completed, cars were produced for the people, an emphasis was placed on consumer goods and over 300 items were produced (from irons to coffee makers), men's and women's clothes began to change, etc.
On the last item listed above about clothes the Professor said that pre Khrushchev all men's suits came in one color - black. New fabrics were introduced as well as colors. And, this was important, Khrushchev himself would occasionally appear in public dressed casually.
The big item the Professor left for last. That was housing. After collectivization in agriculture and due to the move to industrialization, vast numbers of people had to move from the countryside and the villages (later the collective farms) to the cities. In the cities they were forced to live in communal apartments located in typical large, shabby buildings. These apartments were divided into rooms. Rooms were assigned to whole families. There was no privacy at all.
With Khrushchev came housing with families assigned to individual apartments in buildings. This meant separate rooms for members of the family. Though still crowded by Western standards this was a huge improvement in the lives of the citizens. Now furniture for clothes, bedding, closets, etc. could be utilized in a home. Furniture could now be placed against the walls he indicated. And most important there was now a degree of privacy.
Khrushchev also introduced pensions, reduced the armed forces by 1.2 million and, I take it, brought a good deal of pride to the people.
As to why Khrushchev was ousted, the Professor could only talk of leftists and fear of loss of control. This had resonance when we later talked of the change from Brezhnev to Gorbachev.
As to those two, Brezhnev and Gorbachev, we discussed a lot less than with Stalin and Khrushchev. It seems the Professor feels that Brezhnev's conservatism prevented forward movement. The planning became rigid. By 1972 the Professor stated that there was little hope of reaching the goal of "catching" the U.S. When I ask, "Why 1972?" the Professor gave no clear answer but it appears that is the time fixed in his mind that recognition of reality had set in.
As to Gorbachev, it seems the Professor has little of the dislike for him that I see and have heard from other former Soviets. And actually, I've read more in newspaper reports and analyses of this dislike or blame than I've personally seen. It seems as to Gorbachev that the Professor simply sees a man caught by the circumstances of his times.
A topic we then discussed that came up as I inquired further about the movement to the cities was life on the collective farms. Apparently, for the people who had previously had their own lives in the villages and on the small farms it had been pretty difficult. Quotas were set for workers that had to be met. The Professor talked of his own experiences working as a smitty and also operating tractors. He said that under the quota system one year he worked enough to qualify as having worked 400 days. For this performance he said he still wound up owing 14 rubles at the end of the year. The people he said were made to purchase State bonds. He described it as having to "subscribe" to pay for State projects, which resulted in a debt that had to be paid through work.
Apparently almost everyone wanted to get to the cities. They could not leave the farm without permission, which required a passport. Everyone was simply assigned or registered with their collective farm and had no passport. There were three ways to obtain a passport to leave the collective. One could join the army, qualify for higher education or lastly, one could be sent to prison. Some people apparently tried to get minor violations (particularly the women) and sent to prison in hopes of later getting into a city via passport. Again, here Khrushchev played a major part in changing this system. After Khrushchev anyone over 16 could obtain a passport and was able to move about the Soviet countries and work.
There were many other things discussed during our interview. I will conclude with one. This has to do with Ukraine's relationship with Russia.
"Russia can not be an empire without Ukraine." "Russia can not be great without Ukraine." And Kyiv is very important to Russians as they view themselves as a people. We had much interesting discussion on this topic. I want to interview the Professor again to gain greater insight on this than I was able during our interview. The theme seems to be that Ukrainians in general have always contributed greatly to Russian culture as well as in the areas of education, invention, leadership and even religion. Since we were concluding I was only beginning to grasp the extent of not only the Professor's depth of feeling on this subject but also the depth of his knowledge about it. To him, a lot of it traces back in history to the time of Kyivan Rus and Kyiv's early leadership in vision as well as the religious beginnings.
In summary, it appears the Professor strongly believes in Ukraine and in the inescapability (my words here) of the survival of the Ukrainian people as a distinct nation. A further discussion is much desired by me to gain more insight into this area.
The Professor is indeed an interesting man. We not only enjoy working with him but also take much pride in the association. His years of experience and his learned knowledge are a great asset.
|
Read also previous issue' articles:
Political Faces
Ahmet Tanyu: On Starting Up
A Kodak Moment
with Andrey Pleskonos
Philip Morris's Raman Berent International & Experienced
Ian Boag: European neighbor
The Velvet Songstress
|
| |
CONTACT US |
|
|
|
