Guest of the episode: Anton Osmak – Doctor of Philosophy in Public Management and Administration, Associate Professor of the Department of National Economy and Public Management at Vadym Hetman Kyiv National Economic University, Chairman of the public organization “Miy Vidradnyi.”
Transcript of conversations
Nik Lysytskiy: Each episode of our project is dedicated to one of the values inherent to the Ukrainian people — one of the elements of our national identity. And today, we wanted to talk about an especially important value: democracy.
In preparing each episode, we analyze how this or that value is represented in Ukrainian folklore — because folklore is the foundation of our traditions and the backbone of our society.
And when it comes to democracy, here’s what we’ve formulated after our research:
Democracy is an ethno-mental trait of the Ukrainian people — deeply rooted in our folklore, traditions, and customs. Since ancient times, Ukrainians have been characterized by their drive for equality, communal self-governance, elected leadership, and rejection of unlimited personal power.
It is precisely these traits that have driven Ukrainians to fight for their freedom — through uprisings and revolutions.
Mr. Anton, what does democracy mean to you personally?
Anton Osmak: I’d like to start with a date — one that’s very symbolic. The beginning of this conversation actually started yesterday, when we marked the 35th anniversary of the Revolution on Granite.
That, to me, is democracy. It’s when young people, through self-sacrifice, stepped out onto the granite pavement to defend their aspirations, their ideals, their freedoms. They stood up for their “self” in this world.
That, perhaps, is a form of democracy — the awareness of one’s own “self,” one’s inner dignity. Of course, this sometimes leads to conflict, and in public life, conflict is a natural thing — born out of that same sense of “self.”
But democracy is, in many ways, an ethnic imprint that lies deeply within our nation — the instinct to defend our sense of “self.” More precisely, what’s happening now in Ukraine isn’t just about my “self,” but our “self.”
“I” not as an individual, but as part of a whole — as a member and representative of this nation.
Nik Lysytskiy: What’s the difference, in your view, between democracy as a value — a social trait — and democracy as a political system?
Anton Osmak: You know, I think democracy begins with an understanding of freedom. There’s anarchy — which, in a way, can also be seen as a kind of freedom, even a distorted form of democracy. It’s also about the individual “I.”
But democracy, in my opinion, is freedom — yet not absolute freedom. Absolute freedom is closer to dictatorship, paradoxically, because true freedom ends where another person’s freedom begins.
So, freedom in the democratic sense — and especially in the national sense — is about this collective “I,” a freedom that’s shared, connected, and conscious of others.
Democracy is freedom that’s regulated — freedom that exists within a framework of rules and mutual respect. It’s not anarchy. It’s about “I,” “we,” and the rules that bind us together.
And these rules are not just about laws — they’re about the relationships that people build within society. That’s the real democracy. It’s not about politics.
Nik Lysytskiy: And what features of the Ukrainian mentality, in your opinion, most contribute to democracy — and which ones stand in its way?
Anton Osmak: Well, ironically, the same traits that help also hinder us. Again, it’s the issue of freedom. In Europe, freedom tends to be more regulated — within a stable framework. Here, we have a kind of inner anarchy, where personal freedom — the individual “I” — often outweighs the collective “we.”
That’s one. The second is what I’d call Cossack recklessness. It’s both our strength and our weakness.
That Cossack spirit — the independence, the defiance, the spontaneous resistance we’ve seen since the start of the full-scale invasion — all of that is part of our national character.
But at the same time, what we often lack is the ability to stop, sit down, and negotiate. The ability to find compromise — that’s what we still struggle with the most.
Nik Lysytskiy: How do you explain to first-year students — and I’m asking you this as a teacher — what democracy really is, and why it’s not just about governing the state, but about a way of life in society?
Anton Osmak: Let’s put it this way — democracy isn’t primarily about governing the state. Yes, we have a democratic system of governance, but that’s not the essence of it. The main challenge is how to explain this.
You have to find your own approach, because every student is different. Just yesterday I had a very interesting lecture — we were discussing various issues, including digital democracy. And to reach each student individually is quite difficult, especially because of that natural independence, that Cossack spirit, that sense of personal “I” they all have.
But the best way to explain democracy is through usefulness. Democracy is about what I, as an individual, can do for society. What each student can do for their community. That’s one of the forms of democracy — it’s about connecting the personal “I” with the collective “we.”
Unfortunately, modern politics doesn’t always reflect that. I don’t equate politics with democracy. Politics is competitive by nature — and yes, competition can be a manifestation of democracy. But competition doesn’t always mean fair play. Politics often involves manipulation — even manipulation of democratic principles.
Still, if you open the charter of any public organization — not necessarily a political party — it will say: “The organization operates in the interests of its members.”
That’s how democracy works too.
Politics is about me.
Democracy is about us.
That’s probably the simplest way to understand it.
Nik Lysytskiy: If you could define it, what do you think is the main strength of Ukrainian democracy? Is it freedom of speech, open discussion, that Cossack spirit you mentioned — or something else?
Anton Osmak: You know, there’s a great Ukrainian proverb: “It’s easier to beat your father when you’re in a group.”
Our democracy works the same way — it’s collective. It’s not one-on-one; it’s in a group.
That’s the strength of Ukrainian democracy — the ability to unite.
Nik Lysytskiy: We’ll come back to proverbs a little later — you’ve already guessed what’s waiting for you in our folklore chest. In each episode, we have a segment called “The Folklore Chest,” where we feature something from folklore that connects to the theme of the discussion.
And today, that means proverbs — but that’s coming up soon.
Anton Osmak: Can I try to guess one now? I’m already on the same wavelength.
Nik Lysytskiy: You’re a lecturer in public administration and local self-government, so this seems like the perfect moment to explore this value in depth — not just in folklore, as we did in our research, but in real life: how democracy is expressed in society today, and what it truly means.
So my next question is a bit about the future — about political futurism.
Is it important for Ukraine to develop its own model of democracy?
Anton Osmak: You know, I wouldn’t say there’s such a thing as a specifically “Ukrainian” model of democracy. To answer your last question directly — yes, Ukraine should develop its own democratic identity, but I’ll explain what I mean by that.
Democracy itself doesn’t really have different “models.” Democratic principles are universal. On one hand, we can talk about our unique historical path toward democracy; on the other, Ukraine is now moving firmly toward the European Union.
By the way, the latest news is that the screening of Ukrainian legislation has been completed — that’s a big step on the path to EU integration. So, it’s difficult to talk about a “special” or “personal” form of democracy, because democracy, in essence, is a tool — a toolkit.
Any democratic process involves a structured set of actions that either lead or don’t lead to a particular result. If democracy is a tool, then, as in European Council projects, there’s a concept known in English as cases. We live in a globalized world, so I’m not afraid to use English terms.
Why? Because “examples” and “cases” are almost the same, but “cases” are systematized examples — tested, categorized, studied.
Take, for instance, the Council of Europe’s activities in Ukraine. I’d like to greet my colleague Oleksii Kovalenko, who recently defended his dissertation. His project is about playing democracy — essentially teaching democracy through interactive methods, through games.
I won’t name the specific programs so it doesn’t sound like an advertisement, but these kinds of “cases” — these tools — are adapted for European countries. Interestingly, this concept of playing democracy was developed here, in Ukraine, and then adapted for use across Europe.
So, it’s an exchange — some tools come from there and take root here; others are born here and find success abroad. For example, participatory budgeting — what we call the public budget — that idea took root in Ukraine and continues to evolve, even amid war.
And that’s democracy — citizens managing a part of public funds, making collective decisions. It’s a form of controlled, structured democracy, but one that empowers people. It’s democracy through consent — through an agreement between authorities and the community.
The public budget is also a strong indicator of civic engagement. That’s one side of it. On the other hand, this tool came to us from abroad — from the global exchange of democratic ideas.
So, can we talk about a uniquely Ukrainian democracy? Not really — the world today is a globalized democracy. Some democratic tools work here, others develop at lightning speed, but there’s one nuance: everything has its life cycle.
A tool that’s effective today might not be tomorrow. So, the development of democracy isn’t just about growth — it’s about mining new tools from the public sphere, finding new ways for citizens to participate.
Returning to my students — I teach a wonderful course (I won’t name it exactly), but its essence is about projects in the public sphere. Democracy, among other things, is about projects. It’s about education — understanding these tools, studying how they work.
That’s why I always start my class with a short video fragment. Unfortunately, not many of these resources are available in Ukrainian translation. Just yesterday, I shared some new materials in English — they’d only been released the day before. That’s how fast it moves.
Education — real education, not just higher degrees or formal courses — is the foundation. It’s what allows democracy to grow and renew itself.
You know, I’d describe the problem of our democracy as a kind of naive stage — a stage that’s always searching, but often searching for not just simple, but very simple solutions.
Education and democracy — they’re about understanding that the road to solving a problem is long and difficult. I’ll go back again to the idea of project work in the public sphere.
We start with a simple task for the students: you’re walking down the street, looking at your smartphone — even glancing at billboards — but learn to look around you. If you notice something wrong, if you see a problem, and an idea appears in your mind — that’s already the beginning of democracy.
Because the moment you see a problem and try to find a way to fix it — that’s democracy in action. You see an issue; you can’t solve it alone; so you start looking for others who care. You build a team, a small community of like-minded people. That’s the next step. And then, step by step, you start working on the solution together.
True democracy — classroom democracy, community democracy — isn’t about saying “I want it here and now.” It’s about understanding the long road toward solving a problem.
My students usually start very practically. They describe the problem they see and estimate how much time they think it would take to solve it. Most say, “We’ll fix it in a week.”
But that’s not how it works. “Johnny will make me an edit,” they say — like it’s a video that just needs a quick fix. Later, when we revisit the same projects, we compare the first version with the final one.
At the start, it’s a baby — raw, naive. By the end, it’s an adult — mature, realistic, burdened with real challenges. The project is no longer just “Johnny, make an edit,” but a deeper understanding of what democratic tools and processes really mean.
In democracy, there’s no such thing as “today for tomorrow.” Everything takes time, patience, and growth.
Nik Lysytskiy: The Archetype of the Nation project is created with the support of the Ukrainian Cultural Foundation and is available in different formats — so choose the ones you like. Watch, listen, read our episodes, and share your thoughts in the comments, because in this project, every opinion matters.
And, of course, subscribe to our channels and pages so you don’t miss anything interesting. All links are in the description of this episode.
By the way, you mentioned that democracy is a tool. In one of our previous episodes, Valerii Markus said that justice is also a tool. So, since we’re talking about values — it turns out that values themselves can function as tools, if applied correctly in specific contexts and actions.
Anton Osmak: Exactly. The ability to realize yourself — and to understand the collective “we” — is a value. Realizing that you’re not alone, that there’s a community around you, that there are people who support you — that’s also a value.
A community means diversity — different opinions, different experiences — and that diversity itself is a value.
And to continue, my respectful response to Mr. Markus — this value is not simple. It’s complex, and it’s a skill that must be developed. Because we still have personal attitudes, sensitivities, and fears when it comes to publicity, freedom of speech, and openness.
It’s a special value for everyone — for public organizations, for state authorities, for local governments, and even for individual politicians and political parties. It’s a value that’s extremely difficult to achieve — almost impossible, but vital.
We often say democracy equals freedom of speech. And yes, freedom of speech is a tremendous value — especially freedom of speech in spite of everything.
The modern digital world gives us almost unlimited freedom of speech. But at the same time, considering that today’s wars are fought primarily in the digital space, another great value is emerging — the ability to hear those who are silent.
My team and I once realized something important. It’s one thing to receive visible support — comments, likes, rallies. But try to feel the support of those who never speak out. That’s the real challenge.
So yes — freedom of speech is a value. But the goal is to learn to hear the silent ones.
Nik Lysytskiy: Let me explain — maybe I’ve said this before in previous episodes, maybe not, but this feels like the right moment to bring it up. Why are we even talking about values in this project?
Because — well, as we know, and I’m sure you and I both understand this — the European Union is built on six core values.
Ukraine, meanwhile, has always been built primarily on traditions — and no one would argue with that.
But on the other hand, if we want to grow, to evolve, to become the strong and modern country we all strive for, then we have to rely not only on historical heritage and folklore, but also on something that, while modern, forms the very foundation of a nation.
And, in our view, those things are values. But the question is — what values? Some of them overlap with European values, some may differ, and perhaps we have even more than twelve — but each one is important.
So in this project, we chose twelve key values to explore — and among them, one of the most significant is democracy.
It’s fascinating to see how, when values themselves become tools, they help us understand who we are today and who we can become in the future — built on that foundation of values.
It’s also important to understand whether these values are truly ours. That’s why, in each episode, we examine a value under a kind of microscope — to understand what it really means. Is it truly part of our identity, or did we just invent it? Was it once part of our folklore but has now lost relevance in modern society?
We’re trying to find that out together.
Anton Osmak: In folklore, values are a complicated thing — because folklore itself is so diverse. There’s the nominal folklore — things like ritual songs or symbolic expressions — and there’s mental folklore, which reflects our worldview and mentality.
Nominal folklore might be something like a work song or a refrain — but it’s still folklore. And yes, even something like the Revolution on Granite, which we mentioned earlier, can be considered folklore — it’s part of our living tradition. It’s about values too.
But I’d emphasize that any value can be understood first and foremost through the lens of freedom.
The key question is: what kind of freedom does this value give us?
Secondly, we must remember that values aren’t constant. They’re not fixed or given once and for all.
What values does a newborn child have?
Nik Lysytskiy: To live.
Anton Osmak: Exactly. Values are shaped by the environment — they grow and evolve. They’re instilled by parents, in kindergartens, schools, universities, and by society itself.
Freedom, too, is not innate. It’s something learned and earned. Yes, perhaps certain traits are embedded in our character, but values are not static — they’re dynamic. They develop.
So we can’t just say that Ukrainians have some specific, unchanging set of values.
It’s within our power — here and now — to nurture those values, to create new ones, and to help them grow.
Nik Lysytskiy: But in order to do that, we first have to define the values we’re striving for. And that’s really the purpose of this entire project — to define, discuss, and reflect on the twelve key values we’ve identified.
It’s a call for dialogue — for conversation and reflection.
Do we see these values as truly our own? Do we want to develop them further? Or do we perhaps need new ones?
Let us know in the comments if you think there are other values we should add. Write your own list of what you consider Ukrainian values.
Maybe it’s not as light or entertaining as most content people scroll through today, but it’s important — because thinking about values now means shaping the future.
So, speaking of democracy — both past and future — can democracy exist without a long-standing democratic tradition in society?
Anton Osmak: Just like values, democracy is not constant. It evolves. It changes along with the global world — and with technology.
The tools of democracy — those modern digital democratic tools — they’re reshaping how democracy functions.
In some ways, they simplify it; in others, they complicate it.
Nik Lysytskiy: But there are countries that never had democracy, don’t have it now, and probably never will.
Anton Osmak: Well, yes — there are countries where democracy simply isn’t meant to exist, where it functions more as a kind of theater.
Take China, for example — a “theater of democracy.”
Remember the Shenzhen experiment — the social credit system? On one hand, it seems authoritarian, but in theory, it’s built on an idea that if you behave well, contribute to society, and act responsibly, your rating rises — your influence grows.
In essence, that’s also a form of democracy — one based on behavior and public contribution.
If your actions harm others, your rating drops.
Logically speaking, that’s still a kind of democratic mechanism — though very different from what we traditionally mean by democracy.
Nik Lysytskiy: The series Black Mirror portrayed this kind of society very vividly.
Anton Osmak: Exactly — and there’s that fine line we call, with a bit of dark humor, the “digital concentration camp.” It’s like a narrow, winding trail over an abyss — on one side lies total digital control, and on the other, democracy. The question is, how do we keep our balance and not fall off either side?
Nik Lysytskiy: By the way, speaking of other countries and the future, Winston Churchill said more than half a century ago: “Democracy is the worst form of government — except for all the others that have ever been tried.”
Anton Osmak: And humanity still hasn’t come up with anything better.
Nik Lysytskiy: True. So why, then, are there still so many authoritarian regimes in the world today?
Anton Osmak: Probably because of the same thing we’ve been talking about — personal freedom and national values. In countries that never had a historical foundation of freedom — where freedom wasn’t passed down through generations, through family, through education — democracy simply has nowhere to take root.
If, in a nation’s collective memory, there’s no experience of freedom — no cultural or historical DNA of democracy — where could it possibly come from?
Take the countries we sometimes call “the swamp.” In the 1990s, there were certain movements, yes — what you could call a theater of democracy — but there was no real historical foundation for freedom.
If you look at history — and I don’t have the exact figures in front of me, but I remember a study comparing the number of uprisings — you’ll see something striking.
A rebellion, after all, is also a form of democracy. It’s a manifestation of freedom, of dissent — and that, too, is a value.
In the territory of Ukraine during the 1600s, 1700s, and 1800s, there were thousands of peasant uprisings — every year. On the territory of the “swamps,” there were only a few dozen.
That’s a kind of statistical proof — a historical marker of freedom, of grassroots democracy. It’s part of what we inherited — a reflection of the deep roots of our modern democracy.
Even rebellion — oddly enough — and even a touch of anarchy, are expressions of democracy. Not in the formal sense, but as emotional and moral manifestations of it.
Modern democracy, of course, is democracy with rules — structured, deliberate, lawful. But rebellion, uprising — those are also signs of democracy, just in its raw, untamed form. They represent readiness — the readiness of people to act.
Because what is rebellion? If we go back to folklore, back to the archetype of the “I” and the “we,” rebellion is never the act of one person.
Rebellion is always a social phenomenon.
Nik Lysytskiy: There’s also the opinion — and we hear it more often these days — that authoritarian regimes are actually more effective than democratic ones, simply because they can make decisions faster. And sometimes, even people in democratic societies start to repeat this idea.
So what are democracy’s chances for the future?
Anton Osmak: The only real chance for democracy to survive in the future is through change — through constant development and adaptation. We’ve already reached the stage of digital democracy, but now we’re moving even further, toward a far more complex philosophical question — the recognition of democracy within artificial intelligence itself.
Philosophers and science fiction writers have long discussed this — the relationship between human intelligence and machine intelligence — and this too relates to democracy. The key question is: what can artificial intelligence contribute to democratic society?
We began our conversation with roots — mythology, history — and now we’ve arrived at the future. The central challenge for democracy, compared to authoritarian or totalitarian systems, lies in decision-making speed. Yes, totalitarian regimes make decisions quickly. But the real issue is — how right are those decisions, and what are their consequences?
Quick decisions don’t necessarily mean good ones. The world itself changes even faster. Modern technology only complicates this, because decision-making — and here I mean managerial decision-making — requires not just action but analysis.
In a totalitarian system, one person makes those decisions. It’s efficient — but narrow. Modern democracies, using big social data, can now significantly accelerate their own decision-making processes while still basing them on public input. Yet gathering genuine opinions, especially from those who remain silent, is still extremely difficult.
That’s why the effectiveness of democratic decisions is so complex. But with data analysis, with digital tools, we can at least speed up how those decisions are formed. Authoritarian systems win on speed — but democracy can win on accuracy and balance.
And in any race — whether political, social, or technological — there is always a leader: the one who moves faster, who expresses ideas more clearly, who articulates values better. A leader is, in essence, a bearer of values. People either rally around one such bearer or choose another.
And here’s where the true art of democracy lies — in negotiation. The ability to negotiate between value-bearers, between leaders — that’s what sustains democracy.
Nik Lysytskiy: What, in your opinion, is the biggest threat to Ukrainian democracy right now?
Anton Osmak: If we put it figuratively, there’s a constant struggle — democracy on one side of the scale, and opposition on the other. And there’s also war. Unfortunately, war and democracy are not synonyms.
But democracy — this multitude of small fish that together can resist one big predator — is still a tool, even in wartime. It’s a system that allows coordination, self-organization, and resilience.
Nik Lysytskiy: And what if, hypothetically, democracy disappeared in Ukraine tomorrow, replaced by a rigid vertical of power — as we’ve already seen before?
Anton Osmak: Then we would lose the culture of compromise — the very foundation of democracy. Let me give an example.
There was once a compromise reached between local authorities, the community, and a small business. In one park, a section of land was allocated for picnic gazebos — for people to enjoy grilling outdoors, as is our custom. It’s a sort of national tradition, a social ritual, just like in the United States.
So, they found balance. The business earned some income, but also maintained order and provided security in the park. People enjoyed their leisure; the park stayed clean and green. The wolves were fed, the sheep were safe. That’s what democracy looks like — a social contract.
But yesterday, those gazebos were demolished. Yes, the law was technically violated — they didn’t have proper documentation. But something more was lost — that small social contract, that mutual understanding.
We have one big social contract as a nation, but it’s made up of thousands of small ones — small agreements, local compromises, moments of trust. When these are broken, the community feels betrayed. People feel that something essential was violated.
And that public disappointment — that negativity — is also a form of value. It’s society’s emotional response to imbalance, a signal that the democratic fabric has been damaged.
Nik Lysytskiy: You’ve just described a situation where you actually acted as a public organization. I assume you had to interact with local authorities as well, right?
Anton Osmak: Yes, exactly. In this case, the public organization worked as a kind of tool — a mechanism to process and address citizens’ requests. It’s a technical tool, but also a unifying one. An idea brought people together, and that shared idea produced a compromise.
And when there’s compromise, there’s balance, and everything works calmly. Now a new factor has appeared — a “pathogen,” so to speak. We don’t yet know how this story will end, but the process continues.
Nik Lysytskiy: If we look more broadly — not just at this particular park story — how would you assess the role of local self-government in Ukraine today, especially in the context of democracy?
Anton Osmak: I understand perfectly well that war, by its nature, doesn’t allow for full democracy. It just doesn’t. But even under such conditions, it’s still about compromise.
Ideally, there should be balance — between central government and local authorities. There must be a legal equilibrium where their decisions complement and restrain each other. And right in the middle of that balance should be the community — the people — acting as the stabilizer, the balancer of this democratic system.
That, too, is a value.
Nik Lysytskiy: Let me remind our viewers that today in the “Archetype of the Nation” studio we’re discussing democracy with Anton Osmak.
Tell me, is it possible to raise a democratic citizen without having democracy in schools and universities?
Anton Osmak: No.
Nik Lysytskiy: How do you personally support democratic principles in your teaching?
Anton Osmak: Well, you know, some teachers work by the rule: “It’s done my way or not at all.”
Nik Lysytskiy: Because I said so.
Anton Osmak: Exactly. Of course, there are things defined by law, by academic sequence, by procedure. But when I work with students, I tell them: “You can disagree with me. Let’s discuss it.” Sometimes I even change my point of view after hearing them.
Each student has their own personal experience — including democratic experience — and that’s valuable. I always try to keep the class dialogic. Sometimes, we start a discussion and end up staying for an extra hour or two — even until midnight — because the topic resonates so deeply that students demand to keep talking.
And you know, I’ve realized that society — any society — is made up of small social groups. Often, these groups don’t understand one another. Democracy is about learning to achieve balance, to hear those who are silent, to consider other perspectives.
In Kyiv, for example, we have many civic projects that serve narrow interest groups. That’s fine, but no one studies the opinions of the silent majority. And yet, the majority is usually silent. Their needs aren’t analyzed.
So, yes, small groups are active, loud, visible — but every “breakthrough” project still affects everyone. That’s why, in teaching, I value open communication — when students speak up, when they offer their perspective as representatives of another social group.
Teaching in this way is not just education — it’s sociology. Adapting knowledge and practice to different social groups is a form of democracy in itself. It’s a value — the value of direct dialogue.
Nik Lysytskiy: You mentioned that most of society tends to remain silent. Can we say that the more silent people there are, the more democratic a society becomes?
Anton Osmak: Yes — within limits. Statistically, it’s about 10 to 14 percent. And according to analysts, Ukraine actually has the largest share of non-silent citizens in the world — people who speak up, who act.
During the Revolution of Dignity, that percentage was even higher. And that’s also a value — one we should be proud of.
Nik Lysytskiy: So, from this perspective, Ukrainians are actually more democratic than Europeans, in a sense.
Anton Osmak: Exactly.
Nik Lysytskiy: That’s a plus.
Anton Osmak: A big, bold plus. Yellow and blue. Or as the military says — “plus-plus.”
Nik Lysytskiy: Do you ever have internal doubts about whether democracy is truly the right path?
Anton Osmak: Of course.
Nik Lysytskiy: Why?
Anton Osmak: Because the absence of doubt — that’s totalitarianism. Doubt is analysis. If I doubt something, it means I’m thinking, weighing, looking for truth. Every step in life involves a bit of doubt — and that’s what makes it the right step.
Nik Lysytskiy: So doubt itself is democracy?
Anton Osmak: Absolutely. Doubt is part of democracy. In fact, it’s one of its problems — and its strengths. European democracy, for instance, is built on doubt. Europeans question everything constantly. That’s why it often seems slow. But that slowness comes from the struggle for quality — for the quality of the decisions made.
Totalitarianism, on the other hand, makes decisions instantly — no hesitation, no discussion. But are those decisions good ones? That’s another question entirely. The real issue is the quality of democracy.
Nik Lysytskiy: Are there any democratic practices we still lack — things we should learn or adopt?
Anton Osmak: It’s more about readiness than about the practices themselves. Democratic practice only works when people reach the point where it becomes necessary — when they simply can’t function without it.
Take the local level. Democracy begins in the smallest possible unit — the family. Family decisions are already a miniature democracy.
Or look at an apartment building. On one side of the courtyard, everything is tidy and organized; on the other, chaos and neglect — yet the building is the same, the people are the same. The difference lies in practice — in the ability to talk, to listen, to reach agreement, to act together.
That’s democracy too. It starts small — with cooperation in the home, in the neighborhood — and grows into larger forms of self-government. From small democracies to great democracies.
And today, in the digital world, we have countless tools for it. But the essence of democracy is not just having those tools — it’s knowing how to use them to find compromise.
Nik Lysytskiy: Even in folk tradition, we see this idea. Birds held a council to decide how to create the world — that’s a form of democracy. Or take Kyrylo Kozhumyaka from the fairy tale — he didn’t listen to the prince who ordered him to save his daughter from the serpent, but instead listened to the children, to the community.
And during the Cossack era, we had the councils — the radas — where the hetman was elected collectively. So democracy is deeply rooted in folklore. Would you say Ukrainian democracy is a traditional value — something ancient — or is it a modern concept?
Anton Osmak: Of course, it’s ancient — it goes back to the Trypillian culture. Trypillia is our history, not someone else’s. Those people lived by democratic principles long before the word existed — they united, they agreed, they found compromise. That’s the essence of democracy.
And history reinforces modernity: the Trypillian culture, the Cossacks, the UPA — all of them strengthened this line of continuity. Modern democracy grows out of those same roots.
Nik Lysytskiy: That’s exactly why we say folklore is the foundation.
Anton Osmak: Yes. These are the roots — not just a substitute for something, but the real roots from which democracy grows.
Nik Lysytskiy: On that wonderful note, let’s open our Folklore Chest for the traditional game with our guest. Today we have proverbs inside — some related to democracy, some not. Your task is to read the proverb and tell us whether it relates to democracy as a value, or to something else.
The first one: “Life is good where people sow and reap together.”
Anton Osmak: That’s democracy, of course — collective effort, shared purpose. There’s even a civic organization called “Group,” and they run a great website with a whole range of public projects. Democracy is all about that — doing things together.
Nik Lysytskiy: “The community is a council — once it decides, so it shall be.”
Anton Osmak: Also democracy. Both the community and the council are democratic institutions. The key is that they decide together — that the community reaches agreement. European democracy, at its core, is about compromise and respect for differing opinions.
That’s what democracy means — when the freedom of the community rests upon the freedom of each individual.
As for the next one — “The godfather and goddaughter can take an active part in the electoral process… and when half the village votes, they already have the advantage — so we wish them victory!”
Nik Lysytskiy: (Laughs) I’d say that’s what we call “strong horizontal connections.” Yes?
Anton Osmak: Exactly.
Nik Lysytskiy: And now the next proverb — with a little twist, perhaps: “It’s easier to beat your father in a group.”
Anton Osmak: Well, if we replace the word father with Father, that’s exactly what our Belarusian neighbors didn’t manage to do in the 2000s or the 2020s. Of course, democracy is about that — the courage to challenge authority, even paternal authority.
Nik Lysytskiy: Let it be as the people say.
Anton Osmak: Exactly. That’s democracy — the ability to agree, to come to a social contract. When people collectively make a decision, when they reach compromise, that’s one of democracy’s key manifestations — the act of adopting a common decision.
The same goes for the Cossack mentality. The Cossacks practiced democracy through their elections — even the hetman could be overthrown by the will of the people.
Nik Lysytskiy: “Woe to the sheep when the wolf is the shepherd.”
Anton Osmak: Well, if the sheep don’t gather together, and the wolf not only becomes the shepherd but also the dictator — then yes, that’s what happens. We should frame this one, literally — make the background red, the text yellow — a warning to everyone.
Nik Lysytskiy: “Without a council, the army perishes.”
Anton Osmak: That’s about compromise again. Let me explain it a bit differently. There’s a modern economic saying: Ten Japanese can do more together than ten Americans, but ten Americans can do more individually than ten Japanese.
It’s not simple. The Japanese excel in collective initiative — teamwork, coordination. Americans excel in personal initiative — leadership, innovation.
Democracy needs both. It’s about balancing individual initiative with collective vision.
I’ll give an example from the military. I’m not a soldier, but since 2014 I’ve spoken to many who are — through volunteer work. A private in a siege might not see the whole battlefield, but sometimes that one private’s initiative can save the entire unit.
That’s the power of individual action for the common good — democracy in miniature.
Nik Lysytskiy: Thank you. That was a very thoughtful response to a proverb. It’s fascinating how one simple saying can provoke such deep reflection.
And now, as we near the end of our conversation — seven short questions and seven short, or not-so-short, answers.
Anton Osmak: Like in a Nagant revolver — seven rounds.
Nik Lysytskiy: What character trait do you value most in people?
Anton Osmak: That’s hard to answer. I’d rather say that every person is unique, and in each person, you can appreciate the quality that makes them who they are. So, maybe not a single trait, but personality itself.
Nik Lysytskiy: And what trait do you consider the worst?
Anton Osmak: The same logic applies — the worst trait is the one that destroys individuality.
Nik Lysytskiy: What inspires you?
Anton Osmak: The thought that the time will come when we’ll be gone, but our children will live here — in this country.
Nik Lysytskiy: What scares you?
Anton Osmak: Fear? I can shake it off. Morning’s already ticking upstairs. But yes — it ties back to what I just said. I want my children to live in a truly great country.
Nik Lysytskiy: What helped you get through the hardest moments in life?
Anton Osmak: At the start of the war, we created a Telegram channel focused on psychology — on overcoming stress through communication. It’s still alive, quite active. During shellings or heavy attacks, people go there, talk, support one another. Helping people overcome fear — that’s what helped me, too.
Nik Lysytskiy: What is the main goal or mission of your life?
Anton Osmak: My children should one day be able to say, “He helped us get a great country.”
Nik Lysytskiy: If you had to choose three words to describe Ukrainians, what would they be?
Anton Osmak: I’ll say it like this — madness, freedom. These are good traits. And at the same time, freedom can also be our weakness.
It’s paradoxical — this anarchic freedom, this wild energy — it creates heroes, but it can also make us reckless when it isn’t guided by values or responsibility.
Nik Lysytskiy: And now, to the “Artifact” section — where we ask our guests to leave something behind as a keepsake, something symbolic that ties into today’s theme. Tell us, what did you bring?
Anton Osmak: Well, since I’ve been involved in graphic design for quite some time — especially in poster art — I decided to bring a poster. Historically, during tough times, poster art has always flourished. And today, we’re seeing an incredible renaissance of it.
There are so many talented artists working in the social and civic sphere — people like Titok, Grekov, and many others. There’s a sea of them.
I’ll share something interesting — many of these artists are uniting around shared social missions. For example, Cousteau and I published a book featuring Shcherbak’s works — all posters — and it’s absolutely stunning.
So today, in keeping with the theme, I’ve brought a poster dedicated to democracy.
Nik Lysytskiy: Oh, great — that ties perfectly with recent events.
Anton Osmak: Yes, there’s a little play on words here. The poster shows a girl holding a cardboard sign that says “Democrats,” “Democracy,” and “Kraft.” “Kraft” here refers to the rough brown craft paper — it symbolizes those simple, handmade posters that express personal freedom. Together, they form one continuous stream, showing that democracy in Ukraine is alive, creative, and human.
Nik Lysytskiy: So we could say that in Ukraine we’re creating our own kind of craft democracy?
Anton Osmak: Exactly — yes, yes, craft democracy, like craft beer.
And here’s something else I brought — my personal reference book, “Tools of Public Participation for Active Kyivans.” It’s published by the Department of Public Communications.
This is my well-used copy — you can see the bent pages, notes, marks. It contains everything we’ve been talking about — the actual instruments that let people express their democratic aspirations, using modern digital tools.
Nik Lysytskiy: Thank you so much. That’s a really interesting book — I’ll definitely read it.
Anton Osmak: You don’t need to read it.
Nik Lysytskiy: Then I’ll look through it.
Anton Osmak: No need to look either.
Nik Lysytskiy: I’ll analyze it then.
Anton Osmak: No, no — don’t analyze. Use it. That’s what it’s for.
Nik Lysytskiy: Thank you very much for coming to see us today — and for such a deep and thoughtful conversation. I’m sure our viewers and listeners will find it really valuable. Wishing you success in your academic, teaching, and creative work.
Anton Osmak: Thank you.
Nik Lysytskiy: Friends, today our guest in the “Archetype of the Nation” studio was Anton Osmak — Doctor of Philosophy in Public Management and Administration, Associate Professor at the Department of National Economy and Public Administration of Vadym Hetman Kyiv National Economic University, and Head of the public organization My Joyful One.
Tell us in the comments what you found most interesting today.
Do you believe democracy is one of the key values inherent to the Ukrainian people?
And don’t forget — you can watch the “Archetype of the Nation” episodes on YouTube, listen to them on your favorite podcast platforms, or read them at magicworld.com.ua. There, you’ll also find popular science essays by folklorist Maryna Demediuk, and recordings of folklore performances by well-known actors.
Thank you for joining us — and see you next time!
