Instituto de Estudios Políticos y Derecho Público "Dr. Humberto J. La Roche"

de la Facultad de Ciencias Jurídicas y Políticas de la Universidad del Zulia

Maracaibo, Venezuela

Esta publicación cientíca en formato digital es continuidad de la revista impresa

ISSN-Versión Impresa 0798-1406 / ISSN-Versión on line 2542-3185Depósito legal pp

197402ZU34

ppi 201502ZU4645

Vol.41 N° 77

Abril

Junio

2023

ISSN 0798- 1406 ~ De pó si to le gal pp 198502ZU132

Cues tio nes Po lí ti cas

La re vis ta Cues tio nes Po lí ti cas, es una pu bli ca ción aus pi cia da por el Ins ti tu to

de Es tu dios Po lí ti cos y De re cho Pú bli co “Dr. Hum ber to J. La Ro che” (IEPDP) de la Fa-

cul tad de Cien cias Ju rí di cas y Po lí ti cas de la Uni ver si dad del Zu lia.

En tre sus ob je ti vos fi gu ran: con tri buir con el pro gre so cien tí fi co de las Cien cias

Hu ma nas y So cia les, a tra vés de la di vul ga ción de los re sul ta dos lo gra dos por sus in ves-

ti ga do res; es ti mu lar la in ves ti ga ción en es tas áreas del sa ber; y pro pi ciar la pre sen ta-

ción, dis cu sión y con fron ta ción de las ideas y avan ces cien tí fi cos con com pro mi so so cial.

Cues tio nes Po lí ti cas apa re ce dos ve ces al año y pu bli ca tra ba jos ori gi na les con

avan ces o re sul ta dos de in ves ti ga ción en las áreas de Cien cia Po lí ti ca y De re cho Pú bli-

co, los cua les son so me ti dos a la con si de ra ción de ár bi tros ca li fi ca dos.

ESTA PU BLI CA CIÓN APA RE CE RE SE ÑA DA, EN TRE OTROS ÍN DI CES, EN

Re vicyhLUZ, In ter na tio nal Po li ti cal Scien ce Abs tracts, Re vis ta In ter ame ri ca na de

Bi blio gra fía, en el Cen tro La ti no ame ri ca no para el De sa rrol lo (CLAD), en Bi blio-

gra fía So cio Eco nó mi ca de Ve ne zue la de RE DIN SE, In ter na tio nal Bi blio graphy of

Po li ti cal Scien ce, Re vencyt, His pa nic Ame ri can Pe rio di cals In dex/HAPI), Ul ri ch’s

Pe rio di cals Di rec tory, EBS CO. Se en cuen tra acre di ta da al Re gis tro de Pu bli ca cio-

nes Cien tí fi cas y Tec no ló gi cas Ve ne zo la nas del FO NA CIT, La tin dex.

Di rec to ra

OIRALITH

M. C

HIRINOS

ORTILLO

Co mi té Edi tor

Eduviges Morales Villalobos

Fabiola Tavares Duarte

Ma ría Eu ge nia Soto Hernández

Nila Leal González

Carmen Pérez Baralt

Co mi té Ase sor

Pedro Bracho Grand

J. M. Del ga do Ocan do

José Ce rra da

Ri car do Com bel las

An gel Lom bar di

Die ter Nohlen

Al fre do Ra mos Ji mé nez

Go ran Ther born

Frie drich Welsch

Asis ten tes Ad mi nis tra ti vos

Joan López Urdaneta y Nil da Ma rín

Re vis ta Cues tio nes Po lí ti cas. Av. Gua ji ra. Uni ver si dad del Zu lia. Nú cleo Hu ma nís ti co. Fa-

cul tad de Cien cias Ju rí di cas y Po lí ti cas. Ins ti tu to de Es tu dios Po lí ti cos y De re cho Pú bli co

“Dr. Hum ber to J. La Ro che”. Ma ra cai bo, Ve ne zue la. E- mail: cues tio nes po li ti cas@gmail.

com ~ loi chi ri nos por til lo@gmail.com. Te le fax: 58- 0261- 4127018.

Vol. 41, Nº 77 (2023), 16-25

IEPDP-Facultad de Ciencias Jurídicas y Políticas - LUZ

Recibido 16/03/23 Aceptado el 16/04/23

Comparison of cultural and

political legitimation strategies

in Germany and Ukraine

DOI: https://doi.org/10.46398/cuestpol.4177.00

Nataliia Zlenko *

Johannes Crückeberg **

Abstract

Along with the economic and defence sectors, the cultural

and political sphere is an indicator of the state’s authority on

the world stage. A country’s success in this area depends on the

population’s understanding of the government’s appropriate

actions. Therefore, a balanced strategy of cultural and political

legitimization of the state not only justies the government’s

activities for citizens, but also solves a number of socio-economic

problems. The study identied the main existing approaches to the

classication of state policy models in the cultural and political sphere, as

well as countries that are typical representatives of each model. The concept

of legitimization is dened and its constituent elements are determined. The

subjects and objects of legitimization in the cultural and political sphere

were claried, and the author’s denition of the concept of cultural and

political legitimization strategy was proposed. The main characteristics of

cultural and political legitimization strategies are described with a view to

the historical aspects of development and the current state. The strategies

of these countries and the main directions of further development of culture

and politics were compared.

Keywords: legitimization; cultural and political strategy; foreign policy;

democratic values; social signicance; social signicance;

cultural and political strategy; foreign policy.

* PhD in Philosophy Sciences, Associate Professor, Department of Musicology and Cultural Studies,

Educational and Scientic Institute of Culture and Arts, Sumy State Pedagogical University named

after A.S. Makarenko, 42342, Sumy, Ukraine. / Guest Researcher, Research Institute Social Cohesion

(RISC), Section Hannover, Leibniz Universität Hannover, Hannover, Germany. ORCID ID: https://

orcid.org/0000-0003-2598-4336

** Project Coordinator, Research Institute Social Cohesion (RISC), Section Hannover, Section Hannover,

Leibniz Universität Hannover, Hannover, Germany. ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6850-

1168

CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS

Vol. 41 Nº 77 (2023): 16-25

Comparación de estrategias de legitimación cultural

y política en Alemania y Ucrania

Resumen

Junto con los sectores económico y de defensa, la esfera cultural y

política es un indicador de la autoridad del estado en el escenario mundial.

El éxito de un país en esta materia depende de la comprensión por parte

de la población de las acciones adecuadas del gobierno. Por lo tanto, una

estrategia equilibrada de legitimación cultural y política del estado no solo

justica las actividades del gobierno para los ciudadanos, sino que también

resuelve una serie de problemas socioeconómicos. El estudio identicó

los principales enfoques existentes para la clasicación de los modelos de

política estatal en el ámbito cultural y político, así como los países que son

representantes típicos de cada modelo. Se dene el concepto de legitimación

y se determinan sus elementos constitutivos. Se aclararon los sujetos y

objetos de legitimación en el ámbito cultural y político, y se propuso la

denición del autor del concepto de estrategia de legitimación cultural

y política. Se describen las principales características de las estrategias

de legitimación cultural y política con miras a los aspectos históricos del

desarrollo y el estado actual. Se compararon las estrategias de estos países y

las direcciones principales del desarrollo ulterior de la cultura y la política.

Palabras clave: legitimación; estrategia cultural y política; política

exterior; valores democráticos; signicación social.

Introduction

Ukraine’s independence increases the signicance of the development

of the cultural and political sphere. The country’s being part of the Soviet

Union impeded such development, so Ukraine needs to optimize models

and strategies in the cultural and political sphere as soon as possible. In

view of Ukraine’s course towards the European Union, it is appropriate to

study the experience of European countries in determining cultural and

political legitimation methods and models which can be useful for Ukraine.

Germany is one of the countries that oers useful experience for Ukraine.

One of Ukraine’s close neighbours, this country has a historical experience

somewhat similar to Ukraine: the weak signicance of democratic values,

belief in the power of the “leader”, the need for post-war restoration,

integration into the world community — these factors were characteristic of

both countries in certain periods of time.

However, the dierence is that Germany started its path towards the

progressive development of the cultural and political sphere earlier than

Nataliia Zlenko, Johannes Crückeberg

Presentación

Ukraine, and in recent decades it took place in more favourable conditions,

so there is a signicant gap between the countries.

Although the cultural and art potential of Ukraine is extremely large, its

development and implementation need to be ensured by a thorough state

strategy. But the Ukrainian government mostly implements separate short-

term measures in the eld of culture and art. Besides, it is appropriate to

pay more attention to the improvement of institutional support for the

development of the cultural and political sphere in Ukraine, which will

enable culture-related state and non-state institutions to increase the

eectiveness of their activities, consolidate eorts, and also enable the

formation and implementation of strategic plans and goals.

The aim of the study is to determine the essence and theoretical aspects

of the cultural and political legitimation strategy, and to compare such

strategies in Ukraine and Germany with the vectors of further development

for Ukraine. The aim involved the fullment of the following objectives:

1. Results

Signicant dierences in the development of countries around the world

led to the emergence of numerous cultural and political strategies and

models, individual for each country. There are several approaches to the

classication of state cultural policy models. Those models can be divided

into three types based on the content:

1. Charismatic policy, where the state’s eorts in the course of

implementing this policy are focused on supporting certain cultural

gures or organizations known outside the state and those of

national importance.

2. Accessibility policy — the state provides equal access to cultural

artifacts and recognized examples of high art to dierent population

groups.

3. Cultural self-expression policy –blurring of hierarchical boundaries

in culture by recognizing the value of every attempt at self-expression,

cultural self-identication, as well as increasing the value of cultural

communication (Babytska, 2019).

Another typical classication of state cultural policy models is the

approach with the division of such models into the following types:

1. Liberal model — the state does not actually interfere in the sphere

of culture, having transferred the authority to regulate the sphere to

various foundations (typical for the USA).

CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS

Vol. 41 Nº 77 (2023): 16-25

2. Partly-state model — the state transfers its obligations regarding

the development of culture to a specially established body (Great

Britain and Ireland are typical examples).

3. Bureaucratic educational model – characterized by total control

of the state over the sphere of culture, its dependence on ideology

(post-Soviet countries);

4. Prestige and education model — culture is determined by the factor

of national identity, an indicator of prestige among other countries,

for which the state is responsible (France).

5. The national emancipatory model is characteristic of countries, the

culture of which was suppressed in the past, and currently their

policy is aimed at restoring, preserving and developing cultural

traditions (some developing countries — Senegal, Peru, as well

as some post-Soviet countries — Kyrgyzstan, Moldova) (Šešić-

Dragičević and Stojković, 2013).

The most common classication is the division of state cultural policy

models into four types:

1. The assistant state is a model in which the state acts as an inspirer

for business and the commercial sphere to invest in the development

of culture. The United States of America are an example of a country

that successfully implements this approach. The advantage of

using the model is to stimulate business through the introduction

of economic and/or tax benets. The shortcoming of the model is

excessive subjectivity in making investment, personal preferences

of business managers, as well as the limited nancial resources of

such “donors”.

2. The engineer state – the state solely nances the cultural sphere,

and exercises control over the allocation of funds. This determines

the dependence of culture and individual creative projects on state

policy and ideology. Such projects are recognized as “ocial”,

while those that contradict the ideology of the state are considered

“oppositional”. It should be noted that this approach is often used in

Eastern European countries.

3. The architect state – this model is characterized by the establishment

of numerous ocial creative associations, as well as long-term

funding of the cultural sphere by the state. The inow of funds for

nancing the cultural sphere when applying this model is relatively

stable, although the dependence on the state budget is increasing.

The use of multi-channel nancing, which is used in one of the most

typical representatives of this model — France — can be the way to

solve this problem.

Nataliia Zlenko, Johannes Crückeberg

Presentación

4. Patron state – funding of culture is primarily aimed at ensuring

adaptability to changes and needs of culture, as well as introducing

innovations. The arm’s length principle is in eect, which is

implemented through the introduction of a number of independent

organizations that create a “bridge” between the state and culture.

The nancial resources are distributed taking into account

expert assessments, which are determined and provided by such

organizations. Great Britain and Germany are the representatives of

this model (Craik, 1996).

The considered models can be the basis for building cultural and

political legitimation strategies for the states in which they are applied. In

the most general sense, legitimation can be considered as giving a certain

process, phenomenon, etc. legitimacy or its acquisition by this process,

phenomenon.

Legitimacy can be dened as the result of legitimation, while legitimation

is a process, a system of coordinated actions (Tallberg and Zürn, 2019).

The interpretation of Berger and Lukman is worth noting among the rst

thorough denitions of legitimation. The researchers interpret this concept

as a way of explaining and justifying the actions of political and social

institutions through their cognitive perception and normative justication

(Vodenko et al., 2022).

Legitimation consists of the following elements:

1. The subject of legitimation — the one who carries out the

process (active party) — government, authorities, state, mass media,

etc.

2. The object — something that is legitimized and has high social

signicance — politics, social phenomena and institutions, etc.

3. The mechanism — a specic way in which legitimation

occurs (answers the question “how?”);

4. The bearers of ideas about legitimation — individuals (passive

party), who are inuenced by the legitimation process (Markus,

1982).

In general, the legitimation strategy can be considered as a set of eorts

of the country’s authorities to justify, explain, and also achieve a positive

assessment of their actions by an individual (Tannenberg et al., 2021).

Considering the cultural and political legitimation of the country, its subject

is the state as an active party, an individual as a passive party, and culture

as the object.

So, the cultural and political legitimation strategy can be dened as the

direction of the state authorities to achieve understanding, acceptance and

CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS

Vol. 41 Nº 77 (2023): 16-25

recognition of the main goals and orientations of cultural development, the

choice of key models and mechanisms of cultural policy by individuals and

society as a whole.

It is appropriate to begin consideration of the cultural and political

legitimation strategy in Ukraine from identifying the prerequisites and

main factors that inuenced its development. First of all, Ukraine is a post-

Soviet country, and its culture was signicantly aected by the totalitarian

regime.

So, it needs some time for complete restoration, removal of foreign

elements, reproduction of national achievements, etc. Second, Ukraine is

a developing country, so the relationship between the state and culture

is being developed, and the model of state cultural policy is undergoing a

gradual transformation.

Third, Ukraine has chosen integration into the European Union (EU) as

a development vector, so the country’s culture is inuenced by integration

and globalization processes. Besides, culture is inuenced by such macro-

environmental factors as the intensication of crises of various origins,

including the so-called legitimation crises of political power, the instability

of the economy and politics, as well as the full-scale military invasion of

the country by the Russian Federation, which led to the most catastrophic

consequences for the population, economy, and culture in the country.

These and other factors determined Ukraine’s current transitional

position on the way from the “engineer state” to the “patron state”. At

the current stage, the country is characterized by the implementation of

short-term measures for the development of culture in the absence of long-

term strategic plans. Among the positive aspects, it is advisable to note the

initialling of the Association Agreement and the creation of the Action Plan

for the implementation of the Association Agreement with the EU.

After this event, not only the Ministry of Culture and the Ministry of

Foreign Aairs of Ukraine played an active part in the building cultural

policy in Ukraine, but also such specially established cultural institutions

as, in particular, the Goethe Institute, the French Institute, the British

Council, the Polish Institute, which expand and provide new opportunities

for Ukrainian cultural gures. Moreover, the Ukrainian Cultural Fund, the

Ukrainian Institute, and the Ukrainian Book Institute should be mentioned

among the recently created cultural institutions.

Comparison of the cultural and political legitimation strategy in Ukraine

and Germany shows that Germany uses the “patron state” model eciently,

while Ukraine is on the way to full implementation of this model. However,

the path to the current level of development of the German culture was

neither short nor easy. The pre-war and war period (until 1945) was

characterized by inated national pride, weak rooting of democratic values,

belief in the power of the leader, and weak participation in politics.

Nataliia Zlenko, Johannes Crückeberg

Presentación

The end of the war was followed by the restoration of democratic values,

the intensication of political participation, opposition to authoritarian

values. There was a crisis of legitimacy in the 80’s of the last century, which

was characterized by a decreased trust of the population in the authorities.

A complex process of merging of two cultures began after the unication of

Germany, accompanied by a debate on the political and cultural integration

of East Germans into a democratic state (Burns and Van der Will, 2003).

So, Germany’s foreign policy on cultural issues has come a long way from

cultural expansion to a strategy of the so-called “dialogue of cultures.” The

attitude towards the state as a guarantor of democratic rights and freedoms

is currently typical for German citizens.

German cultural policy is aimed at ensuring freedom of speech and

creative independence. Besides, the above-mentioned arm’s length

principle is in eect in Germany, which implies the creation of a number of

self-governing organizations in the eld of culture. Promotion of German

culture, language and science in countries around the world is one of the

most signicant vectors of Germany’s cultural policy (Zlenko, 2022).

The Ministry of Foreign Aairs of Germany includes a department for

cultural cooperation issues. This department deals with the relations with

other countries in the sphere of culture, the development of cooperation in

the eld of science and education, etc. The Ministry of Foreign Aairs of

Germany only partly implements cultural policy independently — it mostly

entrusts this task to intermediaries.

The largest intermediary organizations include the Goethe Institute,

German Academic Exchange Service, Institute of International Cultural

Relations, Humboldt Foundation, etc. An important place is occupied

by various political (party) funds that “export” the political culture of

Germany, work with mass media, public organizations and higher education

institutions, etc. (Zlenko, 2022).

Despite some dierences in their development, Ukraine and Germany

successfully cooperate in the eld of culture. The Ukrainian Embassy in

Germany and the Consulates General in Hamburg, Munich, Dusseldorf

and Frankfurt am Main support a number of projects under the budget

programme Financial Support for a Positive International Image of

Ukraine, the Activities of the Ukrainian Institute, and Measures to Support

Relations with Ukrainians who Live Outside Ukraine.

Today, the Cultural Cooperation Agreement between the Government

of Ukraine and the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany of 15

February 1993 is the contractual and legal basis for cultural cooperation

between these countries (Embassy of Ukraine in the Federal Republic of

Germany, 2019).

CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS

Vol. 41 Nº 77 (2023): 16-25

The fruitful cultural cooperation between Germany and Ukraine

had a positive result for Ukraine —the return of a cultural and historical

artifact — the 1708 Charter of Peter I. Among other things, this relic dispels

the widespread myth disseminated by the propaganda of the Russian

Federation regarding the historical aliation of the Metropolitanate

of Kyiv to Moscow, while the document conrms its subordination to

Constantinople. Moreover, numerous monuments related to Ukrainian

culture and its outstanding gures — Mykola Lysenko, Lesia Ukrainian, etc.

Were placed in Germany thanks to German-Ukrainian cooperation.

Concerts by Ukrainian musicians, events with the participation of Ukraine

dedicated to the art of photography, Ukrainian cinematography, as well as

literary readings are regularly held in Germany. Much attention is paid to

the work with the Ukrainian community in Germany, Ukrainian weekend

schools, cooperation in the eld of youth policy, etc. (Embassy of Ukraine

in the Federal Republic of Germany, 2019).

The results obtained from the review give ground for summarizing

recommendations for the further development of cultural and political

legitimation strategies in Ukraine. First, it is appropriate to improve the

work in the eld of strategy and detailed road map development, strengthen

the institutional component, document the main provisions and guidelines,

and create a thorough documentary framework, ensure adequate funding,

etc.

Besides, the individual projects should be properly nanced by the

state or patrons. Such projects should be aimed at presenting Ukrainian

culture and the country as a whole for other countries of the world in the

best possible way. Grants for the implementation of such projects should

be provided by the Ukrainian Cultural Fund under the Ministry and the

Ukrainian Institute.

Conclusions

The conducted review gives grounds to state that the cultural and

political legitimation strategies of Ukraine and Germany are similar and

are based on the “patron state” model. However, Ukraine is on the way to

the implementation of this model, while Germany has already successfully

implemented in through the establishment of a number of independent

organizations that “connect” the state and culture, ensuring freedom of

speech and creative independence for citizens.

The underlying reason is the country’s long being part of the Soviet

Union, and the subsequent need to get rid of totalitarian values during

independence, which inhibited cultural development, preserving elements

Nataliia Zlenko, Johannes Crückeberg

Presentación

of the “engineer state” model in the country. The Ukrainian-German

cultural cooperation currently plays an important role in the development

and spread of Ukrainian culture.

This process contributes not only to improving the image of Ukraine and

raising awareness of its identity in the international arena, but also makes a

signicant contribution to establishing the historical authenticity of certain

facts. In particular, it dispels the myth about the historical aliation of the

Metropolitanate of Kyiv to Moscow, and determines that it was actually

subordinated to Constantinople.

Bibliographic References

BABYTSKA, Svitlana. 2019. “Types and Models of State Policy in the

Field of Culture” In: Іnternаtіоnаl Scіentіfіc Jоurnаl “Іnternаukа”.

Available online. In: https://www.inter-nauka.com/uploads/

public/15625738658201.pdf. Consultation date: 15/09/2022.

BURNS, Rob; VAN DER WILL, Wilfried. 2003. “German Cultural Policy: An

Overview” In: International Journal of Cultural Policy. Vol. 9, No. 2, pp.

133-152.

CRAIK, Jennifer. 1996. “The Potential and Limits of Cultural Policy Strategies-

Paper Presented at the Grith University. Institute for Cultural Policy

Studies. Conference (1995: Brisbane)” In: Culture and Policy. Vol. 7, No.

1, pp. 177-204.

EMBASSY OF UKRAINE IN THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY. 2019.

Cooperation in the Field of Culture and Interaction with the Ukrainian

Community. Available online. In: https://germany.mfa.gov.ua/

spivrobitnictvo/kulturno-gumanitarne-spivrobitnictvo. Consultation

date: 15/09/2022.

MARKUS, Maria. 1982. Overt and Covert Modes of Legitimation in East

European Societies. T.H. Rigby, F. Fehér Eds., Political Legitimation in

Communist States. St Antony’s/Macmillan Series. Palgrave Macmillan.

London, UK.

ŠEŠIĆ-DRAGIČEVIĆ, Milena; STOJKOVIĆ, Branimir. 2013. Cultural

management, animation and marketing. Cultural Information Center,

Zagreb. Available online. In: https://www.academia.edu/44249379/

Buran_%C5%BEivot_jedne_knjige_Kultura_menad%C5%BEment_

animacija_marketing. Consultation date: 15/09/2022.

CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS

Vol. 41 Nº 77 (2023): 16-25

TALLBERG, Jonas; ZÜRN, Machael. 2019. “The Legitimacy and Legitimation

of International Organizations: Introduction and Framework” In: The

Review of International Organizations. Vol. 14, pp. 581-606.

TANNENBERG, Marcus; BERNHARD, Michael; GERSCHEWSKI, Johannes;

LÜHRMANN, Anna; VON SOEST, Christian. 2021. “Claiming the

Right to Rule: Regime Legitimation Strategies from 1900 to 2019” In:

European Political Science Review. Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 77-94.

VODENKO, Konstantin; ZHADE, Zuriet; ESHEV, Marat; MAMISHEVA, Zara;

BELIKOV, Alexander. 2022. “Conceptual Model of Historical Memory as

a Resource for Development of Regional Society Based on the Synthesis

of Traditions and Innovations” In: Journal of Positive School Psychology.

Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 4866-4875.

ZLENKO, Nataliya. 2022. Analysis of Cultural and Political Legitimation in

Germany. The 9th International Scientic and Practical Conference

“Study of World Opinion Regarding the Development of Science”.

International Science Group. Prague, Czech Republic.

www.luz.edu.ve

www.serbi.luz.edu.ve

www.produccioncienticaluz.org

Esta revista fue editada en formato digital y publicada

en abril de 2023, por el Fondo Editorial Serbiluz,

Universidad del Zulia. Maracaibo-Venezuela

Vol.41 Nº 77