AI-generated from sources
The constitutional state versus the resource state: Ukraine’s sovereignty defined by political compact
In Brief
- The 1918 Ukrainian People's Republic (UPR) defined statehood primarily through political sovereignty, democratic institutions, and collective self-determination, emphasizing the citizen as a political actor.
- The UPR Constitution established innovative measures, such as 'national-personal autonomy,' affirming the state's identity as a multi-ethnic political compact, distinct from its physical territory.
- Contemporary Australian promotional literature presented a contrasting model, defining the state overwhelmingly by its vast, untapped economic resources (land/wheat) and recruiting 'settlers' as economic units.
- This historical tension highlights a recurring vulnerability where nations focused on political self-determination face external pressures viewing their land solely as an exploitable resource commodity.
At its core, the concept of a state raises fundamental questions about purpose and composition [1]. Is a nation defined primarily by its people and their collective political will, or by the economic potential of the territory it occupies? This inquiry reveals a deep-seated tension between two divergent models of statehood: one centered on the architecture of governance and popular sovereignty, and another focused on the land as a primary resource awaiting exploitation. The examination of historical documents from the early twentieth century showcases this dichotomy with striking clarity, offering contrasting philosophies on the relationship between people, land, and power.
On one hand, the 1918 Constitution of the Ukrainian People's Republic (UPR) presents a vision of a state founded upon a sophisticated political compact [2]. It meticulously outlines a sovereign entity built on democratic principles, where power originates from the people and is exercised through their elected representatives [3, 4]. This framework is deeply concerned with securing the rights, culture, and welfare of all its citizens, including a remarkably progressive system for guaranteeing the autonomy of national minorities [5]. Here, the state is foremost a project of collective self-determination.
On the other hand, promotional materials from the same era concerning the Commonwealth of Australia project a profoundly different image [6, 7]. Australia is portrayed not through its political structures but through its vast, fertile, and largely 'untouched' landscape [8]. The narrative is one of immense economic potential lying dormant, awaiting the application of labor to yield abundance for a global market [9]. This juxtaposition reveals a crucial tension: the Ukrainian emphasis on inviolable political sovereignty over a defined territory stands in stark contrast to a worldview that perceives land as a commodity to be developed and exploited, a perspective that historically has placed nations focused on self-governance in a precarious position.
The architecture of self-determination: The Ukrainian model
The establishment of the Ukrainian People's Republic was framed as an act of restoring a pre-existing 'state right' in order to defend its land and, crucially, to safeguard the liberties and well-being of its citizens . The foundation of this state was unequivocally popular sovereignty, with the constitution declaring that all power originates from the people . This power was to be wielded by a supreme National Assembly, which functioned as the highest legislative body and the source from which the executive and judicial branches derived their authority [10]. This structure placed the collective will of the populace, as expressed through its elected representatives, at the absolute center of national life.
The democratic mechanisms of the UPR were designed to be both comprehensive and direct. The constitution guaranteed universal suffrage for all citizens, male and female, who had reached the age of twenty, establishing a broad and inclusive basis for political participation [11, 12]. Members of the National Assembly were not only elected representatives but were also accountable for their political activities, with provisions for their prosecution with a two-thirds vote of the assembly [13]. This body held supreme authority over the most critical functions of the state, including the approval of state loans, the disposal of state property, the declaration of war, and the conscription of citizens for military service, ensuring that the nation's resources and fate remained firmly in the hands of the people's delegates [14].
Perhaps the most forward-thinking aspect of the UPR's constitution was its detailed framework for minority rights through 'national-personal autonomy' . This innovative concept granted every nationality within Ukraine the inalienable right to manage its own national life, irrespective of where its members resided within the republic's borders . Each national group could form a National Union, with its own elected assembly and council, to govern its cultural and social affairs [15, 16]. This system demonstrated a vision of the state that defined itself not just by territory, but by the complex tapestry of its peoples, actively creating a political space for multicultural coexistence. The UPR model was thus one where the state's primary role was the political organization of its diverse population, with its land and resources serving as instruments under the strict stewardship of that political body .
The land as promise: The resource-centric model of development
In sharp contrast to the politically focused Ukrainian model, the vision of Australia presented in official publications was overwhelmingly defined by its physical geography and economic potential . The continent was described as a vast repository of untapped wealth, a land of 'proven wheat land, as yet untouched by the plough' . This narrative of emptiness and dormancy positions the territory itself as the central character in the national story, awaiting external actors to awaken its productive capacity . The primary identity of the nation in these texts is not a political community but a fertile, responsive landscape ready for cultivation .
This resource-centric view was driven by global economic forces. With older countries reaching their limits of cultivation, the world’s increasing demand for food, particularly wheat, positioned Australia's expansive territories as a critical future breadbasket . Wheat was identified as the 'king of cereals' and an essential component of civilized life, making its cultivation a venture of global importance . Consequently, the state's role was envisioned as that of a facilitator, actively encouraging the settlement and development of its lands to meet this demand [17, 18]. Its primary function in this context was not merely to govern but to manage a vast natural resource for maximum economic output [19, 20].
The state's promotional efforts were directed at a specific demographic—'white men' with energy and a small amount of capital—promising them a 'prosperous career' and a contented home [21]. To this end, the government actively worked to lower barriers to entry, offering various schemes for acquiring land, such as share-farming arrangements [22, 23]. These systems allowed individuals with little more than a willingness to work to gain access to land, providing their labor in exchange for a share of the crop [24, 25]. This approach treated population itself as a necessary input for the primary goal of resource extraction, with the individual settler cast in the role of an economic pioneer [26, 27].
This created a symbiotic relationship between the state and the settler. The government was not a passive landlord but an active partner, investing heavily in infrastructure, agricultural colleges, and state-run experiment farms to provide settlers with the scientific knowledge and tools needed to maximize productivity [28]. The interests of the landowner and the farmer were presented as perfectly aligned, as both sought the greatest possible return from the land [29]. This framework solidified a model of the state as a large-scale enterprise, where its success was measured by the efficient and profitable exploitation of its territorial assets [30, 31].
Divergent philosophies of sovereignty and territory
The fundamental divergence between the two models lies in their conception of territory. For the Ukrainian People's Republic, territory was the inviolable geographic space within which a sovereign political community exercised its right to self-government . Its borders defined the jurisdiction of a people's collective will. For the Australian state as depicted in its promotional materials, territory was primarily an economic asset, a vast expanse of arable land to be marketed and populated to generate wealth [32]. This distinction reflects two different priorities: one political, the other economic.
This philosophical gap extends to the role of the individual. In the Ukrainian constitution, the individual is a 'citizen,' a political actor endowed with rights and responsibilities, such as the right to vote and the obligation of military service as determined by the national assembly [33]. In the Australian documents, the individual is predominantly a 'settler' or 'farmer,' an economic unit whose primary function is to apply labor to land . While this settler enjoys the benefits of a civilized society with political liberties, the core promise made to them is not political agency but the opportunity for economic prosperity and a comfortable home [34, 35].
Ultimately, the two visions represent different forms of control. The UPR Constitution is an instrument of political control, designed to ensure that the people, through their elected National Assembly, have final authority over the state's destiny, its finances, and its military power . The Australian model, by contrast, is preoccupied with economic and environmental control: mastering the land through scientific farming methods, overcoming pests, developing new crop varieties, and managing water resources to maximize agricultural output [36, 37]. The former seeks sovereignty over its political life; the latter seeks mastery over its natural resources.
The 1918 Constitution of the Ukrainian People's Republic stands as a powerful testament to a vision of statehood rooted in political self-determination. It conceived of a nation defined by its people, their democratic institutions, and their collective, sovereign will . This introspective focus on building a just and stable political order for a multi-ethnic society contrasts sharply with the outward-facing, developmentalist model exemplified by the Australian promotional literature . In that vision, a state's identity and value are derived primarily from its territory, seen as an economic resource to be leveraged for prosperity on a global scale .
This fundamental tension between the political and the economic conceptions of the state highlights a source of historical vulnerability. The Australian model, though presented as a benign process of settlement, is underpinned by a philosophy that commodifies territory and views it as an object for exploitation by external actors. When this same resource-centric worldview is adopted by powerful foreign interests and applied to a nation like Ukraine—whose identity is so profoundly intertwined with political sovereignty and the right to self-governance—the result is the very conflict between self-determination and exploitation that has marked its history. The UPR's meticulous constitutional framework can thus be understood as a deliberate effort to erect a legal and philosophical bulwark against such pressures, asserting that a nation's soul resides not in its soil's richness, but in the sovereign rights of its people .
