For decades, Ukrainians have lived in a system where the state was presented as an all-powerful and all-knowing patron, capable of solving all problems. The paternalistic culture inherited from the Soviet era has created a paradoxical situation: citizens simultaneously distrust the state and expect it to take care of them. Today, when Ukraine is facing unprecedented challenges of war and post-war reconstruction, this model is demonstrating its ineffectiveness and needs to be radically rethought.

The trap of paternalism: a legacy that hinders development

Paternalism in social policy is manifested in several key aspects. First, it is a centralized approach to the provision of social services, where the state is the main, and often the only, provider of assistance. Second, it is the creation of a complex system of benefits, categorical payments and allowances that often do not take into account the real needs of people. Thirdly, it is the formation of dependence on state aid rather than stimulating independence and initiative.

“Paternalistic systems create dependence and discourage initiative,” the Christian Democratic Expertise analytical note notes. This approach generates a psychology of dependency, when recipients of assistance take it for granted, rather than as temporary support to overcome difficult life circumstances.

The war revealed both the weaknesses and strengths of Ukraine’s social system. On the one hand, state mechanisms often proved to be sluggish in crisis conditions. On the other hand, society has demonstrated a remarkable capacity for self-organization, mutual aid, and volunteerism. This phenomenon indicates the potential for building a fundamentally new model of social policy.

Solidarity: from individualism to shared responsibility

An alternative to paternalism in the Christian democratic tradition is the principle of solidarity. Unlike paternalism, which establishes vertical dependencies, solidarity implies horizontal ties of mutual support between different members and groups of society.

“Solidarity is a response to the temptation of individualism. It is not only about helping those in need, but also about a deep moral attitude to living together, caring, and mutual support,” the analytical materials explain.

The Christian democratic understanding of solidarity is based on several key principles:

1. Mutual responsibility is the realization that the well-being of each depends on the well-being of all. This applies to the relations between different social groups: rich and poor, young and old generations, healthy and those with disabilities.
2. Recognition of the dignity of every human being – solidarity is based on respect for the human person, regardless of their status, capabilities or contribution to society.
3. Active participation – in contrast to passive assistance, solidarity involves the active involvement of everyone in solving common problems according to their capabilities.
4. Equitable distribution of goods and resources is a principle that requires taking into account the needs of the most vulnerable members of society when allocating limited resources.

The transition from paternalism to solidarity is especially important in the context of Ukraine’s post-war reconstruction, when limited resources must be distributed fairly and all members of society must join forces to overcome common challenges.

Subsidiarity: distribution of responsibility instead of centralization

The second fundamental principle of the Christian democratic approach is subsidiarity. This principle implies that decisions should be made at the lowest possible level, and higher levels of government should intervene only when lower levels cannot effectively solve the problem on their own.

“Subsidiarity ensures that help from above intervenes only when it is impossible to cope from below. This stimulates the initiative of communities, families, churches, and NGOs,” the analytical materials emphasize.

In the context of social policy, subsidiarity means:

1. Decentralization of social services is the transfer of powers and resources to the level of communities that better understand the needs of their residents.
2. Diversity of service providers – involvement of not only government agencies, but also public organizations, religious communities, and the private sector.
3. Support for families as the primary caregiver is a recognition that the family is the first and most important level of social support.
4. Stimulating self-help and mutual assistance – creating conditions under which people can solve their problems on their own or unite to solve them together.

A vivid example of subsidiarity in action was the volunteer movement during the war. When centralized state mechanisms could not quickly adapt to the crisis conditions, it was civic initiatives, parishes, and local communities that took on a significant part of the work to support the military, internally displaced persons, and vulnerable groups.

Practical implementation: from theory to real change

The transition from a paternalistic to a solidarity model of social policy requires specific steps at different levels:

At the state level:

1. Reforming the social benefits system – moving from categorical to targeted benefits that take into account the real needs of recipients.
2. Support for civic initiatives – creation of mechanisms for public funding of social projects implemented by NGOs, religious communities, and volunteer groups.
3. Development of social entrepreneurship – legislative and tax support for businesses that solve social problems and employ members of vulnerable groups.

At the community level:

1. Development of resilience centers – creation of comprehensive centers at the community level that combine psychological, social, and legal support and are based on cooperation between government agencies, NGOs, and religious communities.
2. Neighborhood Mutual Assistance Programs are the organization of systems in which community residents can share services and support the elderly, families with children, and people with disabilities.
3. Involvement of churches and religious organizations is a recognition of their role as important providers of social services, especially in the area of psychological and spiritual support.

At the level of individuals and families:

1. Developing a culture of volunteering – encouraging citizens to actively participate in social projects and help their neighbors.
2. Support for family-based forms of raising orphans – promoting the development of foster families and family-type orphanages instead of institutional care.
3. Economic independence programs – instead of unconditional cash transfers, emphasis on training, skills development, and support for entrepreneurial initiatives among vulnerable groups.

Special groups: veterans, IDPs, families of the deceased

One of the most striking examples of the need to move from paternalism to solidarity and subsidiarity is the support of groups most affected by the war: veterans, internally displaced persons, and families of the dead.

“These groups should not be ‘beneficiaries of aid’, they should become partners in rebuilding the country,” the analytical materials emphasize.

The traditional paternalistic approach sees these people as passive recipients of assistance to whom the state “provides services.” In contrast, the Christian democratic approach emphasizes their subjectivity, dignity, and potential for active participation in public life.

For veterans, it is important not just to receive benefits or payments, but to be able to reintegrate into civilian life, realize their experience and skills, and be recognized for their contribution to the defense of the country. For IDPs, the key is not just to receive “IDP assistance,” but to become full-fledged members of host communities while maintaining their identity. For the families of the victims, it is not only material support, but also constant recognition of the sacrifice of their loved ones, and the creation of conditions for a decent life and development of children.

The role of the Church: from charity to systemic participation

A special place in the renewed social policy should belong to churches and religious organizations. In the Ukrainian context, they traditionally enjoy a high level of trust and have considerable experience in social service.

The Christian democratic approach involves not only the involvement of churches in charitable activities, but also their systematic participation in the formation and implementation of social policy:

1. Consultations on social policy – involvement of church representatives in the discussion and development of social development strategies.
2. Chaplaincy is the development of the chaplaincy institute not only in the military, but also in healthcare, education, and social protection institutions.
3. Network of parish social centers – support for the initiatives of religious communities to create centers of assistance to various categories of the population.
4. Interfaith cooperation is the promotion of joint social projects of different faiths to overcome social problems.

Conclusion: from guardianship to partnership

The transition from paternalism to solidarity and subsidiarity is not just a change in the mechanisms of social service delivery. It is a profound transformation of relations between the state, civil society and individual citizens, a shift from the vertical model of “guardian – ward” to a horizontal model of partnership and mutual responsibility.

A fair social policy is not a centralized distribution of benefits, but rather the creation of conditions in which every member of society can realize his or her potential and at the same time support those in need. This is the strength of the Christian democratic approach to the social sphere.

In the context of the challenges faced by modern Ukraine – war, migration, economic hardship, and psychological trauma – this approach allows not only to use limited resources more efficiently, but also to preserve and strengthen human dignity, social ties, and trust, which are the foundation of a sustainable society.

The experience of the war has shown that Ukrainians are capable of extraordinary self-organization and mutual assistance. The task of the renewed social policy is not to replace these initiatives with state control, but to support them, create favorable conditions for them, and integrate them into systemic work to build a just and solidarity society.

After two years of full-scale war, Ukraine is facing not only military but also social challenges. The unique phenomenon of national cohesion, which became one of the decisive factors of resistance in the first months of the invasion, is undergoing natural erosion. How to preserve this invisible but critical resource of national resilience?

Explosion of unity: a phenomenon of 2022

February 2022 revealed to the world not only the horrors of Russian aggression, but also the unprecedented ability of Ukrainians to organize and solidarize. Tens of thousands of volunteers, the activation of parishes, and the instant mobilization of civil society all created a rear that became a support for the front.

“This phenomenon can be seen as a manifestation of the deep social solidarity that is part of Ukrainian identity, but often remained hidden in peacetime,” the analysts note. The invasion activated a collective defense mechanism, which manifested itself in unprecedented mutual assistance and the revival of traditions of mutual support.

According to sociologists, 2022 was the year when trust in institutions, the army, volunteers, and communities peaked. Against the backdrop of an existential threat, society spontaneously developed the mechanisms of unity that would otherwise have required years of conscious effort.

Challenges for 2024-2025: fatigue, fragmentation, distrust

Today, the situation is changing. According to the analysis of the Democracy Assistance Foundation (2025), since the beginning of 2024, there has been a noticeable decline in the level of social cohesion. The social cohesion index is only 51.8 out of 100 points, and it is trending downward.

What are the main factors behind this decline?

Social fatigue. People are morally exhausted, and anxiety levels are rising (anxiety index is 5.8 out of 10). Constant anxiety, uncertainty about the future, and economic problems all undermine psychological resilience.

Problems of mobilization. There is a sense of unfair distribution of responsibilities: some have been at the front for more than a year without rotation, while others have never been mobilized or are evading. This situation gives rise to moral dilemmas and social splits.

Political tension. Elections, discussions about the terms of peace, and the lack of a unified strategy all exacerbate the difference in vision of the future.

Decreased interpersonal trust. One of the most disturbing symptoms is that people trust each other less, which undermines the very foundation of the social fabric.

Christian democratic response: solidarity as a moral imperative

In such circumstances, the Christian democratic approach offers a response that goes beyond technocratic crisis management. It sees cohesion not as a unity imposed from above, but as the result of a conscious choice by citizens who recognize a common destiny and responsibility.

“In the Christian tradition, cohesion is not only a political task, but an ethical requirement: to build bridges, not walls; to listen to other groups, not to muffle their pain; to support the weak not out of pity, but out of respect for their dignity,” explains the social policy expert.

This perspective allows us to see divisions not just as sociological facts, but as moral challenges that require not only technocratic solutions, but also an ethical response based on the principles of solidarity, subsidiarity, and the common good.

Inequality as a threat to national unity

One of the main threats to cohesion is inequality, especially in times of war. Although social mobilization smoothed out inequalities in 2022-2023, they are now resurfacing:

• Economic inequality: some have lost everything, while others have become demonstrably rich.
• Inequality of access to resources: treatment, psychological support, evacuation are not equally available to everyone.
• A gap in the sense of justice: there is a massive feeling that “some are fighting the war” and others are evading it.

A deep sense of social injustice becomes the emotional root of divisions. This is especially dangerous in times of war, when fair burden-sharing becomes not just an economic issue, but an existential one.

A strategy for preserving unity: from emotions to institutions

The Christian democratic approach offers concrete steps to preserve social cohesion:

Recognize cohesion as a strategic goal of state policy. Social cohesion should be prioritized alongside defense and the economy. It is proposed to include the social cohesion index in regular monitoring, to introduce a national cohesion program, and to create a social cohesion group at the NSDC as an analytical and strategic center.

Create a network of community-based resilience centers. These centers should combine the work of psychologists, chaplains, and social workers to provide comprehensive support to people. It is especially important that they function on the basis of cooperation between the state, community, church, and NGOs.

Fair mobilization through a rotational model. The system, under which most men serve in rotation, with limited periods of continuous service at the front, is perceived as fair and humane. “Mobilization should stop being a lottery and become a duty that does not degrade dignity,” the experts emphasize.

Rethink the support for veterans, IDPs, and families of the victims. These groups should not just be “beneficiaries of aid” – they should become partners in rebuilding the country. It is proposed to reform the system of veterans’ services, introduce lifetime status for the family of the deceased, and develop integration programs for IDPs with a focus on employment and participation in community life.

Define the role of the church as a partner in strengthening the social fabric. Churches and religious communities have the trust, infrastructure, credibility and experience to serve. They can be included in consultations on cohesion policy, veterans’ reintegration programs, and work with families of the deceased.

Community as an environment of solidarity

Particular emphasis is placed on the role of the community – not just as an administrative unit, but as a moral and social environment of mutual assistance.

“In the Christian democratic approach, the community is not only a territorial subject of self-government, but also a moral and social unit of solidarity,” explains the local government expert.

It is the community that first meets internally displaced persons, becomes a source of support for the families of the victims, restores social ties and builds an infrastructure of psychological resilience. The principle of subsidiarity implies that problems are best solved at the lowest possible level, and only when they exceed the capabilities of this level should higher authorities be involved.

The ethics of trust: restoring meaning to institutions

Sociological studies show that today only the Armed Forces enjoy a high level of trust, while most state institutions are at the bottom of the trust scale. The Christian democratic approach emphasizes that institutions should serve people, not dominate them.

To restore trust, it is necessary:

• Ethical leadership – examples of morally motivated actions in government
• Transparency and participation – public control, budget openness
• “Human face of the state” – social workers, judges, educators should not be “officials” but people who care

“Only institutions that care can support the nation in a crisis,” the analysts conclude.

From fragmentation to a common path

Rifts in society cannot be hidden – they must be openly recognized, diagnosed and treated. This can be done through fair and transparent mobilization, decent treatment of veterans and families of the fallen, systematic work with anxiety and emotional exhaustion, restoring trust in institutions, and supporting local communities as the basis of unity.

Ukrainian society has retained in its depths a moral resource that dictatorships do not have: faith in man, trust in one’s neighbor, and willingness to serve. It is these virtues that should be elevated to the level of politics-not cynicism, but responsibility; not control, but trust; not fear, but hope.

In times of trial, the fundamental Christian values of faith in human dignity, hope for revival, and love for one’s neighbor can become not only personal guidelines but also a national strategy that inspires and guides society in its most difficult times.