A New Social Contract for Post-War Ukraine: From Survival to Renewal

Written by Dr. Yurii Pidlisnyy, Chair of Political Science Department, and Dr. Petro Baykovskyy, Associate Professor, at Ukrainian Catholic University

Across Europe, the debate about Ukraine is increasingly framed around two urgent and visible questions: how the war will be won, and how the country will be rebuilt. At the same time, Ukraine’s prospective path toward membership in the European Union has rightly intensified discussions on reforms, standards, and infrastructure investment.

Yet something essential risks being sidelined.

Beyond military outcomes and physical reconstruction lies a deeper transformation already underway: the renegotiation of Ukraine’s social contract. If overlooked, this process may ultimately determine the success—or failure—of both reconstruction and European integration.

After victory, Ukraine will face not only the task of physical reconstruction, but a deeper challenge: renewing the foundations of its social, political, and moral order. The pre-war model, marked by a fragile mix of democratic procedures, oligarchic influence, and post-Soviet legacies, has reached its limits, making a return to the status quo neither feasible nor desirable.

The war has fundamentally transformed Ukrainian society, most notably through the rise of active citizenship. While this builds on earlier waves of civic mobilization, such as the Orange Revolution and the Revolution of Dignity, the current moment differs in both scale and urgency. Participation is no longer merely a political option but has become a condition of survival.

Ukrainian society has demonstrated strong capacities for self-organization, resilience, and solidarity. At the same time, the need for a capable and effective state has become equally evident. State can ensure security and coordinate large-scale recovery, while remaining balanced and guided by the principle of subsidiarity rather than drifting toward excessive centralization.

This emerging order must rest on human dignity as its core, inalienable principle, providing both a moral foundation and a source of institutional legitimacy. It draws strength not only from formal state structures, but also from families, local communities, and civil society networks, which have sustained social cohesion, generated trust, and reinforced a sense of shared responsibility. In the post-war context, their role will remain central, particularly in addressing the reintegration of displaced populations, supporting those affected by trauma and loss, and responding to Ukraine’s demographic challenges. That makes them indispensable pillars of long-term recovery and resilience.

The path forward, however, is not straightforward. Ukraine faces structural constraints, including persistent distrust in institutions, the risk of renewed oligarchic influence, demographic decline, and large-scale migration. Uneven integration of key social groups may generate new forms of marginalization, while societal fatigue and trauma could weaken long-term engagement. There is also a risk of over-centralization, which could undermine participatory foundations.

The stakes are high. Failure to transform this system risks reproducing a fragile and exclusionary order marked by fragmentation and stalled European integration. Success, however, would enable Ukraine to build a resilient democratic model based on inclusive institutions, shared responsibility, and active citizenship. It would strengthen its integration into the European Union and NATO and position Ukraine as a reference point for post-crisis state-building in Europe.

This process must remain domestically driven. Ukrainians are the primary agents of change, and transformation cannot be externally engineered. It requires sustained accountability, inclusive integration of those most affected by the war, and responsibility across society. At the same time, the European Union and its partners play an important enabling role by providing institutional frameworks, supporting reforms through conditional assistance, facilitating economic integration, and investing in human capital. This relationship should be based on partnership rather than dependency.

Ukraine’s social contract is not being created from scratch; it is being reshaped under the conditions of war. Previously characterized by limited trust and largely formal citizenship, it is evolving toward a model grounded in societal trust, active participation, and a more legitimate state. The key challenge is whether this transformation can be consolidated into durable institutions capable of sustaining a resilient and inclusive post-war order.