Although deals with the Kremlin indeed influence the logic of the political processes in the Post/Neo-Soviet world and are likely to make the authoritarian neighbours of Russia feel more secure, the dynamics of resistance and suppression is more seriously defined by the (in)ability of the movements to define and apply succesfull strategies based on the old principles of democracy and the rule of law rather than geopolitical thinking of the East/West relations.
Take Ukraine. The regime did what any authoritarian faked democracy would do - suppressed what looked like a radical movement. The movement though failed to do what an efficient movement needs to do - make the clashes within the regime leading to open change of loyalties of at least some state security forces. Most of the activists and their coordinators kept doing what made the 2004 Orange Revolution a success - nonviolent actions. This is good but not enough.
The 2013 is different as lacks at least two important factors.
First, in 2004 the falsified elections were observed by and communicated to the whole society, including the state officials. Now people in the regime through the ranks and pillars have no idea why the Yanukovich regime is illegitimate and why they have the legal ground - not just the will - to disobey the orders and join the movement.
Second, the likely change of the regime is too far in time - the presidential elections to be held only in 2015 so it makes not much sense for the officers to risk now and get promoted one and a half year later in the best case and spend this time without wage or even in jail - in the worst.
Therefore, the movement should have done two things.
First - communicate the illegitimacy of the Yanukovich regime caused by the 2010 change of the constitution which has created inefficient constitutional framework in Ukraine to believe the country has separation of power and is run by officials, not a bunch of clowns clothed as the president, the cabinet ministers and the parliament members. The riot police and other officials must follow orders of such regimes only if they work for the same circus. Try to talk to the officers keeping the governmental district in the center of Kyiv and you will find out they are trained not only in how to beat people but the basics of the law too. Nobody cared of doing this. On the contrary - all types of media, non governmental organisations and opposition politicians are still addressing Yanukovich and co as bad politicians but legitimate officials.
Second, the movement could have moved the possible date of the regime change closer. Should it announce early elections - not just discuss them with the regime - the Ukrainian NGOs would make sure the elections are fair and Western governments would clearly send observers legitimising the resuls. The Ukrainian civil society and the opposition has lost the chance to do this last year in the Hostynny Dvir real life school of governance and now does not have either an organisation able to manage independent election nor operational IT platform to run it at the Kyiv level. Which means it is missing the chance to get legitimate authorities in Kyiv and share experience with the rest of the country and the EU's Eastern Partnership area.
Вам подобається часопис «Критика»? Тоді підтримайте нас та авторів статтей відповідно до Ваших можливостей.
Щоб підтримати нас, передплатіть друковане видання чи електронний доступ до матеріялів часопису та порталу, або складіть посильну пожертву.
Українська та англійська версії «Критики» гідно представляють Україну у світі. Долучіться до наших зусиль своїм внеском!