Two years have elapsed after the events that went down in history as the Euromaidan and later became known as the Revolution of Dignity. Why has this country suffered countless hardships for a quarter of a century after the collapse of the Soviet Union – something well to be expected as part of the inexorable historical process? There have been trials and errors in the state-building process, also well to be expected, as well as something that shouldn’t have come to pass: impasses created by certain individuals, clans, and groups. Why did it take momentous, spontaneous public outbursts to get the process off the ground?
In fact, Ukraine’s evolution [after the proclamation of national independence] could not have been possible without revolution. First, because evolution in this country was cemented by the clannish oligarchic structure established during the presidency of Leonid Kuchma. Second, what happened in Ukraine – and was conveniently identified as revolution – was not revolution per se, considering that basic relationships did not change. It was not revolution because one can still see people get seats in parliament who have done their best to help the vices of the Kuchma-Yanukovych system take root and blossom in this country. The fact remains that no one responsible for the crimes against the Ukrainian people (when hundreds were killed in downtown Kyiv at the beginning of 2014) has been brought to justice. Even experts with international legal structures refused to recognize that tragedy as a crime against humanity because the Ukrainian law-enforcement agencies failed to supply condemning evidence – and there was ample evidence, but somehow it was never mentioned in any of the reports the Prosecutor General’s Office (PGO) of Ukraine forwarded to the international organizations. The evidence supplied could be best described as passing the buck, pointing an accusing finger at Berkut Ukrainian riot policemen as rank and file perpetrators, and at some of the organizers who had timely fled Ukraine and were now out of reach of the Ukrainian law-enforcement agencies. The newly appointed Prosecutor General, Viktor Shokin, has failed to spot the Moscow hand. Instead, PGO is summoning for questioning precisely those who provided this evidence, while miraculously ignoring those who figure prominently as suspects in such testimonies. The case of Serhii Kliuiev, who fled Ukraine hours before a BOLO was put out for him, is a graphic example. There is also the case of Oleksandr Yefremov being covered by practically all Ukrainian media. He has been “resting” in the capital city for the past year and they had to deactivate the ankle bracelet on November 4 because the PGO had failed to press charges in due course. In fact, PGO couldn’t have done so because from day one they had been focusing on charges that were especially hard to substantiate.
In addition to the criminals who remain at large, Ukraine has a parliament that has inherited all the previous lawmaking vices and become the legislative marketplace. Ukraine has an impotent economy and a record of hard currency speculations on the highest echelons of power in time of war. There are Regional criminals reincarnate who appeal to “a certain part” of the population. Ukraine was represented during the Minsk talks by a man who had stood by the cradle of the existing clannish-oligarchic system. Ukraine also has an unprecedented record of volunteers who sacrificed their lives for national independence. Sad but true, quite a few of them are now behind bars while those who have done so much to keep the ATO battalions supplied and equipped are being persecuted. Mikheil Saakashvili, this calling card of reform in Ukraine, stated recently that the revolution had taken place but no reforms had. For the sake of revolution one does not have to hug and kiss ex-president Leonid Kuchma who personifies and embodies counterrevolution. This is what the current realities in Ukraine are all about. These realities expressly indicate that no substantial lessons have been learned or measures taken to cure Ukraine of its clannish-oligarchic sepsis, a disease that has been poisoning this country for 20 years, weakening our national immune system in the face of domestic problems and external threats.
Photo by Mykola TYMCHENKO, The Day
The Ukrainian people must make its own conclusion because amazing the international community and sending it astir once a decade is not enough. This must be done on an evolutionary basis. Also, if you walk out on the Maidan, you must have an alternative.
COMMENTARIES
Yevhen HOLOVAKHA, deputy head of the Institute of Social Studies, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine:
“Henry Kissinger, during consultations with Deng Xiaoping, was asked how he felt about the French Revolution. He replied that not enough time had passed to make any conclusions. Likewise, it is hard to make any substantial and unbiased conclusions about the Euromaidan and Revolution of Dignity. Both mark an epoch, a segment of national history, and assessing history is easier said than done. These events must have deep roots. These roots have to be studied to determine whether they will cause further upheavals in Ukraine.
“We, sociologists, concluded that the main reason behind the Euromaidan was the beating up of the students. It was a natural response, a protest against an act of violence when the weaker side suffered from the stronger one. Another reason was European integration, replacement of the political system and of Yanukovych. In the end, Euromaidan succeeded in toppling President Yanukovych. As for the rest, it is hard to tell, especially in regard to the most pressing issue. It is true that Ukrainians are no longer exposed to police brutality en masse, during rallies, but Ukrainians keep dying. Ukrainians also show acts of brutality. I mean the [storming of the] Verkhovna Rada. After all, it is parliament, it was elected by the people, in a democratic manner.
“We carried out polls after the Maidan in 2014. Previous such polls showed a negative atmosphere, now there was less social cynicism, fewer demoralizing isolationist moods. Yet some indices proved worse. Personally I am alarmed by the low turnout during the past elections, and by the general apolitical mood. This is proof that the man in the street is disappointed in our politics.
“Naturally, gradual reform is an alternative to revolution. Ukrainians resorted to revolution because all attempts to make reforms had failed. Yanukovych also promised reforms and some sociologists warned him that he would never carry them out because the very notion of reform contradicted what the man was all about. And so he met his sorry political end. No one would listen to us at the time.
“There is still hope that some reforms will be implemented. I said right after the Maidan that the new administration would have two years worth of advance payment in terms of public confidence; that the third year would be very trying, that those ‘upstairs’ would have to be especially cautious during that period because they would be held fully responsible for their actions; that they would have to principally change the situation in the country, so the people would finally believe that changes for the better are taking place. Yes, some progress has been made, but our society must have a systemic perspective on life. To do so, those ‘upstairs’ should rely on the most active and professional segment of society. If there is disillusionment on the part of the majority, there is an apt chance for the radicals who want no democratic changes.”
Hennadii DRUZENKO, political journalist, public activist:
“A Dutch philosopher and parliamentarian once said that people change while the system doesn’t. This seems the most accurate assessment of the situation that has developed in Ukraine over the past two years. This also warrants the assumption that our revolution took place the wrong way, considering that it was supposed to change the system, not the people. This revolution started, then choked. Revolution, of course, isn’t accomplished overnight. It takes stages, reforms, but these reforms are now largely and deeply comatose. Now the big question is: Will there be another Ruin? Will they develop a backup matrix of social life that will reset and restart the system when the existing matrix collapses?
“Regrettably, our political system has not become aware of the new logic after the Revolution of Dignity, just as the Maidan people have failed to produce organization or put forth actually prestigious leaders. True, there are hope-inspiring phenomena, very much so, like the volunteer movement. These people managed to show effective organization at the right time. There are structures that have nothing to do with the government machine, but which can act in its lieu, discharging its traditional functions. Are they prepared to take over the function of political power? I don’t think so, but they are moving in that direction.
“I’m sure there was a more loyal evolutionary alternative during the Maidan – for example, by drafting a social contract between society, opposition, and Yanukovych. But in the end it was free-for-all and one side had to lose the battle. History shows that such occurrences do not lay the foundations of national progress but lead to war. Regrettably, we played black on the Maidan chessboard, I mean the initiative wasn’t ours. Yanukovych is to blame, on the one hand, considering that his was a Bull-in-the-china-shop approach, and the opposition is to blame on the other hand. They tried to represent the Maidan without being authorized to do so by the Maidan. In other words, the talks [between Yanukovych and the Maidan] were held in the absence of the civil society that had created the Maidan.”
Volodymyr BOIKO, historian, Chernihiv:
“Most our expectations during and after the Maidan haven’t come true. Even worse so, we are witnesses to regress. Historically speaking, however, the Euromaidan was much more effective than the Revolution on Granite and Orange Revolution.
“The Revolution on Granite was a massive public outburst, but it affected few except the university and high school students. Only one of the demands they addressed to the Verkhovna Rada was fulfilled. Prime Minister Masol was retired. All the others were shelved after much hot air.
“In November 2004, during the Orange Revolution, I spoke with a Maidan leader who said: ‘So many people gathered on this square. They exude powerful energy, but where does this energy go? Perhaps several years from now we’ll remember all this with a degree of disillusionment, I mean the end result.’ We would recall this conversation later and he said that several months later they all sensed that something had gone wrong.
“The Euromaidan in 2013-14 was essentially different, in terms of scope and consequences. It was the closest to the notion of revolution, but that revolution proved incomplete. Revolution happens where and when serious problems can’t be solved in an evolutionary manner. Revolution is actually bad news. It happens when people have no other means [of solving acute problems]. Revolution is meant to replace the existing political and economic system, and affect public consciousness. I believe that the Revolution of Dignity has only, and partially, affected public consciousness to date. Ukraine has a new president and administration, but the same political system. As a result, some of the issues that caused the Maidan are there again. I know, they aren’t total as previously, rather more dispersed. The competition is more severe. But this phenomenon does exist. As for the economic system, the most odious intentions of single-handedly monopolizing the entire economic process have vanished, but the general approach to the economy hasn’t changed.
“Leonid Kuchma cuts a symbolic figure. He symbolizes a decade in the development of Ukraine. He is still there – as are a number of old cadres in various echelons of power. Paradoxically, someone somewhere still needs their practices that should have long sunk into historical oblivion. I find this most alarming. It means that something in Ukraine hasn’t changed, contrary to our ardent expectations.
“Revolution is a forced way out of a bad situation, in the absence of other means of improving this situation. It’s best to avoid using this scenario, but to do so, it is necessary to timely respond to and forestall problems, rather than constantly wallow in them. This takes the statesman’s will. The statesman shouldn’t be scared by political consequences for himself and his inner circle. A foreign ambassador was asked what he thought was Ukraine’s biggest problem. He said, ‘You have many politicians and few statesmen.’ What’s the difference between a statesman and a politician? A statesman can sacrifice his corporate interests for those of the nation. In Ukraine, unfortunately, regional and even national political provincialism prevails.”
Interviewed by Dmytro KRYVTSUN, The Day
