February 19, 2014
The Devil’s Hiding in the Cheese, the title of a collection of essays by Ukrainian writer Yuri Andrukhovych may have hit the nail on the head regarding the problematic politics at play in Ukraine. The Orange Revolution sparked a new constitution and a renewed vigour within the Ukrainian political system, until the reforms establishing a stronger parliamentary role in governance began to appear fruitless due to the perceived failures of the Yushchenko government. The subsequent election of former Prime Minister, Victor Yanukovych, in a 2010 Presidential election which was widely perceived as free and fair appeared a real boon for Ukrainian democratic norms. That is, it would have done, had the events of his incumbent Presidency not come back to haunt the voters who democratically elected him to lead until 2015.
The ‘pasteurisation’ of Ukrainian politics – that is, the removal of the channels to balance power created by the 2004 constitution and the subsequent solidification of the Ukrainian political elite (and in particular the Yanukovych elite) – has been the sole strategy of the Yanukovych Presidency. By amending the constitution in 2010, a decision criticised by the European Commission for Democracy, the President changed the accepted rules of the game in Ukrainian politics, simultaneously closing off the channels to democratic checks and balances upon his office and silencing opponents of the regime he enforced.
The straw that broke the camel’s back came in November, when President Yanukovych went back on his decision to sign the association agreement with the European Union. This led to many western news outlets mistakenly pitting Ukraine as a battleground for the EU and Russia to do battle. This is both a simplistic assumption based on Westphalian foreign policy doctrine and dismissive of Ukraine as a legitimate, sovereign state with its own political forces. TV cameras and microphones amplified the divide between the Ukrainian-speaking West and the Russian-speaking East of Ukraine; a real border, yet an invisible, constructed one which is by no means unbridgeable. The real concern, however, should have been the President’s curtailment of democratic norms, as opposed to his rejection of the association agreement. The more violence continues, the more legitimacy is lost by the Yanukovych clan and the more power to protesters.
Yanukovych’s pasteurisation strategy is problematic because it deals in absolutes. He exists as a typically Soviet-style leader living in a post-Soviet world. His strategy has no room for the reality that his country’s society is undergoing a transformation and he cannot stop that process by pasteurising the tentative, milky parliamentary democracy brought about by the Orange Revolution. The President’s actions can be presented as anything from ‘bumbling fool in a confusing era’ to ‘arrogant despot eager for an absolute monopoly on power’, but either way, it is clear that he should step down.
But what should happen in order to facilitate an end to the violence and a return to democratic norms? Firstly, a general amnesty. Forgiveness and fresh elections would go a long way to appeasing the Ukrainian demos. This would have to include immunity from prosecution for the Yanukovych clan for it seems unfeasible that he would step down without it, a high price to pay for many, but perhaps a price worth paying to stop the violence and restore the will of the Ukrainian people.
A return to parliamentary democracy would also go a long way, which is something that could be done by returning to the constitution of 2004. However, the unstable fledgling democracy requires real, tangible support from the EU, which until now has appeared to be scared of doing anything, and has passively supported with an absence of any passion. If the EU wants to promote freedom and democracy for all peoples, it could start on its own doorstep; to paraphrase Andrukhovych, the best borders appear absent, just as the best fish goes uncaught.
About the Author
Nathan Brand is a student at the University of Tartu in Estonia and a regular contributor to Freedom Observatory. His research expertise around the field of security studies is Russia and the Balkan states (particularly former Yugoslavia) as well as the role of art and new media as opposition tools in controlled media spaces. In January of 2014, Nathan joined MOSECON GmbH’s pool of experts, providing analysis for questions pertaining to Russia, Eastern Europe and the Balkans.