Euromaidan and Ukraine S Destructive Divide

Euromaidan and Ukraine’s ‘Destructive’ Divide March 16, 2014 By Kateryna Botsu

On February 22, 2014, hundreds of Ukrainians freely entered Mezhihirya complex, a former residential compound of Viktor Yanukovych. Not so long ago, Yanukovych’s lavish residence was an enigma, as it was carefully guarded from the public and press. After Yanukovych’s ouster, the sprawling 345 acres luxurious estate, equipped with a private zoo and golden toilet, in seconds became a symbol of Ukraine’s kleptocracy and excess of the elites, marking a true victory of the people’s Euromaidan movement.

February 22, will be forever marked as truly historic day for Ukraine. After almost three months of civil unrest, which at the end turned tragically violent, the demands of the Ukrainian people were met. Major changes which occurred on this historic day include the ousting of Mr. Yanukovych by votes of 328 MPs and release of Yulia Tymoshenko, a former prime minister who was jailed for abuse of power. Additionally, Yanukovych’s Party of Regions experienced major defections, as well as numerous high-ranking governmental officials were dismissed. Nevertheless, despite the seeming victory of the Ukrainian people, success of the Euromaidan uprising remains disputed. Many claim that the outcome of the protests represents the will of a fraction of a country’s population, referring to Ukraine’s infamous reputation of a state that is divided along linguistic, ethnic and political lines. In order to untangle the nature of the conflict, a number of questions need to be answered. What exactly happened at the Euromaidan protests? Along what lines is Ukraine divided? How destructive are the existing cleavages of the Ukrainian society?

What is Euromaidan?

The Euromaidan uprising began on November 21, 2013 in Kyiv, Ukraine’s capital. Hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians came out to the streets in order to express their displeasure with the decision of the country’s president - Viktor Yanukovych, not to sign a long awaited Association Agreement with the European Union at the Vilnius Summit. Very soon however, the message of the protests obtained a deeper meaning. Not only were Ukrainians opposing Yanukovych’s foreign policy decision, but also they were speaking out against the cyclical abuse of executive power, widespread corruption and various manifestations of human rights abuses.

1 After approximately two and a half months of peaceful manifestation, the movement turned violent. Six protesters have been killed at the initial incidence of violence, which occurred on the Hrushevskoho Street, near Dynamo football stadium. After a series of negotiations between three opposition leaders, Yatseniuk, Klitschko, Tyahnybok, and the president, the two sides appeared to have reached an agreement. It was announced that the country’s Prime Minister, Mykola Azarov, was to step down, and the cabinet of minister was to be dismissed, in hopes of future coalition government formation. Nevertheless, the key demands of the protesters, include a return to 2004 constitution and impeachment of the president, were not met. After negotiation process of the given deal was concluded, a week and a half of peace followed. However, on February 18, developments took a sharp turn while clashes between protesters and the internal forces erupted once again. It is estimated that between 77 to 100 people have been killed as a result of the clashes.

While looking back at the Euromaidan events, it is possible to trace a sharp turn in motivations behind the movement. Despite the initial pro-European integration sentiments of the protestors, the movement soon became associated with Ukrainians’ desire to change the country’s political system in its core. Systematic corruption, governmental kleptocracy, abuse of human rights and lack of respect for people’s needs became major driving factors for the movement. In all, Euromaidan became not a political or moral movement, it became a norm revolution.

It is estimated that as many as 800,000 people came out to the streets of Kyiv to voice their opinions. Notwithstanding unprecedented public support for the movement, political games and power struggle between the two factions of Ukrainian government, the ruling Party of Regions and the opposition, became parallel with the events in certain level of public discourse. Both Ukrainian and foreign media were quick to draw generalizations about political and cultural backgrounds of the people who participated in Euromaidan. Parallels between the protesters and western Ukrainian nationalism were frequently observed in media coverage of the unrest. Additionally, protesters were often associated with Ukrainian-speaking portion of the population, as well as anti-Russian sentiments. Such political speculations helped create an image of a divided country that is separated along cultural, political, and linguistic lines. In turn, the thesis of Ukraine’s internal division was frequently used as the explanatory factor of the unrest.

How is Ukraine divided and how distractive the divisions truly are?

There is no doubt that historically Ukraine has been a divided state. This division is often referred to as the west to east split. The idea implies that Ukraine’s western region is significantly distinct in terms of its linguistic characteristics, historic background and cultural/ethnic composition. The existence of the given separation can be explained mainly by the tangled history of the region. In the past, the present day territory of Ukraine belonged to various countries and empires. Across time, the modern-day territory of Ukraine was ruled by Kievan Rus, the Ottoman Empire, Crimean Khanate, Poland, Grand Duchy of Moscovy, Grand Duchy of Lithuania, among others. Naturally, the influences of these distinct states produced certain cultural and linguistic effects which, to this day, can be traced in contemporary Ukraine. Subsequently, the state of Ukraine received its modern-day outline, only after World War II, and people from array of backgrounds, who often times did not share similar history or vision of the

2 world, became united under one roof. As imprint of historical past continues to be noticeable today, it has been claimed by politicians and analysts that Ukraine’s division produces certain political loyalties, as the west is more likely to support the opposition, whereas the east backs the pro-Russian Party of Regions. Thus, the Euromaidan movement is often explained by status quo tension between two different groups of Ukrainian society.

Even though the given account is credible, it does not fully explain the true nature of Ukraine’s civil and political strive. The idea of Ukraine’s destructive division is merely an instrumentalization of the country’s historical past for the purpose of populist agenda promotion which allows certain political faction to capture and maintain power. When examining social and cultural characteristics of Euromaidan protesters, it is evident that people from all over Ukraine were represented in the movement. Hence, Euromaidan is not simply an effort lead by Ukrainians from the western region of the country; it is a movement that unites people from all corners of Ukraine. People from diverse age groups, income levels, educational background and regions came out to voice their opinion. Most importantly, the protests took place not only in Kyiv or Western Ukraine; local mass Euromaidan demonstrations took place in Eastern cities like Sevastopol, Donetsk, Kharkov and Odessa. Thus, people from all over the country supported the goals of the movement.

Ukraine, is not only divided from east to west, it is also divided from top to bottom. Arguably, it is this precise division that is responsible for driving the Euromaidan protests. What is meant here by the top to bottom division? Mainly, the destructive split in Ukraine’s society is observed in stark trends of growing social inequality. In turn, elements of social inequality, which are currently observed in Ukraine, consist of significant disparities in income, unequal accesses to social services, growing unemployment and normative/legal disparities. It is these precise issue that drive anger-facilitating division among Ukrainians.

Growing income inequality is the first important driver of social unrest in Ukraine. The country’s middle class is minimal, as large portion of wealth tends to be concentrated in hands of the elites. Approximately 30%- 50% of Ukrainians self-identity as members of the middle class. This number is particularly low compared to the European Union where the figure is 60%-65% and the United States, where it is above 85%.1 Unequal access to social services is another important drive of Ukraine’s public dissatisfaction. Even though, officially, social services such as education and healthcare are guaranteed to be freely provided by the government, they are available in limited access. Corruption is widely manifested in Ukraine’s social service sphere. Thus, very often it is virtually impossible to obtain free quality public service provision for citizens with limited resources or those who lack connections. Hence, the real quality of attention is available and paid by the privileged, whereas others are frequently forced to experience Ukraine’s inefficient bureaucracy. Growing unemployment is the third important factor driving division in Ukraine’s society. In 2013, the reported unemployment rate was 8%; nevertheless, due to tendencies of underreporting, the true unemployment rate is likely to be much higher. 2

1Foundation for Effective Governance, "Middle class is not needed for Ukraine’s economic development." 2013. 2 Trading Economics, "Unemployment Rate in Ukraine."2013.

3 Among the factors influencing Ukraine’s growing social inequality, normative and legal inefficiency is perhaps among the top reasons for the country’s growing social stratification. Just like the social service sector, Ukraine’s legal institutions are penetrated with systematic corruption. Very often it is difficult to obtain a just ruling without having special arrangements – the payment of bribes. Additionally, despite the seemingly established legal framework, Ukrainian law is inconsistent, contradictory and unstable. Thus, interpretation of law regarding instances of applicability remains an ambiguous matter even for judges, leading to a state of practical inadequacy within the system. Often times, the laws are imbalanced and outdated, since they are not compatible with current societal dynamics, but rather with older Soviet ones. Even former President Yanukovych himself admitted the prevalent inadequacy of the system as he said “we can no longer disgrace our country with such a court system”, thus, confirming the necessity for legal reform and modernization. In recent years, the country’s judiciary has been subjected to numerous modifications, as it has become apparent that it is a relative week institution. Despite the reform efforts, Ukraine’s judiciary remains easily susceptible to outside influence and is greatly politicized.

All of the previously stated structural problems create tension and public dissatisfaction in Ukrainian society. At the same time, government and governmental bureaucracies are frequently interpreted as predatory. The Euromaidan movement arose out of the given social dynamics, thus it represents public dissatisfaction with the structural inequalities which have been facilitated by kleptocratic governmental structures.

February 22, 2014, a day when Mr. Yanukovych was ousted, will be marked as a historic date for Ukraine. No doubt, the Euromaidan movement has transformed the country’s political culture. Many hope that the changes instituted by the uprising will bring structural shifts which, in turn, would disable systematic governmental abuse of power. However, only the future will tell if these hopes will come to live. Even though it is impossible to predict where Ukraine will end up in the future, it is clear where Ukraine stands today. Arguably, Ukraine is united like never before. Ukrainian people are unified against traditional mentality of governmental oppression, corruption and abuse of human rights. Only truly unified people could accomplish what Ukrainians did on February 22. The question remains whether the people can sustain their hopes and dreams with the leaders that they will vote for to represent them in the May elections or whether Russia will interfere by invading and bringing not only civil war but regional conflict. The separation of Crimea, from Ukraine, may be like the Velvet Divorce was between Czech Republic and Slovakia, however, Putin’s greater ambitions loom large on the horizon, for the rest of Ukraine.

Foundation for Effective Governance, "Middle class is not needed for Ukraine’s economic development."2013. http://www.feg.org.ua/en/cms/projects/debaty/middle_class_economics.html

Trading Economics, "Unemployment Rate in Ukraine." 2013 http://www.tradingeconomics.com/ukraine/unemployment-rate