The Orange Revolution and the Revolution of Dignity in Comparison Why Some Resistance Movements Turn Violent, Whereas Others Do Not
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Graduate School of Social Sciences MSc Political Science – International Relations Track Master Thesis The Orange Revolution and the Revolution of Dignity in comparison Why some resistance movements turn violent, whereas others do not Name: Brian Pieneman Student ID: 10535365 Mail: [email protected] Research Project: Violence, resistance and restraint in war and genocide Supervisor: Dr. Jana Krause Second Reader: Dr. Dimitris Bouris Submission Date: June 22, 2018 Words: 23,810 Abstract According to Chenoweth and Stephan (2011), nonviolent resistance movements are more successful in accomplishing political and social change than their violent counterparts. And yet, some nonviolent resistance movements turn to violent strategies in their endeavour to establish political and social change. This decision seems counterproductive and is worth studying. This thesis argues that mass mobilization is a double-edged sword – i.e. on the one hand, mass mobilization is required to accomplish the objectives of a nonviolent resistance movement, but mass mobilization appeals to people with different motives to participate in a nonviolent resistance movement, on the other hand. To elaborate this argument, the (nonviolent) Orange Revolution and the (violent) Revolution of Dignity are extensively studied and compared. These case studies indicate that different motivations for participation in a nonviolent resistance movement can be problematic in case of a lack of leadership and unity within the resistance movement. ~ Nonviolence, Social Movements, Orange Revolution, Revolution of Dignity ~ Acknowledgements First and foremost, I would like to thank my thesis supervisor Dr. Jana Krause for her moral guidance and encouraging words during the thesis process. I admit that my process was far from flawless, it has been a true struggle and without the help of my supervisor I would, in all probability, not have been able to write this thesis and to submit this thesis today. Thank you very much for your never-ending efforts to keep me on track. Herzlichen Dank für ihre Mühe. I also grateful to Dr. Dimitris Bouris for the time and consideration he will put in reading my thesis as a second reader. I am happy to have such a well-known academic in the field of European integration and Ukrainian affairs like Dr. Bouris as my second reader. I cannot leave without mentioning my fellow students, my fellow students contributed to a great in-class atmosphere that inspired me to work hard. I express my gratitude to my friends who encouraged me to keep on working, even during the night, and who have helped me with proofreading my thesis. 2 Table of Contents The Orange Revolution and the Revolution of Dignity in comparison ............................... 1 1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 4 2. Theoretical Framework .................................................................................................... 7 § 2.1 Literature Review .............................................................................................................. 7 § 2.2 Literature Gaps .................................................................................................................. 9 § 2.3 Pattern of Violence ............................................................................................................ 9 § 2.4 Social Movement Theory ................................................................................................ 13 § 2.4.1 Group identification ..................................................................................................... 15 § 2.4.2 Cognition ...................................................................................................................... 16 § 2.4.3 Emotions ....................................................................................................................... 17 § 2.4.4 Motivation .................................................................................................................... 18 3. Methodology .................................................................................................................... 21 § 3.1 Case studies ..................................................................................................................... 21 § 3.2 Process tracing ................................................................................................................. 22 § 3.3 Discourse analysis ........................................................................................................... 22 § 3.4 Policy documents ............................................................................................................ 23 4. Case Studies ..................................................................................................................... 23 § 4.1 The Orange Revolution ................................................................................................... 23 § 4.1.1 Timeline ....................................................................................................................... 24 § 4.1.2 Interviews with Participants in the Orange Revolution ............................................... 27 § 4.1.3 Focus group .................................................................................................................. 32 § 4.1.4 Speeches on Maidan Nezalezhnosti ............................................................................. 35 § 4.2 The Revolution of Dignity .............................................................................................. 39 § 4.2.1 Timeline ....................................................................................................................... 39 § 4.2.2 Focus Group, Interviews, and Surveys ......................................................................... 43 § 4.2.3 Speeches on Maidan Nezalezhnosti ............................................................................. 46 5. Discussion ......................................................................................................................... 54 § 5.1 Orange Revolution .......................................................................................................... 55 § 5.2 Revolution of Dignity ...................................................................................................... 56 § 5.3 The turn to violence ......................................................................................................... 57 6. Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 59 7. Bibliography .................................................................................................................... 61 § 7.1 Media Coverage Revolution of Dignity .......................................................................... 65 3 1. Introduction Whereas some people attempt to adjust themselves to the circumstances that flow from a political or social system and others may envision a gradual change of this system, only a few are actually prepared to challenge either a political or social system, or both, in order to achieve change. This preparedness to bring about change is what could be considered resistance. Throughout space and time, people have challenged political systems and social systems alike in different ways through divergent methods. This challenging of either the political system or the social system, or both, could occur as both the performance of a single act – e.g. non- obedience to authorities – and a persistent campaign of protests. The ultimate objective of such a campaign is either to accomplish concessions of the political system and social system or, more drastically, regime change. As resistance, intrinsically, is an extensive concept, this thesis will explicitly focus on resistance movements that initially intended to accomplish political and social change or regime change through the use of nonviolent strategies. These nonviolent resistance movements are worth studying because Chenoweth and Stephan (2011) observe that nonviolent resistance movements are, in general, more successful in achieving their objectives than their violent counterparts. This observation leads to the inference that nonviolent resistance movements are more common than their violent counterparts and to the reasoning that it would be counterproductive for nonviolent resistance movements to resort to the use of violence. Nevertheless, there are numerous examples of nonviolent resistance movements that resorted to the use of violence in their strive to accomplish political and social change. An explanation for this change in strategy could be the decreasing effectiveness of nonviolent resistance methods. Chenoweth (2017: p. 89) does neither observe data that points to an increase of violent resistance nor to a greater effectiveness of violent strategies between 2010 and 2016; on the contrary, nonviolent resistance strategies prevail over violent strategies. Therefore, the research puzzle that is identified in this thesis is the decision of resistance movements to resort to violent means, whereas these resistance movements initially attempted to achieve political and social change through the use of nonviolent resistance methods. The decision to resort to violent means could be affected by different factors. These factors could, for example,