Contentious Politics and Repertoire of Contention in Ukraine: the Case of Euromaidan
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Гомза І. А. Політика незгоди і репертуар політики незгоди в Україні на прикладі Євромайдану 55 Гарань О. В. у чоМу пРичиНи НеВдач поМаРаНчеВої РеВолюції? У статті аналізуються причини невиконання обіцянок лідерів Помаранчевої революції щодо реформ в Україні. Підкреслюючи вплив стосунків у трикутнику ЄС – Україна – Росія, автор у той же час наголошує на первинності впливу внутрішніх чинників. Ключові слова: Помаранчева революція, демократизація, ЄС – Україна, Україна – Росія. Матеріал надійшов 06.11.2013 УДК [321.02:316.485.22](477)=20 I. Gomza CONTENTIOUS POLITICS AND REPERTOIRE OF CONTENTION IN UKRAINE: THE CASE OF EUROMAIDAN The article introduces the paradigm of contentious politics to study the Euromaidan events in Ukraine, describing the mechanisms of contention politics in the events of November 2013 – February 2014. Special attention is paid to the repertoire of contention, which remained rigid during 1991–2013, but has evolved after January 19, 2014 due to structural reasons. Keywords: contention, collective action, protest, Euromaidan. The political turmoil quivering Ukraine in intervention, or even suggesting Ukraine to be a November 2013 – February 2014 is defined by “failed state” [2]. observers and participants in different ways: as a In this article, I argue that a coherent “protest” [2; 23], a “revolution” [5; 22], a “riot” comprehension of the events in Ukraine in [4; 6], an “insurgency” [1; 3; 10] etc. All those November 2013 – February 2014, also known as the qualifications tend to be misleading, because “Euromaidan”, requires introducing of a value-free application of a particular notion depends on notion. Hereafter I argue that introducing the notion political partisanship of its author. Moreover, of “contentious politics” will provide a more conceptions like “revolution” or “insurgency” imply accurate explanation of the events. that political process they describe is highly The article begins by exploring the theoretical abnormal. Both propensity to define the events in foundations of the contentious politics’ paradigm. Ukraine subjectively and their perceived anomalous Secondly, preference of this paradigm in analysis features contribute to dramatic interpretations. the Euromaidan events is demonstrated. Thirdly, Society considers the situation in Ukraine as I study the repertoire of contention in Ukraine in exceptional, catastrophic, and cataclysmic: there are historical perspective in order to explain its numerous predictions of upcoming civil war, evolution in January 2014. © Гомза І. А., 2014 56 МАґІСТЕРІУМ. Випуск 58. Політичні студії Theoretical perspective contentious politics is a sword of the weak, opposed to forms of passive resistance discussed by Scott The notion of contentious politics is relatively [16], serving the weak as a shield. new in social science. It was introduced by Ch. Tilly As a form of active resistance, contentious [20] and acquired scholarly attention being used by politics comprehends a broad set of activities S. Tarrow [18], M. Lichbach [13], D. Meyer [15], which vary significantly: some are non-violent and J. Ulfelder [24]. In early 2000s, a theoretical (processions), others are more ambivalent (sit-ins opus magnum had been published [14], where the and occupations), and there are violent activities – paradigm of contentious politics was fully street clashes and acts of extremism. The activities conceptualized. compose a continuum with no impenetrable Contentious politics is a political process boundaries: social actors, engaged in contentious opposite to conventional politics. The latter depends politics, resort to those activities which they on particular political system and varies from free believe to be the most effective. Thus, when mass- elections and referendums within democratic rallies and non-violent occupations yield little regimes to non-competitive elections within results, actors turn to violent actions. authoritarian regimes. In any case, conventional McAdam, Tarrow and Tilly were especially politics is routinized: it happens regularly and interested in discerning some robust mechanisms of within institutional boundaries. contentious politics – relatively common processes In any given society conventional politics is which take place despite cultural and societal more advantageous to some social groups at the differences. Among such recurring patterns are: expense of others. Disadvantaged groups have mobilization, category formation, certification or fewer opportunities to influence upon political decertification of actors, radicalization, and the process: their elective franchise may be restricted as diffusion of contention [14, р. 13]. Various that of black inhabitants of SAR during the mechanisms sequences lead contentious politics apartheid; they may be a minority, never able to be through different trajectories: for example if politically powerful, as Native Americans in the radicalization happens before the diffusion, the U.S.; or they may represent a popular sector not outcome will be other than in the case when the deserving to have any political influence according diffusion precedes the radicalization. to official position, as in the case of the military rule Finally, given the structural reasons for in Brazil (1964–1985). grievance, contentious politics is not a single Once a social group perceives that it is unable to outburst of contention. Rather, it is a sequence of have impact upon the political process, it turns to episodes, sometimes described as “waves” [11] contentious politics. Rather cumbersomely, it is united by a common reason, though disjointed defined as “episodic, public, collective interaction chronologically. The episodes cumulate in a cycle among makers of claims and their objects when of contention. The relation between the cycle and (a) at least one government is a claimant, an object the waves was creatively described by Gitlin as “the of claims, or a party to the claims and (b) the claims years of hope and the days of rage” [9]. A contentious would, if realized, affect the interests of at least one politics’ episode is started by a trigger – a critical of the claimants” [14, р. 5]. Hereafter I use the event that impels social actors to transcend the notion “contentious politics” to describe collective routine politics. Still, triggers are nothing but actions, performed by social actors aiming to superficial incentives to act: the real reason for change the structural environment by extra- turning towards contentious politics is a structural institutional means. In other words, contentious problem that makes conventional politics politics is non-routine political participation unacceptable for some social groups. transcending institutional boundaries. From a tactical point of view, contentious Though being non-routine, contentious politics politics has its “repertoire of contention”. The is nevertheless as normal as conventional politics: notion, introduced by Tilly, describes the the former supplements the latter in those domains, “intersection of accumulated experience of social where institutional modus operandi does not work. actors with the strategies of the authority [aiming For example, contentious politics signalizes about to control the contention]” [19, р. 99]. The the problems the conventional politics tends to combination of experience, i.e. the knowledge of ignore; it helps disadvantaged social groups to what could be done, and deterrence, i.e. the space protect their interests; it enables the popular sector for action left by the government, constitutes a to influence upon élite decisions the way it is not range of means available to social actors conducting able to within institutional boundaries. Figuratively, contentious politics. Гомза І. А. Політика незгоди і репертуар політики незгоди в Україні на прикладі Євромайдану 57 Repertoire of contention constantly evolves in violence against a peaceful demonstration. They two ways. Firstly, due to changes in experience and demanded to punish the officials who had abused deterrence, some innovations are introduced. For the authority. Those claims were ignored by law example, people learn how to make Molotov enforcement agencies and the contentious politics cocktails. Secondly, due to selection of the best persisted and involved new participants. tactics made by social actors some elements are 3) The third trigger mobilized people concerned retained. For example, if people find out that with unconstitutional enactment of bills on fraternizing with the army helps to gain more 16 January 2014, which criminalized protest sympathy, which contributes to success of activities. The bills passed with procedural contentious politics, they will use the same technique violations which undermined significantly the during the following episodes of the cycle of credibility of conventional politics. Facing the contention. The elements are selected according to problem, concerned citizens tried to change the their effectiveness: means making an opponent structural environment by extra-institutional means. more compliant are likely to be used again. Thus, an The robust mechanisms of contentious politics opponents’ sensitivity to tactics of contention is an are clearly observable in the Euromaidan case. The important feature, which determines whether a cascade mobilization helped to enlarge the repertoire of contention will or will not evolve. contentious politics constituency: each next trigger Analyzing combinations of innovation and animated significantly larger social groups.