Thursday, February 16, 2012


Commentary

An Epitaph For The Orange Revolution?

Members of the Election Commission prepare voting booths at a polling station in Kyiv.
TEXT SIZE - +
By Irena Chalupa
"Ukraine’s Orange Revolution Sours.” “Defeat of Ukraine’s Orange Revolution.” “Orange Revolution Dream Fades.” “The Orange Revolution Is History.” “The Orange Revolution Fades to Black.” “Death of the Orange Revolution.”

Headlines like these screamed from the pages of Western publications after the first round of Ukraine's presidential election on January 17. Incumbent President Viktor Yushchenko suffered a humiliating showing, garnering just 5.5 percent of the vote, while his former nemesis Viktor Yanukovych walked off with 35.2 percent.

The very same journalists and pundits who were giddy about the Orange Revolution in 2004 were just as eager to pronounce it a bust five years later.
 
Most would agree that Yushchenko, the man who personified the Orange call for change, has proven to be a disappointing and weak president. He was, however, quick to remind us that the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and other international observers deemed the first round of voting free and fair. This, he said, was a tangible achievement of the Orange Revolution.

Yanukovych speaks to his supporters in Simferopol.
But what was that “revolution” really about? Was it in fact a revolution at all?

Having stood many a long cold hour on the Maidan in 2004 and put up many a protester in my flat in Kyiv during those frosty months, I can honestly say that the so-called Orange Revolution was more of a party than a revolution. People from all over Ukraine -- from Odesa to Lviv, from Kyiv to Zaporizhzhia -- took to the streets because they had been cheated. Then, one thing that truly belonged to them -- their vote, their voice in their country’s future -- had been taken from them. And like that angry Peter Finch character in the 1976 film “Network,” they were mad as hell and not going to take it anymore.

Since then, Ukraine has held three elections -- two parliamentary votes and the first presidential round last month. All of them were free of fraud and judged to be fair by international observers. The second round, too, should be free and fair, despite the mutual accusations and hysteria that both Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko and Yanukovych are stirring up.

This is no small accomplishment.

Furthermore, when one looks at the low voter turnout in most Western countries, the 67 percent turnout in the January first round clearly shows that Ukrainians haven’t developed election fatigue. They take their elections seriously and are determined to be part of the political process.

Who Will It Be?

Yes, there is disappointment, disenchantment, and a pervasive feeling of being powerless to influence what elected officials do. The people, however, have not given up on the ideals of the Orange movement. Rather, their leaders have. And so far there is no indication that Ukrainians as a voting public are willing to surrender their right to change their political reality through the ballot box.

And now for the actual final Orange test. Who will it be -- Viktor Yanukovych or Yulia Tymoshenko? And what will they do with the Orange legacy, a legacy that perhaps still needs to be created?

Yanukovych has been quite vociferous about wanting to put all things Orange behind him, calling the entire exercise a “plague.” Neither he nor any member of his team has ever admitted any wrongdoing in the 2004 elections, which were rife with ballot-stuffing and fraud.

Tymoshenko, meanwhile, has positioned herself as the natural heiress of the Orange ideals – which, in point of fact, she is. After all, it was her engaging oratory, slightly wicked sense of humor, and utter fearlessness that gave the movement its mojo.

A Tymoshenko campaign banner in central Kyiv.
But the rules have been changed in mid-game. Ukraine’s parliament changed the election law, doing away with the provision for election committees to sign off on polling-station results via a two-thirds quorum of representatives of both candidates. Local authorities can now fill any vacancies. Higher-level election commissions now have greater power to intervene in the decisions of lower commissions. Twenty-nine members of Yushchenko’s Our Ukraine bloc voted for the bill, and Yushchenko promptly signed it into law.

"It's not the people who vote that count. It's the people who count the votes." This adage, attributed to Josef Stalin, makes these last-minute changes appear quite menacing. That Yushchenko, who nearly lost the election in 2004 due to fraud on the part of the Yanukovych team, is willing to support his former nemesis in weakening the insurance mechanisms that were set down in the original election law to prevent fraud, speaks volumes as to what legacy he has chosen to leave behind.

Nevertheless, the fact that one day before the election it is difficult to predict the winner is a wonderful indicator of…yes, the fruits of unsophisticated Orange-born democracy. Compared to the practiced predictability of Russian elections, Ukraine’s chaotic and brash elections, despite their lack of new faces or fresh ideas, seem a breath of fresh air, an unequivocal expression of freedom and a longing for something better.

“What a bore to fly forward, simply to go back,” wrote the talented Ukrainian poet Yevhen Pluzhnyk, who was killed during Stalin’s purges.

Is it too late to prevent this from becoming the real epitaph of the Orange Revolution?

Irena Chalupa is the director of RFE/RL’s Ukrainian Service. The views expressed in this commentary are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect those of RFE/RL.
This forum has been closed.
Comment Sorting
Comments
     
by: Anon
February 06, 2010 14:49
Of course Tymoshcenko is positioning herself as the natural heiress of the Oragne ideas but that doesn't mean that she is. Why are people so beguiled be her charisma, good looks and articulatelness and don't look at what she actually does which has nothing to do with Orange Ideals.?

As for the new election law it was designed to prevent Yulia from sabotaging the elections by withdrawiing member from local election committees rendering them unable to count the vote. Whether it was the right way to do it or it was a real threat is another but there iis not way it was designed to let the election be rigged.

by: anon
February 06, 2010 15:07
The door to falsifications in the election was opened by BYUT and POR voting jointly in the RADA last year to change the elections laws. The changes were vetoed by the President but BYUT and POR had enough votes between them to override the veto. The changes were then declared unconsititutional by the Constitutional Court but BYUT and POR did nothing to change them. BYUT is the party controlled by Tymoshenko. One would have thought that a journalist writing for RFE would know these facts.

by: Nicholas Lampou from: Canada
February 08, 2010 17:31
I am conducting academic research on election fraud during the 2004 Ukraine elections. Any reader has any stories to share on how fraud was attepted/prepared?

by: rkka from: rkka@arvgk.com
February 09, 2010 00:19
The lunacy on the Maidan back in 2004 was "Astroturf", not "Grassroots". Normal Ukrainians have discovered in the interval that holding a drunken "Orange" party is different from governing. Meanwhile, deaths in Ukraine exceeded births by a couple million, but what did Yushchenko or Timoshenko care about that, compared to the pleasure of indulging in Russophobic rants?

by: Winema from: US
February 09, 2010 06:46
To Nicolas: I will explain you how 2004 fraud was prepared, since I was born in Ukraine and visited my relatives there after the "orange revolution". Ukraine is deeply divided between its industrial pro-russian east and agricultural pro-europian west. Many of Western Ukrainians have been repressed by Soviet Union after the WWII for participation in nazi military units (OUN/UPA) who's leader was Stepan Bandera - local peoples call them "banderovzi". Since then banderovzi political descendants from west was constantly trying to break relations Russia as bad as possible, and Ushenko was their leader (he even award Bandera top medal seval days ago). Eastern peoples hate "banderovzi" because their areas deeply depend on russia economicaly and also they honestly think of themself as historically same nation with Russians because both Ukraine and Russia have been same country since foundation of the first state there - Kievan Rus (found in 880 with capital in Kiev). Kiev was capital of entire Russia for centuries, Moscow was only found as a city around 1147. So east voted for Yanukovich and won by a narrow margin, same as today. This totally did not work with west of Ukraine, and their forget accusation of mass fraud and demanded "redo" of the election just to keep the power away from east. Middle of Ukraine knowing that west is ready for anything to hold the power prefer to vote this time for Ushenko, just to prevent a civil war. Industrial east of Ukraine was also more interested in keeping peace, so they have waited for a better times, and let west to fall into economic hole that they have dig to themself by breaking ties with Russia. According to anti-cremlin oligarch Boris Berezovsky, he spend millions of dollars given to Ushenko to organize the revolution.

by: nancy from: us
February 14, 2010 08:48
People: Russia did not even exist 1000 years ago! It was not until the second half of the 13th century that the forerunner of Russia, Muscovy, came into existence! The formulation of the Russian nation came within the boundaries of Muscovy during the time of Peter !, who ordered that the term "Muscovite" be replaced by the term "Russian". Even the English-language "Outline of the History of the USSR" published in 1960 in Moscow, states " The Russian nation began to take form in the 17th century." It is an on-going Russian Disinformation Campaign that ingnore Russia's on-going agenda to falsify Ukrainian history, that stole Ukrainian culture and even stole Ukraine's ancient name "Rus" as evidenced by the 1713 order of Peter 1. Exiling Tartars from the Crimea, exiling Ukrainians to Siberia, the deliberate starvation of over 7,000,000 Ukrainian people during the Holodomor (famine), THEN all along Russia deliberatly REPOPULATING Ukraine with ethnic Russians. and methodically imprisoning Ukrainians that knew and defended the truth of their country's history into concentration camps/Gulags. Those are only a few highlights from chapters in Ukrainian history and how Ukraine's east/west Divide still plays out today. Read "Animal Farm" to see how Russia operates, then contact Harvard University Ukrainian Studies in Cambridge, Massachusets for other materials to read for relevant accurate academic perspective.

Latest Commentary

No records found for this widget:963

More Commentary

Most Popular

               
 
 
 
 
Being Discussed Now

Jolie In Sarajevo For Film Screening

Latest Comment (13 total)

rick: modesty of a person

is also measured

by problems that believes she can overcome .


I ... More

The Truth-Teller: Natasa Kandic, Urging Serbs To Face The Past

Latest Comment (34 total)

demon: Typical Belgrade drivel. Still no progress. Must try harder dunce. More

Iran To Make Nuclear Announcement

Latest Comment (14 total)

Khoozer: So Chechen (if you indeed are from where ur name suggests), you seem ... More