What did the two recent revolutions in Ukraine (2004 and 2013-2014) have in common?
Both the Orange Revolution and the EuroMaidan were massive popular revolts that used Kyiv's main square, the Maidan, as their central political stage. Both involved long standoffs with the authorities lasting through the cold winter months, an indication of the revolutionaries' determination and their popular support in the capital.
Both targeted the political order represented by Viktor Yanukovych: in 2004 he was the prime minister, trying to reach the presidency through rigged elections; in 2013, he was the president, who personified a corrupt and inefficient regime and was increasingly subservient to dictatorial Russia. The leaders of both revolutions called for Western-style democracy and transparency; in both cases, the West supported them and Russia denounced them as illegitimate.Placed in the broader historical context of Ukraine's Soviet past, such parallels reveal a deeper connection between the two movements. Ukraine did not experience the Soviet collapse as a social revolution complete with the removal of the old elites. Manipulative and corrupt former Soviet bureaucrats and Red directors continued running the state for the first decade after independence. By the first decade of the 2000s, they tried to transfer their power to the next generation of politicians representing the interests of the oligarchs. The latter not only accumulated their wealth by looting state assets during insider privatizations, but also represented regional economic clans that, at least in some cases, developed from the organized-crime structures of the early 1990s. Yanukovych's own criminal record symbolized the nature of the system that could select him as a candidate for the highest office.
Yet, Ukrainian society changed much in the decades following independence. A new, primarily urban middle class developed, with attendant expectations of economic opportunity for small businesses and decent pay for professionals.
A new generation of Ukrainian urbanites vacationed abroad, and their children studied in the West. It was increasingly difficult for them to tolerate a kleptocratic regime employing familiar Soviet methods of political manipulation. The transfer of power from the old Soviet elites to the new, “criminal” ones was what prompted many urban professionals, small business owners, and students to rebel. Both revolutions generated impressive grassroots support in central and western Ukraine, but not in the southeastern regions, where the Communist Party and the Party of Regions cultivated the governance style familiar from the Soviet past. Scholars have noted the prominent role of civil society and grassroots initiative in the Euromaidan Revolution.1 Both revolts reflected a clash between civil society and a paternalistic state, as well as between Western-style democracy and Soviet-style authoritarianism, the latter being the mark of Putin's regime in today's Russia. In other words, it was a conflict of political models masquerading as ethnic strife.Although the revolt in both cases was caused by domestic factors, the revolutionaries defined their vision of Ukraine in geopolitical terms by necessity. They opposed the crooked Ukrainian regime associated with the Soviet past and buttressed by present-day Russian support. Such Russian complicity made the West appear attractive as a democratic model and potential counterweight against Ukraine's backward-looking eastern neighbor. The “West" was a metaphor, of course: an idealized “Europe" of prosperity and democracy rather than the reality of the bureaucratized and economically troubled European Union. In any case, neither revolution was waged merely for the privilege of moving from one geopolitical sphere of influence to another but, rather, to build a new Ukraine for the benefit of its people.
It is also telling in this respect that, whereas in 2004 it was the parliamentary opposition that issued a call for mass protests, in 2013 the spontaneous mass rally in the capital caught the opposition parties unprepared. This change testified to both the deep- seated popular discontent that fueled the revolutions and distrust of politicians in general. The leaders of the Orange Revolution ended up playing only a minor role in the EuroMaidan Revolution. New parties came to prominence, and other political figures moved into leadership positions.