FOR THE RECORD
Ambassador Miller's observations on Ukraine's Orange Revolution
William Green Miller, who served as America's second ambassador to Ukraine (1993-1998), spent six of the last seven weeks of 2004 in Ukraine. He was an eyewitness to the Orange Revolution as an observer during the three rounds of Ukraine's presidential election, which pitted Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych, representing the party in power, against the reformist opponent Viktor Yushchenko. He also discussed the developments there with the major political figures directly involved in those events, which had dominated the front pages of the world's leading newspapers and news broadcasts throughout the process.
Upon his return to Washington, where he is the senior policy fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Ambassador Miller was invited to share his observations at a Director's Forum at the Center on January 6. Following are excerpts from a transcript of his presentation (to be published in two parts).
CONCLUSION
The role of outside forces had a significant impact, but, overall, these were far less important than that played by Ukrainian actors. [Russian President Vladimir] Putin's interference had a negative effect. Russian pressure served to stiffen Ukrainian resolve and resistance, while the mediation efforts of Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski, Javier Solana of the European Union, and others blunted efforts to take forceful police and military measures to maintain control on the part of the Yanukovych forces.
Over 7,000 foreign observers monitored the elections along with over 10,000 domestic observers. The cumulative effect of these foreign and domestic observers and of the foreign mediators was a third-round election that was relatively free, fair, and transparent.
All these measures helped stage the outcome, but the great victory was the result, principally, of the will of the majority of the Ukrainian people who knew they had to fight for their constitutional rights by protest and direct action if they were to elect the man they believed best reflected their view of what a decent, honest leader should be - a man like Viktor Yushchenko.
The "Maidan Parliament" was a spontaneous phenomenon that arose out of the immediate circumstances. It certainly was not planned. There had been talk, earlier, of taking to the streets to oppose with violence, if necessary, the efforts to close down these maidan meetings by the authorities if the authorities moved the militia and special forces against the Yushchenko group. But nothing like the Maidan million was ever imagined. The impetus came from the people themselves. ...
Putting together a legitimate, peaceful, popular, revolutionary mass into a well-organized political force was a triumph of intellect, determination, courage and, not least, restraint. Obviously, there is at least a paradox, if not a contradiction, in a movement that is both legitimate and revolutionary. In this case, the revolutionary action of overthrowing a corrupt regime that had abused the institutions of democratic governance was believed to be a legitimate course of action. How the maidan mass did this is one of the miracles of the Orange Revolution.
The organizational performance of the maidan was another marvel. For example, just putting together the schedule each day in the context of a very volatile, rapidly changing political situation was impressive. Coordinating what was to be done, who would do it, who would speak at the maidan, when, who would perform, how the apparatus of the stage lighting, sound systems, camera work, printing of bulletins, communicating assignments, the making of banners, scarves, ribbons, the purchase and distribution of oranges, candles for candlelight meetings, camping equipment and supplies for the tent city of 1,000 plus tents. All of these elements were put together each day - and minute by minute. It was a miraculous organizational achievement. ...
All the various groups and interests that converged on the maidan were like nodes on the Internet - nodes connected by a common desire to rid the country of corruption and to support leaders who would offer the possibility of honest, decent government. Despite all the diversity among those who made up the maidan, there was a strongly evident willingness to join in common cause. As one person on the maidan, I could feel and see the pleasure and pride of the Ukrainians who surrounded me and believed they had risen up from their knees and were standing together as free men and women.
The Orange Revolution, in large measure, was a brilliant, largely spontaneous, and certainly colorful expression of popular will. The choice of orange as a color, as a theme, reflecting the fall season, perhaps, was understood to be certainly a totally new color for politics in Ukraine. This difference was seized upon by Yushchenko's supporters and his popular supporters in Kyiv and throughout Ukraine, and used brilliantly. ...
It was a brilliant form of modern theater. The maidan very quickly became a powerful form of urban democratic theater of campaigning, but it quickly evolved into a unique kind of democratic political action. I couldn't help thinking, as I stood on the maidan, that the maidan was, really, a modem form of Greek "demos," the assembly of citizens I had read about that flourished at the time of Periclean democracy. The maidan million, as the daily populace that gathered was also called, could hear and see their leaders speak and perform. They also could interact directly like a Greek chorus. Like citizens in Athens, the Ukrainian citizens were not passive, they were thinking, reflective and purposeful actors in the drama they were also watching and hearing. This I thought was mass communication at its best; it was democratic discourse and dialogue at its best. ...
Yet, the question of the legitimacy of the maidan has been very much at issue. At the heart of the main questions concerning legitimacy was the thought: Can you have legitimate action against those in institutions that are democratic in form and intent, but that are so corrupt as those in Ukraine were - corrupted by bribes, selling of votes or judicial opinions, intimidation of various kinds, the threat and actual use of force and violence? Can the people legitimately reject the leaders of democratic institutions when these leaders are corrupted by massive conflicts of interests and extensive abuses of power in order to enrich themselves?
The maidan spoke out against the corruption of their democracy and for proper constitutional legal governance. The Maidan took action - peaceful action - against the corrupt leaders of existing democratic institutions in order to halt the corruption.
What then is the difference between mob rule and legitimate direct popular action? Can direct peaceful popular action be institutionalized in an acceptable, democratic way?
Certainly, in the minds of many Ukrainians, those on the maidan share Yulia Tymoshenko's argument that the maidan was where true democratic legitimacy lay - a view that was proven, in their minds, by the successful corrective actions taken by the Verkhovna Rada, the Supreme Court decision of December 3, and the election results of the December 26 run-off.
The maidan, and its leaders, headed by now President Yushchenko, want the maidan to be both a symbol and institutional part of the new Ukrainian political reality. Yushchenko took his first important public step, by joining the Maidan on New Year's Eve - speaking to them, as one New Year's Eve celebrant told me, directly looking into their eyes. It was the first time they had seen a president of Ukraine standing with ordinary people in the heart of the nation, looking at them eye-to-eye and standing with them shoulder-to-shoulder.
The next time will be at Yushchenko's inauguration in a week or so when he will take the oath in the presence of the people and they will look at each other eye-to-eye and stand shoulder-to-shoulder.
[While Ambassador Miller was making his presentation at the Woodrow Wilson Center, demonstrators were marching in front of the Center, down Pennsylvania Avenue from the White House to the Capitol building, protesting the Electoral College's confirmation that day of the 2004 U.S. presidential election results. The predominant color of the signs and protesters' attire was, conspicuously - orange - and some of the speakers were citing the protests in Ukraine in their remarks. - Yaro Bihun]
CONCLUSION
Copyright © The Ukrainian Weekly, January 30, 2005, No. 5, Vol. LXXIII
| Home Page |