Reading Western press reactions to the election of Viktor Yanukovich as president of Ukraine are lessons in how democracy is measured in our era. Whereas Marx called the coup of Napoleon III a farce to the tragedy of his uncle’s reign, press opinion of Yanukovich’s victory is better viewed as a tragic reenactment to his farcical attempt to steal it in 2004. (Although, Marx’s original play of tragedy and farce might still be in the making as Tiger-Yulia plans contest the results.) Thus for observers of this weekend’s election, revolution has given way to potential counterrevolution, enthusiasm to depression, light to darkness, sincerity to tragic irony. The disappointment is so palatable that you can’t help wonder if commentators deluded themselves into believing that the election was their own, and Ukrainians were supposed to express their voice. But a slim Ukrainian majority failed to heed the desires of their self-appointed caretakers, opting instead to vote according to the conditions of their particularity rather than in line with the universal movement of History.
You can see this outpouring of negativity, for example, in the Guardian‘s editorial on the election. As the esteemed editors inform us, while the Orange Revolution has “left its mark,” for those who like “happy endings, the wrong person won.” Moreover, it’s a victory that is not without a certain irony: “The villain of the piece five years ago is the orange revolution’s chief beneficiary.” Colin Graham, also writing in the Guardian, says that the Ukraine’s orange future “now is a lot more grey.” But for Graham, Yanukovich’s victory is no simple tragedy. It amounts to a more grander act of historical erasure: “[Ukraine's] apparently pro-western stance that was supposed to have gripped the nation in 2004, with its hyped-up “orange revolution”, doesn’t seem to have occurred at all.” The Financial Times, too, plays with the metaphors of depression, villainy, and irony. “At first sight,” writes Gideon Rachman, “the prospect of a Viktor Yanukovich presidency in Ukraine looks like part of a depressing pattern for democracy around the world.” Now that the “bad guy” Yanukovick has returned, “history seems to have gone into reverse.”
Or has it? In their efforts to salvage something out of the Orange Revolution in general and this weekend’s Yanukovich victory in particular, invoking History, it seems, is all commentators have left. Since few can point to the Orange Revolution’s positive material benefits–the Ukrainian economy is in ruins, corruption reigns, and the oligarchy continues its political civil war–the partisans of liberal democracy are forced to highlight its abstract advantages: free elections, media, civil society. Forget that the Ukrainian political elite is paralyzed, at least Ukrainians can freely vote! Forget that the currency has lost half its value, Ukrainians have civil society (whatever that means)! Forget that voters have a choice between what FT calls “a convicted criminal backed by oligarchs and an opportunistic prima donna with her own history of murky business,” Ukrainians at least have the free media to help them pick their poison!
In our era of hegemonic liberalism, democracy is reduced to a choice, though one that is ideally “unpredictable.” Now forget the fact that commentators and polls have been predicting a Yanukovich victory for several months. The discourse on the Ukraine election is now in salvage mode, and the poll must now be transformed into the poster child of unpredictability and a testament to democracy victorious. You see, the Orange Revolution won even though it lost. Anne Applebaum: “The most striking thing about this Ukrainian presidential election is that we genuinely did not know who would win.” Clifford Levy: “The election . . . was highly competitive, unpredictable and relatively fair.” The Washington Post: “The [Orange] revolt’s success produced a messy but functioning democracy in which elections are hard-fought and unpredictable, the press is free and civil society flourishes . . . The good news from Sunday’s runoff vote . . . is that so far, democracy has survived.” Choice and unpredictability equals democracy. Just like American Idol. Coke and Pepsi. But both of these symbols of choice contain a darker underlying ideology. The former symbolizes how it’s necessary to rally the plebs into to thinking they are free to chose. The latter personifies how when stripped of their respective branding, the choices are nothing more than sugary sweet poison. And this is the problem with liberal democracy. Choice is the measurement and, for the most part, the end in itself. It is the choice that matters, not the politics that comes after it.
Therefore, we are told, Ukrainians should ultimately be happy. Although they didn’t make the right choice, (it would have been better if a few percentage points went the other way), but they still got to choose, and that’s more than their neighbors to the east can say. (I won’t go into how many articles use Ukraine to bash Russia. Even Yanukovich had to go on CNN, of all places, to declare that he isn’t a “Kremlin stooge.”) The greatness of Ukrainian democracy is made even greater when placed next to its negation: Russia. The Russians, after all, don’t even get the luxury to freely play in the rigged game. In this sense, the Russian elites are too realist. They know the game is rigged so why play so hard like it isn’t. What they don’t seem to understand is that they can play like its “unpredictable” and still rig it. Don’t worry, their day will eventually come, the partisans of liberalism perpetually remind us. History has its own inertia that can’t be befuddled by human particularity, let alone the condition of its material existence. Especially not when History’s movements are charted with idealist maps and abstract sextants.
1. One could also add that Ukrainian elections didn’t become “unpredictable” after the Orange Revolution, what a silly trope. They were always unpredictable because of the west-center-south/east divide in Ukraine.
2. I agree that Western countries are the real masters of virtual democracy. It is so virtual it is perceived as real, and woe unto those who say otherwise.
3. A superstructure of virtuality does however require some kind of material base for its sustenance. In a world of peak oil, limits to growth, etc, the material base will give way and the superstructures will come crashing down. The return of history will be the thing that ultimately discredits the end-of-history paradigm so popular in the West.
I completely disagree with this statement:
” Ukrainians should ultimately be happy. Although they didn’t make the right choice…”
Who is there to decide what is the right choice to make? First of all, to say that, you actually need to come and live in this country. According to the author’s words Timoshenko would be a much better choice. And this is something that most Westerners falsely believe in. I disagree. Neither of them is a good choice. Why Timoshenko is any bettern than Yanukovich?
- both of them are crooks
-Timoshenko was in charge of the government (Prime Minister) and she has not done anything for the country. President’s rights are so very limited in our country that even if she was actually elected as a president, she still would not be able to do anything at that position. Prime Minister has the same rights as a president and she has had more than enough time to do something for our country.
-Timoshenko’s party does not hold majority in the parliament. And you know what it means? Even if she became a president of our country, she would still need to create a coalition and as 2004 history says….. coalitions don’t work that well in Ukraine because they have a tendency to collapse! And this is only my guess… but the same thing would happen this time… the coalition would not survive and opposition would have more seats in the parliament. Why is it any good for our country?
Yanukovich is no better than Timoshenko, obviously, but at least he has a big support in the parliament and that means the legislature would be “created” faster and there is not going to be mess in our government. Think about last 5 years of Ukrainian politics. Was there any stability there? NO! Does political instability do any good any country? No it does not.
Also…. many people from the West say that Orange Revolution was a sign of Ukraine willing to join Nato and EU…. well, like a kind of a step closer to those two unions. I say we don’t need to be a part of Unions like that if those Unions hesitate to accept Ukraine without a doubt. EU is playing with Ukraine like with a puppet….. some members of EU make an impression that Ukraine will become a part of EU, but some don’t. It is a role of EU to give some support to Ukraine in its aspiration to become its part. But in real life it is all on the contrary. EU does not do any for Ukraine to become its member. Now, think about Russia: well, this country does not mind Ukraine to be its union member. Okay, they manipulate our country… this is no good…. but we are better off with Russia than with EU. Yeah, this is stupid for me to say that because I hate Russia and their influence on Ukraine. But you know what? Take my words for granted but we DON’T NEED THIS INDEPENDENCE if we live day to day thinking about money we need just to be some food. To say something about our country you first need to live in our country and see how people living here.
Alex, you totally missed the point . . .
Sean,
You write: “And this is the problem with liberal democracy. Choice is the measurement and, for the most part, the end in itself. It is the choice that matters, not the politics that comes after it.”
This is a perceptive observation. But you must agree that there has to be some sort of accountability for those in charge. In this election, the Orange Revolution leaders were in fact held accountable for the clusterfuck that followed their ascent. I have nothing invested, financially or emotionally, in Ukrainian democracy, but at the very least I think it’s positive that those in Higher Office were shown the door as a result of their incompetence in governing. I think that’s worth something.
I’m back in Moscow. Let’s get a drink this week or next.
Cheers,
Carl
Are you ok Sean? You quoted Applebaum, FT, and Levy all in the same post which leads me to believe you had read each them probably during the same day. You’re a brave man. Criminals backed by oligrachs and people with murky business pasts – you’d think the FT was describing an American election for pete’s sake.
Material life Sean? Do you think Applebaum and company would bother seeing what is happening in Ukraine on the ground? And I know for a fact (from personal contacts) that the colonialist-journalist class of the likes such as Levy have their minions run around and do the “research” for them so they can sit in an office and write up well-crafted pieces for those at the heart of the empire.
Sarcasm aside – your analysis is pristine. It’s in the little moments like this – “democratic elections” in far reaches of American empire that give us a brief peak into the underlying ideology that structures our ruling class’ vision of the world – an ulimately cynical and violent one governed by one principle – the spread of Capital – which of course is covered by the thin, insidious veil of “democracy” (remember when the Turkish population voted against having the US use its country for attacks on Iraq and the neo-cons threw a fit…another such example). The sick thing is you’re probably one of handful people in the West with enough courage and intelligence to point this out on a night such as this.
Long live the Ukrainian nation!
I think it is in line with ‘the universal movement of History’. The Orange Revulsion pushed the pendulum so far in one direction that it created conditions for ‘success’ that were almost impossible to fulfill, and that was before the economic crisis.
The pendulum always swings back, though how far back is the question.
Sure, one can blame most of it on the infighting between Yushenko & Tymoshenko but what about the lack of real support the Ukraine recieved from the West who sponsored the OR? The Ukraine got a free pass into the WTO (did this really help an economy that was in such bad shape?), Russia is laughably still not a member yet China is. It probably got access to bigger IMF loans on more favorable conditionsand other benefits , but its western supporters were still very efficient with their money and support. After all, wasn’t the idea that is not to subisidize the Ukraine to reform (though certainly to seduce with promises) but for the Ukraine to reform itself to be more easily acceptable to do business and politics a la Occidentale?
Did the EU hold out any real prospects of the Ukraine coming closer to the EU? Clearly nowhere near enough for Ukrainians to believe it for long though this might have somewhat to do with Russia’s strengthening since 2005 and the Russo-German strategic pact to tie Russia closer to Europe inspite of the rather vocal yet economically puny US fanbois in eastern europe. I suppose you could say that the OR was too late and ran out of time.
I noted that apparently Andrei Kurkov’s view is in line with the won though they lost view.
And what of an Yanukovic victory? It could actually be seen as good news for Tymoshenko. Yanokovic will take all the flak and hard decisions (or not) over the Black Sea Fleet, NATO, energy, reducing the powers of the President further empowering the elected chambers and other issues with Russia and not Yulia. Yanokovic could bolster his negotiating position vis-a-vis Moscow simply by saying he’ll call an early election and the risk that by then Yulia will have picked up more support to form a governement, Yulia as the boegywoman if you will. Yulia in opposition could play the role of pushing for much harder positions that would make Yanukovic look more moderate than he is, hence the scratch my back scenario that would ultimately benefit the Ukranian people better. Considering that it was such a small margin of success I would guess that it could quite easily be blown the other way even without unforseen ‘events’. Any bets on whether Yanukovic will serve out a full term?
Hopefully this election will lead to a calming of political passions not just locally but also in the region and they will get on with business and have a better chance to improve their livelihoods.
To be fair, I think the (Western) media (I’ve seen) has been very restrained in their judgement of the Ukraine elections. Yes, there is a general tone of sadness about lost opportunities mixed with applause for the democratic process. But the outcome provided a lot of fodder for hysterical fear-mongering, and I haven’t seen many journalists biting. Even the Guardian editorial you cite mentions the fact that the election observers were (gasp!) not blatantly taking sides this time. Frankly, I was even expecting more gloating and celebration from RT. Everyone seems to have decided to take a subdued approach this time. Why?
Right after I posted that comment I found myself listening to an interview of Alexander Motyl on the elections. Link (audio not posted yet). Now I get your post.
Russians are sure things are going their way, so why shout about it when it is so manifestly obvious? The effects could only be negative.
Westerners are ashamed – after all, how could any people fail so badly and reject them after embracing what is clearly the superior, civilized life philosophy? – and are now ditching their emotional baggage with Ukraine and sweeping the whole sordid affair under the carpet.
So basically both sides understand what is going on very well, but both would rather not talk about it.
Sean, residing in the Default City you might be losing the true fun of the situation.
Consider the following commentary:
“If Yanukovych’s election is a setback for U.S. and EU influence in post-Soviet space, it is not therefore a setback for democratization in that space. It should make Western policymakers consider whether democracy promotion actually complements or hinders the promotion of our interests. On the other hand, as allied and developing nations become more confident in pursuing their own national interests, the U.S. might begin to see what interests of ours are really vital and necessary and what interests are not very important.”
http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2010/02/09/ukraine-and-democratization/
http://inosmi.ru/ukraine/20100211/158123352.html
«Alex, you totally missed the point . . .»
To be fair, I missed you point also…if there was one
What if you reading western press tooooo much?
What do they KNOW about Russia (and it’s part – Ukraina)?
ivanov-su – are u living in Russia or Ukrain?