Approaching the Orange Anniversary: Part 1
November 12, 2008 – 11:26 amAs Ukraine approaches the fourth anniversary of the orange revolution it is important to analyse what has happened, the achievements and failures and unfulfilled expectations of the last four years. In the next2 weeks this blog will do this from different angles.
An often repeated claim that President Viktor Yushchenko could not effect ‘change’ because his electoral victory of 8 percent was low. But, a larger majority of Ukrainians than those who voted for Yushchenko wanted ‘change’ that crossed party lines (orange and blue) and regions (western and eastern Ukraine).
Yushchenko’s 8 percent victory margin is similar to breakthrough elections in the last two decades in the US, France and Britain where presidents and prime ministers elected with mandates for ‘change’ have won with 6-10 percent margins. The Economist (6 November) pointed out that Obama’s victory ‘was no Roosevelt or Reagan landslide’ and while 44 percent voted against Yushchenko (for Yanukovych) so too did 46 percent vote for McCain against Obama.
Yushchenko’s mandate for change was actually higher at 8 percent than the 6 percent victory margin achieved by Obama over McCain and Nicolas Sarkozy over Socialist Marie-Ségolène Royal last year. Britain’s two crucial elections associated with change gave a 7 percent victory to Margaret Thatcher’s Conservatives in 1979 and a 12 percent victory to Tony Blair’s Labour Party in 1997. Ronald Reagan won by a 10 percent margin over Jimmy Carter in 1981, only 2 percent higher than Yushchenko’s victory over Yanukovych.
Obama does not become president until 21 January. He is though very eager to take power and deal with crises in the US and changing US domestic and foreign policy.
It is a very different contrast to Yushchenko in 2005 when, after winning power withy a 2% higher majority than Obama. In 2005 Yushchenko was president under the 1996 presidential constitution, leaders of the old regime were either committing suicide, fleeing to Monaca, Russia and the US or hiding in banya’s in Russia. Yushchenko ignored the great power invested in him in the presidential constitution and focused not on implementing his 2004 election campaign promises but on traveling the world. No wonder the British media described him later that year as a ‘Ukrainian Gorbachev’, popular abroad but increasingly unpopular at home.
4 Responses to “Approaching the Orange Anniversary: Part 1”
The analogy to McCain and Obama does not quite hold. The contrast is much greater than what you note, I think.
In Ukraine, it was very dramatic and traumatic in 2004. In the US election, people did not have to take to the streets to overturn a false election, not this year, and not even when Gore contested the election against Bush. In the US, while there might be slight policy differences expressed between McCain and Obama, they were nowhere near as great as Yushchenko promising to put bandits in jail, to fight for free, open, fair and honest elections, to end corruption, and to end the autocratic style rule of Kuchma. McCain and Obama both know and respect the national interests of the US – Yushchenko had to fight against the open intervention of the Kremlin, as you well know, Professor Kuzio.
In other words, Yushchenko’s mandate was given to him not only by the vote, but by people OF ALL AGES coming out onto the streets and literally almost having to fight the armed forces and militia, to elect Yushchenko.
He blew it – big time.
By elmer on Nov 13, 2008
With all due respect, I think it would be a good idea to review at least some of what people were facing in the Orange Revolution with respect to elections. After all, Kuchma looked at the 80% vote margin that happened in Georgia prior to the Rose Revolution, and said that he wanted to make sure that in Ukraine, his anointed successor candidates did not appear to be so “greedy” so as not to arouse suspicion.
So here are some samples – and people were afraid to talk about it, and did not talk about it. The saying was: “my house is on the edge, I know nothing.” Just like Sergeant Schultz in the old comedy series, “Hogan’s Heroes.” Sgt. Schultz was the one who always used to say “I know nothing.”
- ballots – with disappearing ink. You would fill in a ballot, but later the ink would disappear, and somehow people would fill in the “appropriate” vote.
- members of the military were instructed how to vote.
- people were beaten if they didn’t vote the right way – or lost their jobs. Their votes were monitored.
- it was legal to deliver ballots to invalids and hospital patients. If you didn’t vote the “right way,” it was made plain that you would be thrown out of the hospital.
- the journalists had “temnyky,” or theme lists. These were approved topics that they could talk about, but only in a certain way. Everything else in the media was forbidden. One of the key moments in the Orange Revolution was a brave announcement on TV by a female journalist that she would no longer follow the theme lists.
Just a sample.
McCain and Obama did not have to deal with that, and the people in the US did not have to deal with that.
So, yes, the Orange Revolution was very, very important for Ukraine.
By elmer on Nov 13, 2008
What else did McCain and Obama and the people in the US NOT have to face?
- well, in Ukraine, noone knew where the campaign money came from. They still don’t, except for the people spending it. That meant that government money and resources were used to finance the campaign of the incumbent party in power.
- McCain and Obama had to file campaign finance reports, and there are limits on individual and corporate amounts of contributions. No such limits in Ukraine.
- Obama raised most of his campaign contributions over the Internet, with an average contribution of $99. McCain opted for public campaign finance money, limiting him to about $74 million. No such luck in Ukraine.
- People in Ukraine were bused by the Party of Regions to Kyiv to “counteract” the Orange Revolution. As employees or government workers, they were literally forced on buses, with no food and no toilets, but with bottles of vodka. There are stories that some of them cried when they go to Kyiv, because they had nowhere to go. Many of them were helped by the Orange camp.
- Many people in Ukraine were literally bused, or put on trains, to “vote early and vote often,” in various districts.
HUGE difference between what McCain and Obama went through, and what the people in Ukraine went through.
There was a far larger percentage of voter participation in Ukraine than in the US.
That’s why the majority obtained by Yushchenko was so significant.
He, and his supporters, the people who came from all over Ukraine to freeze in Kyiv in December and stare the government in the face and say “enough”, faced enormous obstacles from the incumbent insiders – rigged voting, beatings, big money, and worse.
By elmer on Nov 13, 2008