Junior government and politics major
Iconic photos surfaced Saturday as Ukrainian protesters stormed and briefly occupied former President Viktor Yanukovych’s extravagantly furnished presidential fortress. While the embattled leader fled to Eastern Ukraine, likely to avoid being held accountable for his involvement in the killing of at least 82 activists in Kiev last week, thousands of Ukrainians flooded in for the chance to catch a glimpse of his ostentatious lifestyle. With the photographic preservation of Yanukovych’s eccentric tastes — including shots of the former president’s personal maritime-themed restaurant, golf course and zoo — protesters believed they secured unambiguous evidence of the leader’s moral corruption to compliment the triumph of toppling the regime.
In an age of instant communication, the events in Ukraine garnered immediate goodwill from around the world, notwithstanding Yanukovych’s Russian patrons. Global observers, however — especially students drawn to the allure of popular movements — should sift through the chaos of Euromaidan and focus on what granted protesters the moral legitimacy to force the tarnished ruler from office.
As the euphoria of the administration’s fall evaporates and Ukrainians turn to the challenges of establishing a new government, reflections on the popular movement will likely center around the protestors’ unshaken commitment to controlling their own political destiny. Tensions between opposition leaders and the government mushroomed into widespread protests following Yanukovych’s abrupt and widely unpopular decision in late November to abandon a free trade agreement with the European Union and establish deeper ties with Russia. As the demonstrations escalated, scores of protesters were killed in clashes with security forces, some reportedly at the hands of government snipers.
Yanukovych’s fall— while legitimated and even required by his abandonment of the executive’s foremost duty of ensuring the safety of his people—serves as an important illustration of the possibilities and limits of popular movements. In constitutional democracies, the political legitimacy of an elected official is not determined by how many protesters can be mobilized to condemn a particular policy.
Reminiscent of the 2013 Egyptian coup d’etat, in which the ouster of democratically elected President Mohamed Morsi was justified on the grounds of overwhelming popular discontent with his governance, some protesters in Ukraine demanded the removal of Yanukovych before a single shot was fired. It’s critical to remember that despite his deception of Ukrainians and obsequiousness to Russia, Yanukovych’s brutal Euromaidan crackdown is the only charge justifying his forced exit.
The resurgence of popular movements as a potent political force in the 21st century has generated a global glorification of protesters that goes beyond the contexts of individual movements. Occupy Wall Street, the Arab Spring and now Euromaidan have seen waves of protesters armed with smartphones receive instant gratification from transnational sympathizers following the latest developments. Channeling this populist energy into peaceful, productive and constitutionally grounded efforts to rework broken political systems should remain the goal of any reformer.
Images of masked protesters lounging in Yanukovych’s lavishly decorated living room could be viewed as a powerful symbol of the defeat of a deceitful, self-aggrandizing and violent leader as well as a key turning point in Ukraine’s decades-long transition to functional democratic rule. They could also be mistakenly interpreted as evidence for the utility of forcefully removing unpopular leaders. Let’s hope for the former.
This piece is part of the opinion section’s Friday package on Ukrainian protests. Read the rest of the pieces here.
