“Wave of Resistance”: civic movements and electoral revolutions
18 August 2005
Date: 13 May 2005 Location: The Hague, Netherlands
Introduction
On 13th of May 2005 the conference “Wave of Resistance” was held at the premises of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in The Hague, the Netherlands. The event was organised by the European Forum for Democracy and Solidarity, institute Clingendael and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, department for South-Eastern Asia and Eastern Europe. The conference focussed on the subject of civic movements and their role in electoral revolutions. The aim of the conference was to develop a better understanding of the broad coalitions consisting of movements, political parties and international actors that are directly involved in the enabling of democratic regime change. A diverse group of experts participated in the conference. Members of civic movements and a number of experts on the process of democratisation took part as guest speakers. They discussed under which conditions regime change took place in Serbia, Georgia and Ukraine and under which conditions regime change might occur in other post-communist states. More than eighty people attended the conference and expressed their satisfaction saying that international involvement and attention is highly needed to change the undemocratic regimes in the post-Soviet states.
The conference started by introducing the theme of “post-modern coup d’état” in the CIS (Commonwealth of Independent States) or the so called “western-backed revolution” which would lead to the existence of a strategic blueprint and therefore the existence of a framework of causal dynamics for revolution. What is the role of activist groups, NGO’s, security forces, and how are local elites responding to this? The role of activist groups is to provide energy and action by creating a collective identity. NGO’s and international organisations act as training organisations and they also provide funding. Foreign security organisations have a funding role as well. This description was by some seen as too simplistic, since NGO’s and international organisations are no monolithic bloc and do not and can not work together, and the CIA (as an example of a security organisation) is -after Iraq- no longer trustworthy to everyone. Moreover, security services are not effective enough anymore these days.
A framework, or at least a set of conditions under which revolutions can take place must exists. These could be: the power legitimacy of the ruling authority versus the unity of the opposition; the extent to which parties are united is very important, if they are, the prospects of power are much higher. The frustration levels of the population and the strength of civil society and media also play an important role: the frustration level of the population has to be high. A trigger for this can be a “stolen” election.
In the CIS, people expect a revolution to come rolling to their country. For ruling elites, there are two options to deal with the possibility of a coming revolution: uncontrolled revolutions can be controlled if states “belorussify” (i.e. tighten the screws, make it harder for opposition and NGO’s to register, create an image of the West as the enemy) and, as a last resort, the ruling party can prevent a revolution by bringing the opposition into parliament and thereby at least act as if they change the regime from within as a compromise.
Session I: The conditions and opportunities for successful civic movement
During the first thirteen years of independent Ukraine, there was no democracy in the country but dictatorship of president Kuchma. In 2001, Ukrainian civil society rose in an attempt to remove the president from power in the movement “Ukraine without Kuchma”. Victory seemed close, but ultimately the protests became violent and failed. Later people from “Ukraine without Kuchma” founded the youth movement “Pora”. They organised a network of students, and informed them about the “Otpor”- and “Kmara”- experience at seminars. During years in which the people of Ukraine were again afraid of power and afraid to sink back into the Soviet past, “Pora” grew fast. With actions destined to embarrass the regime, “Pora” tried to make people aware of an alternative to Kuchma. When the regime started to take “Pora” serious, a wave of repression followed. However, the young people became mobilised, not scared. In October 2004 mass student protests against the falsifications during the presidential elections started. When it was evident that the regime was not going to give up, masses of people gathered in Kiev. When the middle class joined “Pora”, it became clear that the regime could not resist this. The revolution, according to the “Pora” principles (non-violent resistance, a horizontal no-leadership structure, political and financial independence, political parties act as equal partners of the movement) had begun.
In 2001, with “Otpor” as their only example and with no signs that they would ever be successful, forty people in Belarus founded “Zubr.” Today it is almost a law that they will be successful. In 2001, the “Zubr” campaign failed because the political opposition was divided and could not pick the candidate who would have to oppose Lukaschenka. Only fifteen days before the election, the opposition candidate was presented, and that meant that there was not enough time to oppose the president. During the months that followed, all charismatic opposition leaders were killed by the regime and “Zubr” was isolated. Today, there is modest optimism in Belarus. Neighbouring Ukraine is a positive example, as is Georgia. “Zubr” tries to offer assistance to the political opposition in their process of picking a candidate, but the movement also tries to inform the population of Belarus about what is going on in the country- because in the end, only the people in the street will be able to influence the elections.
An academic approach
Although it cannot be said that there is a roadmap to revolution, a certain context exists that must be available if a revolution is to take place. This context can be described as follows: there is an authoritarian regime, which holds all the power in the country, and there are revolutionaries, which have no power at all. If the power balance can be changed, there is a chance that the regime can be brought down. For this scenario, a number of factors need to be present: the loss of legitimacy of the regime, political and/or social catastrophes, a large and crucial role for the opposition (is it divided or united?), and the nature of the regime itself (is it divided or strong?).
In the case of Serbia and the fall of Milosevic, all these factors were present. Milosevic lost his legitimacy, there were economic sanctions for the country as for example the NATO bombings. Obviously the people were frustrated, there was a united opposition presenting one strong candidate. The regime was divided and it turned its back on the people. The church, the army and the international community were all on the side of the opposition. They all agreed that there was an unfair and unjust political situation in Serbia, an alternative was clearly present and the opportunity was there. When elections came, it was the right moment to act: for such collective problems, solutions can be found. In the events “Otpor” played an important role because it destroyed the atmosphere of fear and created the opportunity for change- and it embodied the unification of that change. Civic movements such as “Otpor” play a very important role, because they convince the people to go out and vote, to get out on the streets to protest. These civic movements have to have a plan of action, because without a plan of action, any revolution is doomed to fail.
Plenary discussion
President Putin has destroyed mass media in the Russian Federation. His nuclear contacts with Iran are a potential problem, the war in Chechnya seems endless, and the influence Russia has over it’s former territory (the near abroad) is still enormous. Putin has no real opposition whatsoever and without that, we cannot speak of a true revolution in the area. It can also work the other way around, maybe if the countries that are surrounding Russia will take a truly democratic turn, they can influence Russia.
A number of questions were posed; Is the new government there really pro-Western and ‘safe’? How sure can we be that they will not take an authoritarian turn? What was the role of the security services during the Orange Revolution in Ukraine? The answer to the second question was that the role of the Ukrainian security services has not yet been discovered. The files are still closed and we do not know exactly what the plans and orders of the security services were.
Session II: International involvement
According to “Otpor”, international involvement in the revolution which toppled Yugoslavian president Slobodan Milosevic was not crucial. Obviously, there were exchanges of experience and knowledge with Western countries. Volunteers from “Otpor” travelled to meet activists from Western countries. “Otpor” received money for some of its campaigns. However, next to finance, diplomacy and strategic thinking were crucial, leading to the success of “Otpor”.
The US played a role in, for example, toppling Milosevic, and therefore this role should be faced and it must be examined. Examples of negative US-involvement are the attempts to topple the democratically elected governments/presidents of Chili and Venezuela. This aspect should be recognised. Resistance movements should keep in mind that their countries might be part of a plan for pro-Western global dominance. For example, could “Pora” criticise the intervention in Iraq and still receive US-funding? According to activists, the funding of opposition movements cannot be made public because it would mean the end of the resistance movement, which operates in hostile conditions set by often extremely authoritarian governments. The issue of democratisation must be separated from the issue of strategic geopolitical interests.
The analysis of peaceful revolutions in Eastern Europe from the perspective of the European Union is that the revolutions came from within. People were in need of a change. Since all revolutions are executed around elections, the EU plays an important role by sending elections observers to these countries. Unfortunately, this does not work in Belarus. For Belarus, the only hope might be the recently signed EU-Russia agreement which would loose the grip of Moscow on Minsk. The Party of European Socialists tries to support sister parties but involvement of Russia in the process of democratisation of the continent is crucial. Furthermore, revolutions are not the end of the story, but the beginning, and after the revolutions, there is a lot work to be done, also for the European Union. There is an emerging democratic community in the world. More and more organisations get involved in spreading democracy and therefore the democratic community must get institutionalised.
Session III: The aftermath of the revolution
The main question in this session was to what extent a revolution changes society. The focus was on the role of the movements and opposition parties after the regime change and how to deal with the remnants of the old regime.
Electoral regime changes are revolutions and not coup d’etats because the whole population supports such regime change. However, the only thing the revolution brings is a chance. For example, in the aftermath of the revolution problems rose in Georgia. Firstly, the media became less democratic. While former President Shevardnadze allowed free press, currently, businessmen dominate media. As a consequence there is a lack of circulation of newspapers. Also, the country is short of a journalistic tradition, which is problematic. Secondly, the lack of opposition creates problems. Though the National Movement still dominates, some new parties are evolving: The Republican Party and the Conservative Party. Thirdly, civil society is inactive. Though civil society was the engine of the revolution, now the sector is paralyzed because many people left and started to work for the government. The movement “Kmara” will not try to become a political party. Many “Kmara” activists started to work for NGO’s, which is considered to be a positive sign, since it can help to revive the sector. The government supports this development.
The regime change in Serbia is a revolution and not a coup d’etat because it opened the way to democratic transition. Changes for women were positive. New legislation was adopted to help to protect women, equality was promoted, the media opened up for special broadcasting on gender issues, and in politics female representation in parliament rose from five percent to twelve percent. In addition to this, the women movement seems to be more sustainable than “Otpor”. This is caused by the roots of the movements, which was already founded in the 70s, and the formation of successful coalitions with NGO’s, trade unions, political parties and journalists.
In Serbia major problems still exist. Legacies of the past need to be addressed: the status of Kosovo and Montenegro and the fragility of parties. The fact that donors are leaving the region is worrisome since it is too early for retreat.
The revolution in Ukraine has led to a number of changes in the society but it is too early to draw final conclusions about the results of the revolution. After the revolution, economic stability was reached. However, on the regional level the results are disappointing. Things are only changing slowly. “Revenge of the losers” of the revolution is expected at the next parliamentary elections in 2006. “Pora” still has a lot of work to do. The movement is now legal and aims at supporting the development of civil society. The focus is on fair elections and programs for students.
After the revolution in Serbia, “Otpor” transformed into a watchdog. The campaign they launched was “we are watching you”. Worrisome is the gap between the citizens and politics. Though “Otpor” does not really exist anymore, the aim of many former “Otpor” activists now is to strengthen civil society, to help the parties in power and to raise awareness among citizens. Like in Georgia, many activists started to work for NGO’s. Once more it was remarked that international involvement in the aftermath of the revolution remains very important.
Session IV: A theoretical perspective on democratisation and peaceful regime change
The concept of electoral revolutions is somewhat ambiguous. On the one hand there is the political conception of a competition between the opposition and the regime. In this view an electoral revolution is a power issue. On the other hand there is a civil society conception of a country waking up and the elections giving a breakthrough in values. The credits of an electoral revolution both have to go to the opposition parties for succeeding in co-operating, to civil society and the movements.
In Washington and the international community in general, the issue of electoral revolutions has had its impact. There is much speculation about the future and the question is which country will be next. One of the conditions that have to be met is that the country can not be entirely authoritarian. Projection of the model of electoral revolution on other countries will not always suit though. The question now is how to help adequately. The focus has been mainly on the ‘success stories’. However, the focus should be more on the less ‘sexy’ and more difficult cases. Cases where only slow change is an option. Uzbekistan, where a peaceful revolution seems impossible, is one of those cases that deserves more attention. Furthermore, Post-Revolutionary party building assistance deserves more attention. This is a subject the European people are usually very sceptical about. Also, the role of the regime in these revolutions is of great significance. While movements advocate a non-violent approach, it is the regime that eventually decides not to use violence against them at the peak of the revolution. This is only likely in so-called hybrid democracies. Finally, we should look more at the international context. In the latest revolutions, the EU has served as a model; entering the EU has been the ultimate goal. This goal however, is not realistic for the countries further to the East.
True free elections are a revolution itself. Western countries can not trigger a revolution, this has to grow and develop itself. The movements that are present today may have accelerated the process. The contacts these movements have with each other have been much more important for the revolutions than for instance the help of the CIA.
A revolution will not change the political situation in a country from bad into good. It is not as black and white as that. Therefore, the role movements give themselves after the revolution is interesting. There is consensus on the need for watchdogs. Transformation is more than just making democratic choices. It also involves making economic choices and providing social justice.
The activists received a bit of criticism as well. Being young and highly educated, they do not represent the entire population. The liberal changes in these countries result in older people having to leave their jobs and the loss of welfare protection. Therefore, change is not always positive for everyone.
The EU and the US are less eager to change the political leadership in Uzbekistan because it is in the interest of the US not to protest. However, this is why the EU should protest and step away from the US foreign policy in this respect.
The international community should continue to pay attention to the countries that have undergone these drastic changes and check if change really takes place. They should also financially assist to create a stabile economy and guard human rights. Furthermore, the EU is a big example for these countries. Especially for countries changing their institutions, the EU serves as a role model. The opportunities for all these countries need to be examined. Enlargement of the EU should be in the benefit of both the EU and the joining countries.
Country reports
Uzbekistan
Before holding a presentation on the political situation in Uzbekistan, our guest was called by her party members to inform her about the urgent situation in Andijon. On 12th May 23 local business men were found guilty of belonging to the obscure local Islamist group Akramiya and were sent to prison. Demonstrators who were supporting the 23 local business men, on 13th of May successfully stormed the prison, releasing the businessmen and hundreds, possibly thousands of other inmates. The demonstration turned violent when soldiers opened fire on the protesters who had surrounded several government buildings in the city centre. Figures so far suggest 500 or 600 people have been killed in Andijon.
President Karimov stated that he had not ordered anyone to shoot and that the authorities had done all they could to avoid bloodshed. He suggested that the unrest showed that Western support for democracy in Central Asia was counterproductive, saying that “attempts to artificially implant democratic processes in Uzbekistan can lead to third forces making use of the situation, as Akramiya is doing.
It was evident that the political situation in Uzbekistan asked for attention from the international community, that support of democratic forces is highly needed and that the dictatorial rule of the president needs to be condemned. The “Wave of Resistance” conference seemed the perfect opportunity to discuss the undemocratic rule of president Karimov and to address the political situation in Uzbekistan.
In 2002, when the opposition party Birlik was created, registration of other opposition parties was forbidden. The powers in Uzbekistan seem to be tightening the grip on its people in order to protect the power of the ruling elite.
Turkmenistan
There are two local movements which fight for democracy. They operate under the strategy: “Get up Turkmenistan”. There exists good cooperation between the Republican Party and the Human Rights Movement. The resistance in Turkmenistan is very focused on reaching its goals and hopes to get assistance from organisations like “Otpor”. It is problematic that Turkmenistan does not have any legal pretext for a revolution. The resistance movement in Turkmenistan faces great challenges because of the big control and surveillance. Common people do not have access to objective news, as even their computers are being watched.
Kyrgyzstan
The background of the Tulip Revolution, as the upheaval that took place in Kyrgyzstan is called, lies in the dissatisfaction of the Kyrgyz people with their president. President Askar Akayev and his family were increasingly seen as a symbol of corruption.
On 24th of March 2005, the Kyrgyz people started holding demonstrations. It was only then that the opposition parties succeeded in uniting. The massive gathering of the people was not so much an attempt to generate a revolution, but could be described as an upheaval, aiming to mobilise as many people as possible. On the whole, Akayev’s flight was not entirely unexpected. The Kyrgyz elite no longer tolerated his policy of appointing family members in all influential positions and they withdrew their support.
After Akayev left, Bakiyev became the leader of the country. It is hard to say what the results of this change are. Things are changing, but whether this will be positive or negative in the long run remains yet to be seen. In any case, the people brought along this change. People now address the problems. The opposition however, is no longer united. The aim is now to unite and commit activists of civil society and to make them watchdogs of all following developments. On 10th of July 2005, presidential elections will be held and the campaign has already started. The stakes are high. Will there be a president who is able to unite the Kyrgyz people, or will it be someone who will divide the country even more? Will there be constitutional reform and what will this bring? The choices for the future have to be made now.
Azerbaijan
The current situation in Azerbaijan is one of increasing repression from the side of the government. It is no longer allowed for people to gather in the streets in groups larger then 20 persons. Oil makes Azerbaijan very interesting to countries in the West, but it also makes the West turn a blind eye to the situation in the country. The role of the international community in the presidential elections of October 2003 in Azerbaijan was shameful. The OSCE reports were not neutral. After the elections, a company that can be linked to Dick Cheney was offered a contract that was worth a lot of money. All of this reeked of corruption. It is one of the most important issues; the fact that 99 of the 100 wealthiest people in Azerbaijan are state officials illustrates this fact.
In 2003, Azerbaijan was very close to a revolution, but there was no international support. Since then, the government has recognised the danger of organisations and movements and has made the functioning of Civil Society almost impossible.
On 8 February 2005, the YOX-movement was established. YOX equals ‘NO’; ’no’ to the government and ‘no’ to corruption. The movement is very popular and has no ties to political parties. At the moment the movement has 21 co-ordinators and has had three actions. They spread leaflets at the universities, sprayed ‘YOX’ in green graffiti all over the country, and recently held a demonstration. This demonstration was brutally stopped by the police. The fact that the regime is cruel, but in the mean time is ‘friends’ with the West makes the situation very difficult. As Freedom House put it: ‘the West is not ready for democracy in Azerbaijan’. However, slowly, some change seems to be taking place. Both Norway and the Netherlands have shown a new, less tolerant position toward the current regime in Azerbaijan.
The YOX-strategy is now to seek the support and the involvement of the political parties and students that studied abroad; to attract responsible people. Yox’ intention for the next years is to become a watchdog.
