The Maidan
Three years ago, in the late fall of 2004, an event took place in Kyiv known as the Maidan. No sooner had the Central Electoral Commission headed by Serhii Kivalov announced that Viktor Yanukovych had been “elected” as Ukraine’s president than a fortress of tents rose up on Kyiv’s Independence Square in a matter of hours. On the morning of Nov. 22 buses began heading for Kyiv from almost every region of Ukraine. In spite of the snow and cold, the tent city expanded quickly and within a week it covered the length of Khreshchatyk Street.
A social life sprang up in the tent city, which for several months determined the very sense of the city’s and country’s existence. Social psychologists have yet to explain why such a huge mass of people, concentrated in one city and in difficult winter conditions, did not run wild but, on the contrary, showed affection and love, a scarce commodity not just in Ukraine but all over the world. For up to two months the world’s media focused attention on the Maidan in Kyiv. There was enough love even for the adversaries whom Party of Regions managers were urgently dispatching to Kyiv. Not only mass-scale clashes but even minor brawls were averted. Everything boiled down to passionate verbal battles. Without a doubt, credit should be given to the organizers on both sides, but above all, the Maidan was proof of a certain culture of coexistence among the broad social strata of Ukraine.
The Maidan action was a phenomenon of a new Ukrainian society. Its motive force was the people, who had become aware of their own responsibility for what was going on in the country — Citizens. Those on the Orange side were mostly university students, professionals, entrepreneurs and white-collar workers: diehard Marxists call this the “petty bourgeois strata.” The White-and-Blue side consisted mostly of blue-collar workers, vocational school students, and coal miners: “the proletariat” in Marxist parlance.
The participants of the events that took place in Kyiv in 2004 also differed regionally, not just socially. This fact was stressed during all three rounds of the election campaign by spin masters led by the Moscow-based Gleb Pavlovsky, who regretted after his setback that “the revolution did not get a punch in the nose in good time.” Meanwhile, the Maidan found a simple and wise response to all the attempts to bring about a split in Ukraine: “East and West together!” and “Donetsk and Donbas, join us!”
During those months Kyiv proved to be worthy of being called a capital city. Ordinary Kyivites, and those who do not consider themselves as such, brought warm clothing, food, and money to Independence Square. Government and cultural institutions located downtown opened their doors to the protesters so that they could warm up and receive medical aid. Taxi drivers and ordinary motorists gave free lifts to people. Police reported that the crime rate and number of traffic accidents dropped by more than a third during this period.
Hundreds of people on the Maidan courageously resisted the attempts of organized crime to seize power. They were defending, to the best of their abilities, Ukraine’s national interests and the right of their children to live without fear of bureaucrats and dishonest politicians. After all, they were simply protecting their property from robbery. The impression was that they had finally won a victory, and politicians were bending over backwards to demonstrate their own role in it. When it was clear that the Maidan was victorious, they lined up for their turn at the podium so that everybody could see them against the backdrop of this truly historic event.
The triumphal peoples’ inauguration of Viktor Yushchenko in January 2005 at the Maidan, which was attended by an unprecedented number of heads of states and governments, the likes of which modern Europe had never seen, was the apotheosis of the romantic relations between the government and the people. The offices of many bureaucrats were now decorated not only with the mandatory portrait of the head of state but also huge blowups depicting the crowded, snow-covered Maidan as a reminder of the true sovereign: the Ukrainian people.
After the Maidan, politicians changed — for six months. Then things began happening according to the traditional Ukrainian way: quarrels, betrayals, corruption, and a collaborative agreement — the only goal was to cling to power and line one’s pockets. This resulted in unprecedented price increases, and the rise in the number of crimes, accidents, and public mistrust towards government institutions. “Do not betray the Maidan!” These words, heard in pre-election campaign film footage, were shouted by those who were the first to betray it and begin abusing the public trust. Under these circumstances, the political bankruptcy in the regular and recent early parliamentary elections, experienced by the presidential party — the Maidan party, as it called itself at its inception on March 3, 2005 — is only natural.
The events of November and December 2004 frightened but did not teach anything to Ukrainian politicians of all hues. Tellingly, the third anniversary of the Maidan is not being marked officially, unlike the second and third anniversaries. Realizing that the Maidan was the act of a real Ukrainian society, not an exercise in political technology, even the very “field commanders” (the self-styled name of high-ranking political quartermasters) tried to discredit it by carrying out a financial and economic postmortem and announcing how many tons of oranges, tents, felt-lined boots, etc., had been purchased. That fizzled. In 2005 the Party of Regions tried to copy the Maidan technology but failed to achieve any positive results. If ever a similar event occurs in Ukraine, it will be an action undertaken by the whole of society — without an east/west division or a face-off among social strata. What makes “Down with the bandit government!” the true slogan of the Maidan increasingly significant every day is the irresponsibility and inaction of the authorities — cold radiators in houses, accidents and disasters caused by human error, illegal raids and extortion, thousands of poor and homeless people against the backdrop of government officials, and, last but not least, the award given a week ago to Serhii Kivalov for his work when he headed the Central Electoral Commission.
Meanwhile, the Maidan will remain in our memories and in Ukrainian and European history as a unique social phenomenon, a true people’s action in which, despite all our subsequent troubles, the only victor was the Ukrainian people, who once again showed their superior civic spirit and selfless solidarity.
