Civil protests in modern Ukraine: comparing multiple cleavages before and after protests of 2013-2014

Ðàçìåùåíî íà http://www.allbest.ru/

National Research University Higher School of Economics

Faculty of Social Sciences

Public Policy Department

MASTER THESIS

Civil protests in modern Ukraine: comparing multiple cleavages before and after protests of 2013-2014

Student: Anastasia Galina

2^nd year Master's student

Political Analysis track

Scientific Advisor: Vladimir Kozlov, PhD

Moscow

2016



Abstract

This research aims at the testing of the multiple cleavages theory within the civil protests in Ukraine in 2013-2014 and finding out, what were the cleavages existing in Ukrainian society on the edge of civil protests of 2013-2014 and were there any changes in cleavages structure after the Revolution of Dignity”? First chapter is dedicated to the theoretical foundations of cleavages theory, its evolution and application. Second chapter is focused on the civil protests of 2013-2014, its causes and consequences. Third chapter is an attempt to test empirically the cleavages theory on the edge and after the protests, and to propose a possible explanation of the changes in cleavages structure.



Table of contents

Introduction

Chapter 1. Theoretical overview

1.1 S. M. Lipset & S. Rokkan multiple cleavages theory: explanation and evolution

1.2 Ukraine as an object of analysis: regionalism and nation-building

Chapter 2. Civil protests and the Revolution of Dignity in Ukraine: causes and consequences

2.1 Causes and factors of civil protests of 2013-2014

2.2 Consequences and impact of civil protests of 2013-2014

Chapter 3. Multiple cleavages in Ukraine: before and after

3.1 Cleavages in Ukraine as a research object: discussion and qualitative findings

3.2 Cleavages in Ukrainian society on the edge of protests

3.3 Cleavages in Ukrainian society after “Euromaidan”

3.4 Multiple cleavages before and after “Euromaidan”: comparative perspective

Conclusion

Bibliography



Introduction

Civil protest is an essential, significant and inseparable socio-political phenomenon and basic feature of a political process and political system in a whole.

Depending on a number of external and internal factors, civil protest can convert into a variety of forms, appearing on different scales and can influence on political processes, policy development and led to political changes or not. Civil protests appear in a great variety of forms and on different scales, from peaceful demonstrations- expressions of citizen's political and social rights limitation- to the national revolution and military conflicts pending to significant changes. The protest itself is an expression of interests or disagreements, a way of communication between citizens and the State, a natural tool of changes, finalizing or not in political changes or transformations.

The most basic definition of the civil protest concept varies slightly in different sources and studies; however, the key understanding can be defined as following: acquiring in conventional and unconventional forms, civil protest can be characterized as an individual or group form of political participation, which consists in expression of disagreement with the political course or concrete political decision, occurs in response to social and political rights and freedoms violation, caused by formal and informal economic, social, political and cultural factors (Berestova, 2015).

Regarding the question of nation building and democratization, civil protests do play, theoretically and practically, an instrumental and in many cases significant role in catalyzing political transitions. However, the impact of pro-democracy protests on democratic transitions is still highly questioned and widely studied. Modern authors propose two logical dimensions of the arguments: civil-society based and elite-based arguments. First group of assertions consists of those, which correlate pro-democracy protests and their magnitude with countries regimes democracy-leading transition. On the contrary, elite-based arguments declare that democracy-oriented civil protests pend to the opposite effect and work against democracy “than small, moderate, and peaceful protests” (Kalandadze & Orenstein, 2009). Here, we consider a civil protests phenomenon to be not only a factor of political changes and transformations, but also a crucial sign and consequence of political, social and economic instability, a significant question of power and society balance and a symbolic factor for a democratization or a sign of a democracy transition itself.

In 2013, the contemporary protest history of post-Soviet space has enriched with a series of mass civil protests in Ukraine, currently known as “Euromaidan” or the Revolution of Dignity. For the last decade, the political crisis in Ukraine has become an unprecedented political case not only in this country but in the post-Soviet space in a whole, considering the magnitude of political changes pending to regime change, mass political frustration, a surge and progressive increase of civic engagement, continuing economic, social and political crisis, international relations instability, leading to the Crimea annexation and still continuing military conflict in the Eastern part of the country. According to the latest and still updating information, more than 3950 protest events took place in Ukraine in the period from 21^st November, 2013 to 23^rd February, 2014, with peek participation of 800 000 people in the capital and appearance in every single region of the country (Center for Social and Labor research, 2016).

The relevance of the research with a focus on civil protests in Ukraine can be explained through the sharpness and uniqueness of the issue: Ukrainian civil protests phenomenon, Revolution of Dignity, have a trigging power and have provoked supposedly significant political changes, which could be seen in the context of nation building and democratization.

In overall, the relevance of the analysis of the modern protest movements is crucial for the complex understanding of contemporary politics, political processes and changes.

Obviously, the Revolution of Dignity, in the period from November 2013 to February 2014, has already gained attention of academicians from all over the world. Based on our observation, the existing research can be segregated into several groups, which are the described further.

Ukrainian protests in retrospective and Orange Revolution in particularly have been already multidimensionaly analysed in the scientific world. The examples of such research contain the following focuses: the determinants of protests (Hrycak, 2007); (Kuzio, 2010); (Bozzoli, 2011); protests in the context of political changes they triggered (P. D'Anieri, 2005); (Katchanovski, 2008); (Kubicek, 2009), Ukraine on international arena, foreign relations and external actors unfluence (Ash & Snyder, 2005) ;(Wilson, 2006); protest actors and groups of interests (Kuzio, 2007); (Beissinger, 2013).

The recent studies of the Revolution of Dignity include “Euromaidan” phenomenon studies, aimed to examine such issues as the reasons and main consequences, polls-based participants' structure of “Euromaidan”, etc (International Soros Foundation, 2013, Tucker, Metzger, & Barbera, 2014; Scheide & Schmid, 2014; Pishchikova & Ogryzko, 2014; Shapovalova, 2014;Khmelko & Pereguda, 2014; Ryabchuk, 2014; Fishwick, 2014; Diuk, 2014); and analysis Ukrainian revolution and nation building, democratization political changes and reforms caused by Euromaidan and mass protests in Ukraine (Byshok & Kochetkov, 2014; Mikhelidze, 2014; Baran, 2015; Bedritsky, Kochetkov, & Byshok, 2015; Smilov, 2015; Peisakhin, 2015).

As obervers claim, there are two groups of questions raised by modern Ukrainian political and social science representatives (based on methodologies of explanation and prescription): ”how do we explain what has happened?” and “what measures, and by whom, can lead to more positive outcomes for Ukraine?” (Anieri, 2015, p. 1).

From our observation based on the literature review, the following conclusions can be made. It is obvious, that case of Ukraine has immediately gained attention of numerous scholars around the world, especially in the field of Post-communism and transition studies. Civil protests in Ukraine have become an object and main entity for a huge number of research, publicist and scientific articles, data analysis, qualitative and quantitative research and reports. Though, new political and social crisis escalated from mass protests in 2013 is still being a rather new topic surrounded by continuing attempts to analyse its features, reasons, consequenses and political changes Ukrainian protests have already triggered.

Based on the literature observation, the scientific novelty of this research lies not only in an attempt to unite the above mentioned existing research directions and to look at the Ukrainian protests of 2013-2014 as at the clue event for national building and democratization, but mainly in identifying and mapping cleavages existing on the edge of protests and after.

The uniqueness and relevance of “Euromaidan” phenomenon lies in a trigging power of this event, which provoked significant political changes and could be seen in the context of nation building and democratization of Ukraine. The “Euromaidan” is different from any electoral revolution and what makes this case a very discussable one is the question of social and political cleavages: believed to be a very diversified, Ukrainian society and current political processes, especially of such a scale and meaningfulness cannot be analyzed in isolation from the sharp divisions of the population. We assume that the Revolution of Dignity bared multiple cleavages existing in Ukrainian society yet again and provoked a division on such groups as European integration supporters and its antagonists. Every society is heterogeneous, however, we assume that this divisions, social cleavages existing in Ukraine, especially on the edge of such unprecedented and powerful events as Revolution of dignity, are essential and crucial for the deep understanding of Ukrainian political processes and “Euromaidan” in particular and for defining its causes and consequences. Moreover, there are grounds to assume that such powerful event as a Revolution of Dignity could change the cleavages structure, which adds a comparative perspective to this research: we attempt to compare cleavages before and after the protests of 2013 and 2014.

Therefore, the main research question of this study is “what were the cleavages existing in Ukrainian society on the edge of civil protests of 2013-2014 and were there any changes in cleavages structure after the Revolution of Dignity”?

The following research goal is expected to be achieved: to test the multiple cleavages theory within the Ukrainian case and to analyze the role of the protests and the Revolution of Dignity in the cleavages changes.

To fulfill the above goal, the following research tasks will be performed:

• To conduct a complex analysis of civil protests in Ukraine in 2013/2014: define causes and factors, consequences and possible impact

• To apply multiple cleavages theories and test them empirically

• To determine cleavages existing in Ukrainian society on the edge of protests in 2013

• To determine cleavages existing in Ukrainian society after the protests in 2014/2015

• To propose possible explanation of changes in cleavages structure (if there were any changes)

The theoretical basis of this research consists from two levels: factors and actors of political changes theories and multiple cleavages theories.

The theoretical framework on factors and actors theories of political changes is mainly described by algorithm elaborated by Professors D.Zaytsev and V. Gerasimov. According to this theoretical and methodological approach, political changes can be driven through drivers of changes- external factors (economic, political, social, and cultural) and actors (governmental and non-governmental organizations, politicians, political parties, interest groups, social movements, business associations, corporations, intellectual communities) (Zaytsev & Gerasimov, 2012)

The second theoretical framework is connected with deeper estimating of factors of political changes and social attitudes in Ukrainian crisis. We assume that multiple cleavages theory gives the basic explanation of party system construction and the political attitudes in modern Ukraine, and, what is the most important, explains the possible factors and triggers of nation-building and democratic development. Considering the application of the multiple cleavages theory onto the Ukrainian pre-revolution and post-revolution case, modern authors argue that from the perspective of comparative methodology, “the cleavage approach helps us to understand the origins of similarities and differences between party systems and countries”(Bornschier, 2009).

The “classical” cleavages theory, which explains national-democratic development of the countries is the theory elaborated and proposed by Seymour Martin Lipset and Stein Rokkan in 1967. According to this theory “conflicts and controversies can arise out of a great variety of relationships in the social structure, but only a few of these tend to polarize the politics of any given system”(Seymour Martin Lipset & Rokkan, 1990). They distinguish four critical lines of cleavage for nation building of western civilization after the Industrial Revolution and differences of voters behavior: Centre-Periphery, State-Church, Rural-Urban and Employers-Workers ( Lipset & Rokkan, 1967).

Assuming that theory we mentioned above, probably, has lost its relevance due to the time passed from the year it was proposed or due to the fact that it was relevant for the analysis of nation Building in the European States “including Southern Europe (excluding the Balkans) and Nordic Europe (Scandinavia and Finland) but excluding Eastern Europe (orthodox countries as well as Hungary although occasionally including Poland and Russia" (Seymour Martin Lipset & Rokkan, 1990), we include the “new” cleavages theories, which propose new factors for the cleavages emergence. Those theories are the materialism vs post materialism theory (Inglehart & Abramson, 1999; Schwartz, 2006; Schwartz et al., 2012) and winners and losers of integration and globalization (Bartolini and Mair 1990; Bartolini 2000; Karvonen and Kuhnle 2000; Rogowski 1989). Turning to the post-Soviet Union studies, yet in 2004, authors already noted a positive perspective of cleavages theory application within Russian and Ukrainian studies. (Dunaeva, 2004; Meleshkina, 2004; Folkestad, 2005).

This study, therefore, attempts to contribute to an established line of multiple cleavages theory and empirical research, connected with civil protests studies in Ukraine.

The research design contains mixed methodology:

· quantitative: regression, sampling based on data received from Institute of research conducted by Kiev International Institute of Sociology, Democratic Initiative Foundation, Institute of Sociology of Ukrainian National Academy of Sciences.

· qualitative: participant observation and eight in-depth expert interviews conducted in Kiev, Ukraine

Sources of data: secondary data sources, statistical data (European Social Survey, World Value Survey), expert and in-depth interviews.

The expected result of this research is a complex analysis of the Ukrainian civil protests of 2013-2014, and empirical test of classic cleavages theory, the detection of cleavages, and comparison of cleavages before and after the Revolution of Dignity.



Chapter 1. Theoretical overview

1.1 S. M. Lipset & S. Rokkan multiple cleavages theory: explanation and evolution

From the very beginning of the contemporary social sciences development, the question of society division and diversification, as a result of human preferences, was raised numerously in hundreds of research. Aiming to explain the existing differences in society the “cleavage” concept was proposed and cleavages theories related to this term were elaborated. As modern authors claim, “since the 1980s, scholars have engaged themselves in the process of interpreting what a social cleavage is, and consequently how social cleavages influence electoral behavior, patters of party organization, and above all party systems” (Pierides, 2009, p. 2).

Fundamentality of the cleavages concept and, therefore, the cleavages theory can be explained by the fact that every single society in the world is diversified or even “heterogeneous”, as the modern research postulate: the practice shows that there are multifarious, multiple reasons for a division in the societies, which in several cases cause conflicts, controversies, political changes. According to our preliminary observation, the concept of a cleavage is a term constantly appearing in social and political science studies related to a broad variety of topics, for example: voters' behavior(Lawson, 1999; Toka, 2003; Olimid, 2009), political parties' formation and party system fragmentation( Kitschelt, 1995; Markus, 1998; Stoll & Laitin, 2004), democracy transition and transit regimes( Evans & Whitefield, 1999; Zielinski, 2001; Bornschier, 2009), economics studies(Kim, 2013) , conflict studies( Yang, 2003; Gubler & Selway, 2012) and many others.

The most basic discussion around the cleavages concept lies in the theoretical question of what is fundamentally understood by a cleavage itself. There is no universal specification of the concept we are interested in, though the variety of different interpretations can be found in the scientific literature. The meaning of cleavage is reviewed and systematized by Andrea Römmele in “Cleavage Structures and Party Systems in East and Central Europe” - a first chapter of book “Cleavages, Parties, and Voters: Studies from Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, and Romania”. Determining two main components of cleavage - structural and substantive, author claims that the first of them (structural) can be divided into three different groups: the divisional (an existing differentiation among a social group); the conflict (the consciousness about the differentiation); and the organizational (organization in defense of the group's identity and goals)(Lawson, 1999).

Regarding the substance of a cleavage, cleavages can be divided into social and political. Social cleavages, being a reflection of social stratification, are connected with such social categories as attitudes, while political cleavages appeal to the impact of cleavages on political institutions- political preferences and segregation of society (Allardt, 1964).

In addition, modern authors define other types of cleavages. For example, “cleavages based on class or ethnicity can polarize a society, undermining opportunities for social cooperation and stimulating incentives for social conflict”(Yang, 2003). Here, besides the basic understanding of a cleavage concept that lies in systematizing a variety of different interpretations of this term and defining the most suitable one for the protests studies, we can see a connection between social conflict and cleavages theory.

Concerning the social conflict, the social cleavage concept appeared in works of a numerous scholars even before the official proposal of multiple cleavages theory by S.M. Lipset and S.Rokkan in 1967. As an example, Robert Dahl stressed the political relevance of cleavages in his study of the political history of New Haven, Connecticut, where “author described three "stages of assimilation" for the major European immigrant groups” (Yang, 2003).

The "classical" theory elaborated by Seymour Martin Lipset and Stein Rokkan found it finalization and final formulation in the article "Cleavage structures, party systems, and voter alignments" published in 1990 (Mair, 1990, p. 91). Authors look at the conflicts and their influence on the formation of political parties, “their translation into party systems” (Mair, 1990, p. 93). The central assumption made by authors is the following: “Conflicts and controversies can arise out of a great variety of relationships in the social structure, but only a few of these tend to polarize the politics of any given system” (Mair, 1990, p. 94). The first two dimensions of cleavages structure proposed by authors is suggestion of authors is that the main cleavages and their political expressions can be ordered within two-dimensional space of territorial and functional dimensions (Seymor Martin Lipset & Rokkan, 1967). Based on the materials of the comparative analysis resulted in a notion of the relatively stable voting behavior, voters political attitudes and regeneration of political parties position, the “classical” cleavages theory explained national-democratic development of the countries in the first part and the middle of 20^th century and made a ground for thesis of “freezing” party systems.

Authors of a “classical” cleavages theory distinguish four critical lines of cleavage for nation building of western civilization after the Industrial Revolution and differences of voters' behavior: center and periphery, state and church, rural and urban; and between employers and workers. The first two, according to the researchers, actualized through the national revolution, the other two - as a result of the industrial revolution(Meleshkina, 2004). Based on a comparative research, authors came up with a thesis that the social conflicts and cleavages influence on party systems formation, which manifest themselves during significant and meaningful events (Seymor Martin Lipset & Rokkan, 1967).

The significant turn in the evolution and development of the Lipsett and Rokkan theory was made by Stefano Bartolini and Peter Mair in their research “Identity, Competition, and Electoral Availability. The Stabilization of European Electorates 1885-1985”. Authors redeveloped and enriched the concept of cleavage by distinguishing the fundamental aspects of a cleavage, including its “social structure, beliefs and values, and institutional and organizational arrangements”. As modern authors review, “a cleavage, therefore, must not only have social and cultural bases, but must also be institutionalized, developing its own «autonomous strength» and acting «as an influence on social, cultural and political life»»(Bartolini & Mair 1990, 218;Torcal & Montero, 1997; Surzhko-Harned, 2011, p. 54).

Defining new dimensions for the political cleavage, Kevin Deegan-Krause reviews, that Bartolini and Mair consider the “cleavage” to be a phenomenon, which includes the following characteristics:

· “empirical element (defined on social and structural conditions, which identifies the empirical referent of the concept);

· normative element (set of values and beliefs which provides a sense of identity and role to the empirical element, and which reflect the self-consciousness of the social group or groups involved);

· organizational or behavioral element (the set of individual interactions, institutions, and organizations, political parties, which develop as part of the cleavage)” (Bartolini& Mair 1990, p. 215;Bartolini, Mair, & Pickel, 2001;Deegan-Krause, 2009, p. 2).

The most important feature of the cleavage concept explanatory and theoretical power lies in its capability to connect political behavior on micro- and individual level with large-scale processes appearing in political and social fields (Bornschier, 2009). In our opinion, it correlates perfectly with protest studies, as civil protest, is a significant factor of political development and changes.

Summing up the above reviewed understandings of the cleavage concept, we can postulate that within social and political field, cleavage itself is a complicated phenomenon, which explains the controversy of opposite views and political attitudes, as well as the development and arrangement of parties. Cleavage should be considered as, first of all, a social division, which can divide population according to cultural, economic, ethnical, political factors and reasons. Not every cleavage can be institutionalized; moreover, the emergence of a new line of cleavages should be a result of several conditions appearance. Therefore, a division can be considered as a cleavage if it faces a number of conditions, such as, expression through the organizational forms, for example, groups of interest, political institutions or political parties, which are becoming an institutionalized form of cleavages' groups' interests' expression. A very important condition of a cleavage substance is collective self-awareness of cleavages groups and their will to perform and act in accordance to their identity. What is also important, we should distinguish a social not-permanent conflict or temporary disagreement within one particular issue and social cleavage by another important factor- time; according to basic understanding of cleavages concept, there is a correlation between the strength of a cleavage and the time controversy stays in the political and social field.

Generally, while analyzing modern different interpretations of the “classical” cleavages theory, modern scientists underline that the whole discussion towards the “classical” cleavages concept can be segregated into the four main directions which are the following. First group, which we reviewed above, is dedicated to the nature of cleavages concept and the discussion considering its interpretation. The second discussion item covers the question of what is the basis of political division: class differences, values, ideology or other factors. The third direction attempts to assess possible explanations of the hypothesis "freezing". The fourth group of discussion is concerned on solving the problem of the cleavages theory application onto different cases, with a focus on post-Soviet transition and post-communist transformations (Nuzhdin, 2015). As this research attempts to test the cleavages within the modern Ukraine case, it is supposed to fulfill the latest mentioned existing branch of research, dedicated to the post-Soviet space countries and cleavages existing in its social and political structure.

As it has already been noted before, there are grounds to assume that the “classical” cleavages theory has lost its relevance due to the time passed from its proposal. Today, the question of further perspectives of this theory application are still being raised in social sciences. Despite of proposal of new cleavages, the evolution of the “classic” theory consists in its reconsideration due to the weakening of "traditional" cleavages lines.

The most basic and relevant reconsideration lies in a spread of post-materialism ideas and values characteristics they provoke and maintain. Thus, Ronald Inglehart first revealed the post-materialistic branch in 1984, by proposing and proving the changes in the structure of social cleavages. According to Inglehart, the switch from “material to post-material needs” has provoked significant changes in the structure of existing traditional cleavages structure and has contributed the emergence of new social and political cleavages lines (Inglehart & Abramson, 1999).

Following the contribution of R.Inglehart, the post-materialistic branch was enriched and elaborated more by R.Dalton. Author debates an appearance of new cleavages: the traditional “class” cleavage might be replaced by a new post-materialistic one, which is based on the new voter's group, which, additionally reasoned by the widespread of modern technologies, has a better access to a massive amount of information. Being a holders of an “enhanced individual economic status”, higher level of education and higher life quality, this new voter's group “acts more as an individual, rather than on a collective and sub cultural basis”(Dalton, 2000).

Inspired by the Lipset and Rokkan theory, Hanspeter Kriesi discusses a weakening of traditional cleavages. However, while accepting the appearance of new value-based cleavages lines, author postulates that traditional structure of social and political cleavages has not lost its relevance and can be considered as sources and basis for the new cleavages connected with “new middle class” emerging (Kriesi, 1998, p. 165).

Though “classic” cleavages theory was and still being questioned by numerous scholars from the point of its application and relevance, according to authors' observation towards new cleavages appearing in the elaborations after the “classic” theory, the Lipset and Rokkan proposal “has survived the test of time not only because its labels elegantly captured key structural differences but also because they have proven highly adaptable”(Deegan-Krause, 2009, p. 5). Author concludes, that if interpreted or adapted, “Lipset and Rokkan's list leaves little room for additional categories”, however, “new” cleavages proved themselves to be an important ones, for example, “generational difference and education level”, proposed by R.Inglehart (Inglehart, 1999;Deegan-Krause, 2009) Moreover, a new line of cleavages is revealed in modern studies- globalization and Europeanization cleavages (Allardt, 2003; Jabko & Meunier, 2003; Strijbis & Leonisio, 2012), which in our opinion could probably have more relevance in the modern context and in the context of Ukraine.

The particular choice of cleavages we have decided to test- the main empirical strategy for this research - is described further, in Chapter 3.

1.2 Ukraine as an object of analysis: regionalism and nation-building

Generally, modern Ukraine is characterized to be “in the midst of a transition to Western European style liberal democracy and market economy”(P. D'Anieri, 2012).

Aiming to form a complex understanding of the civil protests in Ukraine and society attitudes towards civil protests in this country, there is a need to introduce the social and political structure of modern Ukraine, which is the main entity and interest of this research. However, the main pillows and at the same time concerns of modern Ukraine development are regionalism and nation-building and its historical background, which we attempt to describe in this subchapter.

Inhabited by 42 558 455 people, modern Ukraine is a republic under a parliamentary-presidential system with separate legislative, executive, and judicial branches, located in Eastern Europe (World Population Review, 2016).

The main concern towards nation building in Ukraine after its independence in 1991 is connected with the regionalism and the divisions in country in the lines of language, ethnicity, religion and historical memory. However, the main direction of the state building policy was directed to the language, which “became possibly the most important issue in the Ukrainian nation-building project”(Kuzio, 1998; Polese, 2011).

Being currently an independent state, Ukraine went through a number of complicated historical phases and transformations. Understanding of the current political and social processes in Ukraine and assessment of future scenarios towards its further development is impossible without the retrospective view on the historical background of this country, political, geographical and socio-cultural transformations it went through.

The historical regional landscape of Ukraine before its independence in 1991 went through the following phases, which are divided by modern publicist and scientists into though simplified periods of Kievan Rus'; the period of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth; the Cossack Hetmanate; the Russian Empire under rule period and the Soviet period (Kuzio, 1998).

The modern Ukrainian regionalism and its historical roots is one of the most crucial topics raised in numerous studies as an explanation for current processes and attitudes. The complexity of the historical regionalism can be seen through the addressing to the modern regions past. The following description on historical regions of Ukraine is interpreted from a review made by A.Shakarian (Shakarian, 2014); several research made by T.Kuzio (Kuzio, 1998, 2006, 2011, 2015).

The most controversial and complex historical background is dedicated to the Western Ukraine. Historically, modern Western Ukraine, in the different periods of time, was divided into several regions. Galicia region, which is currently Lviv, Ternopil, and Ivano-Frankivsk oblasti, has never been a part of Russian Empire and till Ukraine became a part of USSR. Thus, retrospectively, Galicia was a part of Austria-Hungary and Poland. The modern regions of Volhyn and Rivne were a part of the Russian Empire, however, still became a part of interwar Poland before the Soviet Period. Historical region of “Bessarabia”, a modern Chernivisti region, has always been a place of a large Romanian minority inhabitance. Modern Zakarpattia oblast' was a Part of the Kingdom of Hungary; and part of interwar Czechoslovakia before entering Soviet Union (Shakarian, 2014).

In general, the existing historical divisions of Ukrainian regionalism are grounded on the divisions between those territories which, before the Soviet Union, were under the rule of Russian Empire for a long time, those which have Austria-Hungary and Polish past and those which never have been under Russian Empire rule and other territories. Thus, Eastern Ukraine fell under Russian imperial rule earlier than Western Ukraine, while Western Ukraine spent hundreds of years under the control of Poland or the Austro-Hungarian Empire (Conant, 2014). Therefore, historical geography of Ukraine provides an additional hypothesis for cleavages testing.



Chapter 2. Civil protests and the Revolution of Dignity in Ukraine: causes and consequences

2.1 Causes and factors of civil protests of 2013-2014

On November 2013, the decision of a former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych to freeze and abandon an agreement with the European Union prevented the Association Agreement from being signed at the Eastern Partnership Summit. The immediate subsequence was the peaceful EU supporting protest in centra?l Kiev, when several hundred students started to occupy “Maidan Nezalezhnosti” (Independence Square). The following riot police attack has escalated into the violent crackdown with more than 30 people injured and dozens arrested (Garces de los Fayos & Romanyshyn, 2013); (Wittkowsky, 2014).

The foregoing events have become a political trigger for a series of mass protests, turned out to be the most powerful and large scale movement appeared in every single region of Ukraine, widely known as “Euromaidan” or the Revolution of Dignity(Tucker et al., 2014).

Modern analyst draw a distinction between the protests of the Revolution of Dignity and another major political event took place in Ukraine in 2003, widely known as Orange Revolution. The main and the most obvious difference is a scale of protests. In contrast to 2003, where protest events were mostly concentrated around the Ukraine' capital, Revolution of Dignity spread around the country and according to the observation data appeared in every single region of Ukraine(Shevtsova et al., 2014).

Considering the protest factors, experts proclaim that a protest potential in Ukraine had a cumulative character. V.Dimov, Ukrainian political scientist, has mentioned, that “ “Euromaidan” of 2013-2014 grew from a not widely known student protests appeared in Ukraine in 1990's, when students of Philosophy faculties organized a “Revolution on Stones” against the Soviet Power”; “What happened, is that the former students today grew up and became professors, PhD, famous scientists, politicians and businessmen, so called “intelligentsiiya”. They have become a driving force of Euromaidan”. Expert also mentioned that this example is crucial for understanding the social structure of Euromaidan, “where in the streets, helping the protesters or staying with them, you could see old people and students, poor people and owners of expensive cars and business elites representatives”.

The detection of causes is impossible without the complex analysis of the environment, both social economic and political. The observation of the factors and causes on the edge of political crisis in Ukraine will be done with a use of secondary sources available, data collected by Ukrainian sociological institutions and due to the assessment given by experts during the eight in-depth interviews. As this subchapter aims at the consequences defining, the analysis of the factors is restricted by the November, 2013, on the edge of “Euromaidan” and is based on the methodological tool elaborated by D.Zaytsev(Zaytsev & Gerasimov, 2012).

Unfavorable and rather controversial character of social, political and economic context of Ukraine development on the edge of November 2013 was numerously mentioned by observers, publicist and researchers(Diuk, 2014; Peisakhin, 2015). According to Doctor V. Vasutinsky , Ukrainian political scientist, the Head of the Laboratory of Mass attitudes and behavior of Institute of Political and Social psychology, National Academy of Sciences”: “Euromaidan is a natural manifestation of the general context of the development of Ukrainian society for the last 25 years”.

Economy of Ukraine, as all the post-communist countries, has faced the issues regarding the transition from an administrative-command economy to a market economy. Modern expert community do not dedicate Ukraine to a market economy due to multiple reasons, including “albeit with distorted structure, vast inefficiencies, dysfunctional institutions and unsustainable economic growth” (Adarov, Astrov, Havlik, & Hunya, 2015).

On the edge of protests in 2013, according to the data of the World Bank, Ukraine has faced a recession, reasoned by the “weak external demand and delays in policy adjustment”. General weak economic performance resulted in the vulnerability of economic growth; and growth in real GDP for the whole year was 0.2 % only. Currently, World Bank puts Ukraine into the “lower middle income” group(The World Bank, 2013).

Appearing on different levels, both micro- and macro, corruption in Ukraine has systemic character. According to the latest complex research conducted by Kyiv International Institute for Sociology, as for 2011, 60,1% of adult Ukrainians were involved in corruption, bribery or fraud activities on different larges and scales (KIIS,2011). The character of informal networks in modern Ukraine has overreached the common corruption mechanisms appearing in many worldwide state and business systems. According to modern authors observation, “the dependence of most political forces on big business means that the government in many cases is guided by the interests of the oligarchs who are sponsoring it instead of the interests of their country; this often leads to multi-billion dollar losses in the Ukrainian state budget”(Matuszak, 2012).

The level of political frustration on the edge of “Euromaidan” is supported by data represented by Freedom House Index: Ukraine in 2012 was characterized as a “partly free” country with 3.5 rate for Freedom Rating; 3 for Civil Liberties and 4 for Political Rights (1=best, 7=worst) (Freedom House, 2012).

The controversial situation around the economics of Ukraine is supported by data received from the in-depth interviews taken in February, 2016. All 8 experts mentioned economic reasons, particularly, corruption and abuse of power as a crucial for the “Euromaidan” phenomenon exaggerating.

Ukrainian experts proclaim that it is necessary to distinguish reasons and causes of civil protests in Ukraine. The external reasoning trigger for the protests escalation, according to the opinion of Doctor A.I.Vishniak, the Head of the Department of Social and Political processes of Ukrainian National Academy of Sciences, is a “rapid reversal of the course of V.Yanukovych towards the signing of the Assosiation Agreement, which was preparing for many years”. This event, according to authors opinion, is not a real reason behind the protests escalation, because “the protests on the Maidan until 1st December 2013 had a purely”festival” character. Such protests in Ukraine were happening repeatedly, and they came to nothing. The immediate cause for serious explosion in Ukraine was a students massacre, unceremonious and senseless, because the student pro-European protest had already been folded by 99%”.

Experts note that the real causes lie in a different reality, which is a common mistrust towards “authoritarian, thieves-power of Donetsk clan; not only Yanukovych and his surroundings and family, but all the Donetsk clan”, formed during the last years by the intellectual elite and the information society, represented primarily in the Internet. “Literally, there was a slogan “All for the fight with the Donetsk' clan”, stresses out V.Yatsenko, Member of Parliament, deputy, expert in Ukraine-Russia relations, public activist, during the expert interview.

By the November 2013, the political structure in Ukraine was undermined by business elites and the authoritarian regime of V.Yanukovich, according to experts' opinion was a “continuation of the Kuchma regime, when above the oligarchs there is a coordinating President, as it was in Russia under Yeltsin”. Thus, for the last two years, political elites have made an attempt to create a dictatorship of one family and its entourages. A.Vishnyak postulates, that “in fact, the threat was felt by all the oligarchs, including Donetsk' clan, who though did not take an active position during “Euromaidan”.

What has become crucial, despite of a continuous political frustration, is a smoldering discontent of the population, overlaid on stagnant economic processes, “that previously led to the fall of the regime of Yushchenko, after the crisis of 2008, and then, in fact, destroyed the regime of Yanukovych”. Experts divide direct protests and smoldering discontent existing in Ukrainian society, because “smoldering discontent was not due to the fall in living standards (it has happened before, in 2008-2010, the first fall after a rise of 9 years) but actually dull discontent, stagnation. Then nothing moves”.

From our observation, supported by experts' opinion, the Revolution of Dignity took a rather “spontaneous” character from the point of its fast escalation. However the reasons behind were a consequence of a systemic political and economic crisis. Supported by a large protest potential, Ukrainian society “took to the streets”. In contrary to the common opinion onto the large influence of external support (Valdai Discussion Club, 2014) Experts deny the overwhelming meaning of the planned character of “Euromaidan”.

2.2 Consequences and impact of civil protests of 2013-2014

The formal aftermath of Ukrainian protests of 2013- 2014 resulted in a number of consequences, including the discharge of V.Yanukovich and early presidential elections, resulted in the P. Poroshenko current Presidency; return to the Constitution of 2004; cancellation of a number of restricting civil liberties laws; amnesty to the protesters and others (Biermann, Härtel, Kaiser, & Zajaczkowski, 2014).

Regarding the situation around the European Association Agreement, on 21^st of March 2014 the Preamble, Article 1 and Titles I, II, and VII were signed, furthermore, Titles III, IV, V and VI were signed on 27^th of June 2014. Today, the official status of this document is not in force: though being party implied, it is still required to be ratified by all signatories(Shveda & Park, 2016).

While attempting to assess the consequences and possible impact of “Euromaidan”, it is impossible to look at this event separately (as formally, “Euromaidan” reached its goals and aims) from the event which followed the February revolution- military conflict in Donbas region. Still continuing military conflict in Eastern Ukraine leads to dramatic consequences. Moreover, experts postulate, that the core possible influence and impact of the “Euromaidan” are offset by the current military condition: “Not even the annexation of the Crimea, as it has passed more or less peacefully, but the war in Donbas- this is the reason under the current after-Maidan reforming failure”. According to A.Vishnyak opinion, “in the context of military conflict, which deepened the economic crisis, the democratization is hardly possible”.

Second consequence which is noted by experts is the militarization of society, which “undermines not only the economy, but also the effects of democracy processes”. Today, militarization has occurred not only in regard to the fact that the spending on the military sector increased, but also due to the all-Ukraine “police reform”: “In the current meager budget of Ukraine, 53 billion hryvnia is allocated for the army (here no questions are raised, there is no way to do during the war), but for what reason 31 billion is allocated to the police?”No reforming can be done in the state of war. There can mobilization of resources and people, but no reforms, especially liberal, which can be carried out in conditions of stability and peace only”.

The above mentioned reasons are definitely postpone and even offset the “Euromaidan” consequences. However, positive tendencies exist. According to information provided by experts during the in-depth interviews, the positive tendency appears in the civil society institutions: “Due to our data, there have never been that much volunteering organizations in Ukraine. Non-governmental sector has played a crucial role in the protest. Even now, enforced additionally by the War in Donbas, if not new appearance, but continuing growth and development of non-governmental sector is recorded”, reviews N.M. Panasenko N.M.,PhD, expert of the Ukrainian National Academy of Educational sciences.

Formally, democracy in Ukraine is preserved and even strengthened, especially in the media (World Press Freedom Index, 2016). However, being in the state of limited resources, all the spheres, including social and economic are under a crisis. “There is a sharp intensification of the struggle for the resources. How this will end is not yet known. Development of Ukraine, at least in the controlled part will go in the unpredicted way”.

In general, as modern analysts claim, “a complete description of the social transformations taking place in Ukraine is impossible: there are too many initiatives, trends and organizations, and their dynamics are too fast and still too incomplete to fully grasp”(Olszañski, 2016). Therefore, the complex analysis of “Euromaidan” impact is a theme, which requires a separate research and discussion, within the main research problem of this paper, the eminent consequence we should mention is a change in the structure for population attitudes - cleavages.

Aiming to gather an expert opinion towards the current cleavages structure in Ukrainian society, eight expert in-depth interviews were taken in Kiev in February and March 2016. In overall, experts are rather skeptical towards the cleavages issue.Regarding the question of classical Lipset and Rokkan theory applicaton, only two experts have a positive answer on the question “whether cleavages theory work in the case of Ukraine?”.

According to the expert opinion of V.Vasutinsky, there are two main factors that divide Ukrainian society in cleavages lines: “reform and anti-reform sentiment," - the transition from socialism to capitalism; and the second factor, which is “pro-Russian and anti-Russian sentiment”. The main split occurring due to these factors is on ethno-linguistic cleavages.

Regarding the A.Vishnyak' expert opinion, the classical Lipset and Rokkan theory partly works towards the Ukrainian social structure. The “class “cleavage does not work in Ukrainian case, because “worker from Donetsk will never vote like worker from Liviv, because the class differentiation can only appear from the third generation”. With regard to the settlement cleavage, “urban-rural”, due to the experts assessment, it works but insignificantly, because of the structural features “in Ukraine there are regions where 70% is the rural population, and there are areas, or, rather were, where 10% of the rural population and 90% urban.

The main cleavage in Ukraine, according to the expert, is the cultural and ideological differences, not only religious, but also cultural and mental cleavages, connected with the differences in history of different regions in Ukraine: “Chernihiv Russia, Kievan Rus, Galician Rus , Volyn Rus- Ukrainians used to live on this land a thousand years ago, under different rulers at different empires, at various states. However in southern Ukraine they live in average for 200-250 years. They came there under the guidance of Russian governor and their attitude towards Russia has been quite different. It is mentally, it is transmitted. Even historical memory”. During the time of the Maidan, as expert claim, Ukraine differentiation was as strong as after the Orange revolution in 2004. “The cleavage line was on the southern borders of the Vinnitsa, Kirovograd and Poltava regions”.