Contentious politics and repertoire of contention in Ukraine: the case of euromaidan
The main mechanisms of contentious politics relatively common processes which take place despite cultural and societal differences. Mobilized social actors like a way to form a collective identity that opposes righteous people and a corrupt regime.
| Рубрика | Политология |
| Вид | статья |
| Язык | английский |
| Дата добавления | 05.02.2019 |
| Размер файла | 14,8 K |
Отправить свою хорошую работу в базу знаний просто. Используйте форму, расположенную ниже
Студенты, аспиранты, молодые ученые, использующие базу знаний в своей учебе и работе, будут вам очень благодарны.
Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru
Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru
The political turmoil quivering Ukraine in November 2013 February 2014 is defined by observers and participants in different ways: as a “protest” [2; 23], a “revolution” [5], a “riot” [4; 6], an “insurgency” [1; 3; 10] etc. All those qualifications tend to be misleading, because application of a particular notion depends on political partisanship of its author. Moreover, conceptions like “revolution” or “insurgency” imply that political process they describe is highly abnormal. Both propensity to define the events in Ukraine subjectively and their perceived anomalous features contribute to dramatic interpretations. Society considers the situation in Ukraine as exceptional, catastrophic, and cataclysmic: there are numerous predictions of upcoming civil war, intervention, or even suggesting Ukraine to be a “failed state” [2].
In this article, I argue that a coherent comprehension of the events in Ukraine in November 2013 February 2014, also known as the “Euromaidan”, requires introducing of a value-free notion. Hereafter I argue that introducing the notion of “contentious politics” will provide a more accurate explanation of the events.
The article begins by exploring the theoretical foundations of the contentious politics' paradigm. Secondly, preference of this paradigm in analysis the Euromaidan events is demonstrated. Thirdly, I study the repertoire of contention in Ukraine in historical perspective in order to explain its evolution in January 2014.
The notion of contentious politics is relatively new in social science. It was introduced by Ch. Tilly [20] and acquired scholarly attention being used by S. Tarrow [18], M. Lichbach [13], D. Meyer [15], and J. Ulfelder [24]. In early 2000s, a theoretical opus magnum had been published [14], where the paradigm of contentious politics was fully conceptualized.
Contentious politics is a political process opposite to conventional politics. The latter depends on particular political system and varies from free elections and referendums within democratic regimes to non-competitive elections within authoritarian regimes. In any case, conventional politics is routinized: it happens regularly and within institutional boundaries.
In any given society conventional politics is more advantageous to some social groups at the expense of others. Disadvantaged groups have fewer opportunities to influence upon political process: their elective franchise may be restricted as that of black inhabitants of SAR during the apartheid; they may be a minority, never able to be politically powerful, as Native Americans in the U.S.; or they may represent a popular sector not deserving to have any political influence according to official position, as in the case of the military rule in Brazil (1964-1985).
Once a social group perceives that it is unable to have impact upon the political process, it turns to contentious politics. Rather cumbersomely, it is defined as “episodic, public, collective interaction among makers of claims and their objects when (a) at least one government is a claimant, an object of claims, or a party to the claims and (b) the claims would, if realized, affect the interests of at least one of the claimants” [14, p. 5]. Hereafter I use the notion “contentious politics” to describe collective actions, performed by social actors aiming to change the structural environment by extrainstitutional means. In other words, contentious politics is non-routine political participation transcending institutional boundaries.
Though being non-routine, contentious politics is nevertheless as normal as conventional politics: the former supplements the latter in those domains, where institutional modus operandi does not work. For example, contentious politics signalizes about the problems the conventional politics tends to ignore; it helps disadvantaged social groups to protect their interests; it enables the popular sector to influence upon elite decisions the way it is not able to within institutional boundaries. Figuratively, contentious politics is a sword of the weak, opposed to forms of passive resistance discussed by Scott [16], serving the weak as a shield.
As a form of active resistance, contentious politics comprehends a broad set of activities which vary significantly: some are non-violent (processions), others are more ambivalent (sit-ins and occupations), and there are violent activities street clashes and acts of extremism. The activities compose a continuum with no impenetrable boundaries: social actors, engaged in contentious politics, resort to those activities which they believe to be the most effective. Thus, when massrallies and non-violent occupations yield little results, actors turn to violent actions.
McAdam, Tarrow and Tilly were especially interested in discerning some robust mechanisms of contentious politics relatively common processes which take place despite cultural and societal differences. Among such recurring patterns are: mobilization, category formation, certification or decertification of actors, radicalization, and the diffusion of contention [14, p. 13]. Various mechanisms sequences lead contentious politics through different trajectories: for example if radicalization happens before the diffusion, the outcome will be other than in the case when the diffusion precedes the radicalization.
Finally, given the structural reasons for grievance, contentious politics is not a single outburst of contention. Rather, it is a sequence of episodes, sometimes described as “waves” [11] united by a common reason, though disjointed chronologically. The episodes cumulate in a cycle of contention. The relation between the cycle and the waves was creatively described by Gitlin as “the years of hope and the days of rage” [9]. A contentious politics' episode is started by a trigger a critical event that impels social actors to transcend the routine politics. Still, triggers are nothing but superficial incentives to act: the real reason for turning towards contentious politics is a structural problem that makes conventional politics unacceptable for some social groups.
From a tactical point of view, contentious politics has its “repertoire of contention”. The notion, introduced by Tilly, describes the “intersection of accumulated experience of social actors with the strategies of the authority [aiming to control the contention]” [19, p. 99]. The combination of experience, i.e. the knowledge of what could be done, and deterrence, i.e. the space for action left by the government, constitutes a range of means available to social actors conducting contentious politics.
Repertoire of contention constantly evolves in two ways. Firstly, due to changes in experience and deterrence, some innovations are introduced. For example, people learn how to make Molotov cocktails. Secondly, due to selection of the best tactics made by social actors some elements are retained. For example, if people find out that fraternizing with the army helps to gain more sympathy, which contributes to success of contentious politics, they will use the same technique during the following episodes of the cycle of contention. The elements are selected according to their effectiveness: means making an opponent more compliant are likely to be used again. Thus, an opponents ' sensitivity to tactics of contention is an important feature, which determines whether a repertoire of contention will or will not evolve.
Analyzing combinations of innovation and persistence, Tilly distinguishes four repertoires of contention: “In the case of no repertoire, the previous familiarity of a performance does not affect the subsequent likelihood of its appearance. If past familiarity increases the likelihood of subsequent performance in a more or less linear manner... let us call that situation a `weak repertoire.' If familiar performances receive strong preference but some unfamiliar performances also occur in the form of innovations, we are dealing with a flexible repertoire, which we can also call `strong.' If nothing but very familiar performances ever appear despite changing circumstances, the repertoire is called rigid” [21, р. 39-40].
The social turmoil in Ukraine becomes more intelligible if analyzed through the contentious politics paradigm. The events are dramatic, but they are far from being catastrophic and correspond to general patterns of contentious politics.
The basic reason for broad social mobilization was the fail of political institutions to bring desirable results to large societal groups. There were three different triggers of Euromaidan, and each of them signalized about the fail of conventional politics.
1) A small group of people went to the streets on November 21, 2013 having found out that the Association Agreement with the EU was not to be signed. Those people were disappointed by the Ukrainian leadership that had neglected an opportunity to join the European community.
2) Much more people were driven in the streets by the police brutality on November 30, 2013. Those people were outraged by the fact that Ukrainian government deployed unjustifiable violence against a peaceful demonstration. They demanded to punish the officials who had abused the authority. Those claims were ignored by law enforcement agencies and the contentious politics persisted and involved new participants.
3) The third trigger mobilized people concerned with unconstitutional enactment of bills on 16 January 2014, which criminalized protest activities. The bills passed with procedural violations which undermined significantly the credibility of conventional politics. Facing the problem, concerned citizens tried to change the structural environment by extra-institutional means.
The robust mechanisms of contentious politics are clearly observable in the Euromaidan case. The cascade mobilization helped to enlarge the contentious politics constituency: each next trigger animated significantly larger social groups. That, what started as a demonstration in the capital, grew up to occupy actions all over the country. The diffusion of contention is also undeniable in cases of civic occupations of Ukrainian Regional State Administrations (January February 2014) and popular storms of ammunition depots in some regions after February 18.
Mobilized social actors have constructed a collective identity opposing the righteous people and the corrupt regime. The category formation was reinforced by ongoing confrontation with the police and reported brutalities, committed by lawenforcement agencies like kidnapping of activists or torturing of prisoners. The collective action was represented by activists as a struggle for personal honor and civic liberties against the depraved politicians.
The mechanism of radicalization of contentious actions deserves the attention. Each next trigger modified methods of contentious collective action: there is an evolution from a non-violent demonstration after the first trigger, to barricadebuilding after the second trigger, and finally to permanent confrontation with the police after the third trigger. The radicalization reached its apogee after the lethal police assault against the radical factions on February 18, which significantly intensified the conflict and led to armed struggle and casualties from both sides.
Finally, during November 2013 February 2014 several political actors were (de)certified. The most prominent case is that of the leaders of political opposition, V. Klychko, O. Tiahnybok and A. Yatseniuk. The mass rally of November 21, 2013 was initially inaugurated as a civic initiative. Still, the politicians appreciated the energy of civic discontent and headed the contentious actions as its leaders and messengers. During this period, the mass rallies were generally held with oppositional parties' banners and the trio represented the citizens during negotiations with the regime. The situation changed significantly after January 19, 2014 when the trio and their instructions were ignored by more radical actors. From that moment V Klychko, O. Tiahnybok and A. Yatseniuk were constantly losing their influence, being humiliated and blamed for inaction. Thus, they were decertified as mouthpiece of the contentious politics. The lost of credit by the oppositional trio was doubled by the gain of credit by a minority group “The Right Sector”. It grew to be a recognized political actor after organizing and taking responsibility for the violent clashes with the police.
The events of the late February were the most bloody anti-government collective action since 1991. I argue that both the radicalization and its dramatic outcomes had structural reasons, namely the ineffectiveness of non-violent repertoire, perceived by contentious claimers in January 2014. A brief study of repertoire of contention in Ukraine during 1991-2013 is provided to support the thesis.
Ukraine inherited its contentious collective action from the USSR. Being a typical “late riser within the [glasnost] mobilizational cycle” [8, p. 117], it experienced episodes of social mobilization at the end of 1980s. For example, on January 21, 1990 up to 3 million people composed a human chain symbolically uniting Ukraine. The society remained active over the year 1990, and in October a student hunger strike, accompanied with mass rallies at the Independent Square in Kyiv, compelled the republican parliament to discharge the ultrareactionary prime-minister V Masol, to allow plural elections, and not to re-sign the union treaty, which meant that Ukraine intended to quit the Soviet Union. The turmoil spread over the republic in the year 1991: miners from the industrial eastern regions conducted strikes supporting the secession. Finally, on August 24 the republican parliament, yet again pushed by a mass rally, issued the Declaration of the Independence.
I define the period of 1990-1991 as the 1st wave of contention in Ukraine. During the 1st wave the basic elements of repertoire of contention were created, i.e. broad popular mobilization, mass rallies on central squares, non-violent demonstrations, and civic processions. This tactics proved to be effective instrument of stimulating desirable changes in political process.
The 2nd wave of contention surged in the early 2000s, during the rule of the President L. Kuchma, who cut the powers of the legislature, put his cronies at the key-positions both in government and statemachine, and introduced censorship in mass media. Democratic forces organized a permanent mass rally “Ukraine without Kuchma”, which made the society more sensitive towards eventual authoritarian drift. Kuchma's second presidential term came to an end in 2004, but he intended to maintain the control over the country by means of a successor. The role was prearranged for V. Yanukovych. In case of eventual electoral defeat, a “creative vote theft” [26, p. 134] was designed to assure his victory. The fraud had been openly used, so when the victory of Yanukovych was announced, concerned citizens gathered on the Independence Square in Kyiv. People continuously occupied it for a month, diversifying the contentious collective action by non-violent processions and demonstrations in front of key governmental buildings. Finally, the Supreme Court announced the result of elections to be indecisive and appointed new elections, lost by V. Yanukovych.
The collective action of the 2nd wave reinforced the repertoire of contention, constituted during the 1st wave: once again broad mobilization, mass rallies, sit-ins, permanent occupations of public spaces and demonstrations in front of administrative buildings proved to be effective means of contentious politics. Within some 10 years non-violent forms of contention were effective twice. For this reason, when in autumn 2013 the 3rd wave of contention surged, the well-known methods were used by citizens: the most active demonstrators left their desks, occupied the Independence Square, and held the ground days and nights, while more individually constraint individuals joined them after labor hours.
I identify the repertoire of contention, dominating in Ukraine during 1990-2013 as a rigid one: despite changing structural environment, contentious actors used familiar tactics without introducing significant innovations. The rigidity had positive and negative consequences. On the one hand, claimers refined their skills in rapid mass mobilization and exercised the contentious repertoire with more experience. On the other hand, the repertoire became rather predictable and ineffective. The confrontation during NovemberJanuary 2013 confirmed that the level of regime sensitivity to protest tactics was considerably low: officials ignored the contentious politics, being undisturbed by people in the streets. The chief shortcoming of the contentious repertoire was its invariability: claimers recurred predominantly to “methods of protest”, failing to effectively use “methods of noncooperation” and those of “nonviolent intervention” as distinguished by G. Sharp [17]. Consequently, contentious actors were not able to combine moral, political, and economical pressure over the regime-elites in order to provoke the elite-fractioning.
Moreover, the power-holders decided to administer the coup de grace by increasing the level of deterrence. The new legislation of January 16, 2014 introduced a vaguely defined notion of extremist activity; re-criminalized defamation of policemen and judges; criminalized blocking of administrative buildings; established administrative sanctions for moving in a column of more than 5 vehicles as well as for installation of tents or stages during mass rallies [12]. Thus, the new legislation outlawed many components of the repertoire of contention, considerably hindering the use of the rest.
Facing ineffectiveness of the non-violent repertoire and the increase of deterrence level, the radical faction among the claimers recurred to violent confrontation with the police. They used the tactics virtually absent in contentious repertoire of mass protest in contemporary Ukraine, i.e. Molotov cocktails and self-defense units. Despite numerous human casualties, the innovation turned to be very effective: the shock of violent confrontations destroyed the ruling elites' cohesion. As a result, the
Azarov's cabinet was dismantled; the business-elites overtly criticized Yanukovych, and the Party of Regions endured scission and member outflow. Finally, as a result of elite reconfiguration, the decisions conceived as unrealistic at the beginning of the 3rd wave (namely re-introduction of the Constitution of2004 and discharge of Y. Tymoshenko) were adopted.
Through the article I aimed to prove that contentious politics is by no means abnormal: it is used when conventional politics ceases to represent social interests. The 3rd wave of contention in Ukraine produced numerous civic initiatives and civic cooperation. They may be first steps towards building effective institutions, accountable to the people. The absence of such institutions was the reason of the cycle of contention, which animated contentious politics against the late Soviet regime, the uncompleted authoritarian regime of L. Kuchma, and centralized regime of V Yanukovych. But the 3rd wave of contention was marked by effective innovation of repertoire of contention the introduction of violence. Given the mimetic nature of repertoires, the violence may resurge in cases of contentious politics. Thus, the regime which will succeed that of V Yanukovych should make efforts to maximize the effectiveness and credibility of conventional politics.
References
contentious politic social corrupt
1. Евромайдан: Народное восстание в Украине база для подготовки восстания в России [Електронний ресурс]. Режим доступу: http://www.kavkaz.org.uk/russ/content/2013/12/02/102024. shtml (дата звернення: 18.02.2014). Назва з екрана.
2. Масовий протест в Україні не залишився непоміченим у Європі [Електронний ресурс]. Режим доступу: http://www. pravda.com.ua/news/2013/11/25/7002952/ (дата звернення: 25.11.2013). Назва з екрана.
3. Почему на Украине удалось восстание [Електронний ресурс]. Режим доступу: http://ttolk.ru/?p=19233 (дата звернення: 18.02.2014). Назва з екрана.
4. Рубан В. Что означает кровавый бунт в Киеве: комментарии харьковского политолога [Електронний ресурс] / В. Рубан. Режим доступу: http://dozor.kharkov.ua/news/politics/1146896. html (дата звернення: 18.02.2014). Назва з екрана.
5. У вівторок може стартувати новий етап української революції [Електронний ресурс]. Режим доступу: http://www. radiosvoboda.org/content/article/25266821.html (дата звернення: 18.02.2014). Назва з екрана.
6. Украина: бунт «евростеников» [Електронний ресурс]. Режим доступу: http://rus.ruvr.ru/2013_11_25/Ukraina-bunt-evrostenikov6632 (дата звернення: 18.02.2014). Назва з екрана.
7. Aslund A. Yanukovych's Time Is Up in Ukraine; the West Must Prepare [Електронний ресурс] / Andreas Aslund. Режим доступу: http://blogs.piie.com/realtime/?p=4222 (дата звернення: 17.02.2014). Назва з екрана.
8. Beissinger M. How Nationalisms Spread: Eastern Europe Adrift the Tides and Cycles of Nationalist Contention / Marc Beissinger // Social Research. 1996. No 63. P 97-146.
9. Gitlin T. The Sixties / Tod Gitlin. N.Y.: Bantam Book, 1987. 424 p.
10. Higgins A. Beyond the Government's Reach Driving the Insurgency against Yanukovych [Електронний ресурс] / Andrew Higgins. Режим доступу: http://johnib.wordpress. com/2014/02/16/lviv-ukraine-beyond-the-governments-reachdriving-the-insurgency-against-yanukovych (дата звернення: 17.02.2014). Назва з екрана.
11. Koopmans R. Protest in Time and Space: The Evolution of Waves of Contention / Ruud Koopmans; edited by David A. Snow, Sarah A. Soule and Hanspeter Kriesi. London: The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements. P. 19-47.
12. Kotliar D. Summary of Laws Adopted by the Ukrainian Parliament on 16 January 2014 [Електронний ресурс] / Dmytro Kotliar. Режим доступу: http://ti-ukraine.org/ news/4269.html (дата звернення: 22.02.2014). Назва з екрана.
13. Lichbach M. Contentious Maps of Contentious Politics / Marc Lichbach // Mobilization. 1997. No 2. P 87-98.
14. McAdam D. Dynamics of Contention / Doug McAdam, Sidney Tarrow, Charles Tilly. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. 387 p.
15. Meyer D. The Social Movement Society: Contentious Politics for a New Century / David Meyer, Sidney Tarrow. Boulder: Rowman & Littlefield, 1997. 282 p.
16. Scott J. Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance / James Scott. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1985. 387 p.
17. Sharp G. The Politics of Nonviolent Action / Gene Sharp. Boston: Porter Sargent Publishers, 1973. 902 p.
18. Tarrow S. Social Movements and Contentious Politics / Sidney Tarrow // American Political Science Review. 1996. No 90. P. 874-883.
19. Tilly C. Les origines du repertoire de l'action collective contemporaine en France et en Grande-Bretagne / Charles Tilly // Vingtieme Siecle. Revue d'histoire. Oct., 1984. No 4. Р 89-108.
20. Tilly C. The Contentious French. Four Centuries of Popular Struggle / Charles Tilly. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1986. 456 p.
21. Tilly C. Regimes and Repertoires / Charles Tilly. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006. 256 p.
22. Tyahnybok Oleh. I appeal to law-enforcement agents who still have their honor choose the side of the Ukrainian revolution [Електронний ресурс] / Oleh Tyahnybok. Режим доступу: http://en.svoboda.org.ua/news/comments/00008492/ (дата звернення: 02.12.2014). Назва з екрана.
23. Ukraine's protests: Praying for peace [Електронний ресурс]. Режим доступу: http://www.economist.com/news/ europe/21595512-government-resigns-opposition-protestersremain-defiantly-streets-praying (дата звернення: 18.02.2014). Назва з екрана.
24. Ulfelder J. Contentious Collective Action and the Breakdown of Authoritarian Regimes / Jay Ulfeder // International Political Science Review. 2005. Vol. 26. No 3. P 311-334.
25. Umland A. Europe on the Brink? A Failure of the Ukrainian State Will Have Larger Repercussions [Електронний ресурс] / Andreas Umland. Режим доступу: http://umland.livejournal.com/76094. html (дата звернення: 18.02.2014). Назва з екрана.
26. Way L. Kuchma's Failed Authoritarianism / Lucan Way // Journal of Democracy. 2005. No 16. P. 131-145.
Размещено на Allbest.ru
Подобные документы
The definition of democracy as an ideal model of social structure. Definition of common features of modern democracy as a constitutional order and political regime of the system. Characterization of direct, plebiscite and representative democracy species.
презентация [1,8 M], добавлен 02.05.2014Barack Hussein Obama and Dmitry Medvedev: childhood years and family, work in politics before the presidential election and political views, the election, the campaign and presidency. The role, significance of these presidents of their countries history.
курсовая работа [62,3 K], добавлен 02.12.2015The term "political system". The theory of social system. Classification of social system. Organizational and institutional subsystem. Sociology of political systems. The creators of the theory of political systems. Cultural and ideological subsystem.
реферат [18,8 K], добавлен 29.04.2016Functions of democracy as forms of political organization. Its differences from dictatorship and stages of historical development. Signs and methods of stabilizing of civil society. Essence of social order and duty, examples of public establishments.
контрольная работа [24,4 K], добавлен 11.08.2011Analysis of Rousseau's social contract theory and examples of its connection with the real world. Structure of society. Principles of having an efficient governmental system. Theory of separation of powers. The importance of censorship and religion.
статья [13,1 K], добавлен 30.11.2014Leading role Society Gard Kresevo (USC) in organizing social and political life of the Poland. The Polish People's Movement of Vilna Earth. The influence of the Polish Central Electoral Committee. The merger of the TNG "Emancipation" and PNC "Revival".
реферат [18,3 K], добавлен 02.10.2009Referendum - a popular vote in any country of the world, which resolved important matters of public life. Usually in a referendum submitted questions, the answers to which are the words "yes" or "no". Especially, forms, procedure of referendums.
презентация [1,2 M], добавлен 25.11.2014Presidential candidates. Learning the information of the Electoral College, to understanding the process by which the President is officially elected. The formal ceremony of presidential inauguration, including the information about its time, place.
курсовая работа [34,7 K], добавлен 09.04.2011The rivalry between Islam and Chistianity, between Al-Andalus and the Christian kingdoms, between the Christian and Ottoman empires triggered conflicts of interests and ideologies. The cultural explanation of political situations in the Muslim world.
реферат [52,8 K], добавлен 25.06.2010Сущность антиглобализма, первая организация антиглобалистов People's Global Action. Идеологическая основа и основные тезисы антиглобалистских организаций "Глобальное действие", "Black Bloc", противодействие слиянию всех мировых процессов в единую форму.
презентация [749,7 K], добавлен 31.01.2013
