|
|
|
|
CIAO DATE: 04/05/07
Participating in the Process: The Importance of Civil Society in the Former Soviet
by Timothy Fairbank
Democratic revolutions are a rare sight. Seeing images of a massive sea of people protesting rigged elections and demand ing democracy and government accountability in Ukraine and Georgia, one cannot help but marvel at the political change taking place in these countries. Democracy, developed from the grassroots level, triumphed. How did this occur and what can other countries learn from it? Many analysts of the region immediately look at Moldova, Ukraine’s small neighbor and the next country in the region to have national elections, as possibly the next locale for political change.
While one should not dismiss the importance and influence the spread of democracy has on neighboring countries in the region, to suggest that similar events are likely in other post- Soviet countries would show a misunderstanding of the factors and elements which brought such change. Having worked with civic and political groups from Georgia, Ukraine, Moldova, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan as a field representative for the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI) and seen the relatively advanced stages of civil society reached in the first two cases, though not in the others, it is clear that the development of an active civil society has been vital in forcing political reform and change. Without a strong civil society, both Georgia and Ukraine would not have their current lead ership. Contrary to the conspiracy theories promulgated by Russia’s government and press—and even appearing in the West’s own yellow journalism—suggesting that the political change we are witnessing is all a Western plot, it is actually the product of grassroots, indigenous organizations advocating for democracy and European integration. The roots of the democratic revolution in these countries came not from individual leaders, quests for power, or outside forces, but from an emerging civil society demanding gov ernment accountability.
With the exception of the EU-m member Baltic countries, authoritarian ism rules over much of the post-Soviet space. There are, however, a few countries in the region working to join the community of Western democracies. Georgia, while suffering deeply from the effects of two separatist regions, experienced its own democratic political change—the so-called Rose Revolution— barely one year ago, ushering in a new government filled with reform-minded, pro-Western leaders. Similarly, the events we witnessed in Ukraine in late November and early December 2004 were demonstrations of civic activism at a level this region has never seen. Despite rigged voting that showed the contrary, the majority of Ukraine’s citizens voted against the figure who embodied an extension of the previous corrupt, nondemocratic regime. As in Georgia, the people in Ukraine, encouraged by a welldeveloped civil society, took their protests and dissent to the streets of the capital and regional cities. While discussions of who should be these countries’ leaders must be left to the citizens of these countries to decide, outside observers can appreciate the dramatic increase in civic participation taking place and the calls for democracy. The developments are encouraging not because of the increasing calls for new leadership, but because of the growing politically active citizenry.
Moldova will conduct elections in March or April 2005, and some analysts suggest that the democratic forces there desire the Georgia, or Ukraine, scenario; however, it is not this simple. Nor should such an outcome be artificially encour aged. The outcome rests solely on the citizens of Moldova themselves, and, as I explain below, Moldova is lacking the key factors which triggered the democratic revolutions in Georgia and Ukraine.
Factors of Change in Georgia and Ukraine. Whether or not one agrees with the politics or methods of political change and activism in Georgia and Ukraine, the degree of civic involvement should be appreciated and celebrated. Though very different cases, both found their roots in an active youth gen eration and national civil society. In both Georgia and Ukraine three main factors united the public and energized civil society.
Timothy Fairbank is Senior Program Officer at the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs. He will finish his Master of Science in Foreign Service from Georgetown University in spring 2005.