After the ‘electoral revolutions’ in Serbia (2000), Georgia (2003) and Ukraine (2004), the civic youth movements that were in the frontline of the successful democratic revolutions received full attention. Representatives of OTPOR! (Serbia), PORA! (Ukraine), KMARA (Georgia), Yox (Azerbaijan), Zubr (Belarus) and activists from various organisations from Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Albania, Turkmenistan and the Russian Federation were therefore invited to the Netherlands to talk about their long and painful struggle, their successes and their failures in Wave of Resistance, an event organised by the Alfred Mozer Stichting, De Balie and the NGIZ. In Amsterdam, they met representatives of political parties, universities, NGOs and political foundations and debated about their similarities, differences, allies and enemies, past, present and future. Three hundred people were present on 14 May 2005 to share their experience and trigger them with arguments and questions.
Although these movements had and have to operate under different circumstances, the similarities were striking. All are non-hierarchical, use humour as their main weapon, are non-violent and are not connected to any political party (except in the very specific Russian case). Gene Sharp is their Guru, although some admitted never to have read his books…
The main similarity was actually on a more psychological level. All these movements had to overcome apathy and fear. Apathy because people did not belief anymore that they would be able to change the situation for the better. Changing this, recruiting volunteers and taking non-violent action to the streets was an enormous challenge. Overcoming fear was the most important thing. Being threatened by the regime meant being kicked out of university, being molested by the riot police, being arrested and accused of all kinds of offences.
The reaction of the authorities therefore also shows many similarities. However, as one activist stated: ‘When the level of oppression grows, the level of resistance also increases.’ The activists in Serbia ridiculed the authorities after they were branded as foreign agents and terrorists. Displaying a 22 year old slim student OTPOR activist in the streets as a terrorist triggered the attention of the older generation and made them realise: ‘If our children are accused of being terrorists, what can we expect from these leaders?’
Although this generally might be true, the situation changes radically when the authorities choose to use brutal violence and repression. What if the police, secret service and the military remain loyal to the oppressive regime and do not hesitate to use every means possible? The case of Uzbekistan shows that Karimov did not hesitate to shoot hundreds of protesters and to label them as Islamic terrorists. We have clearly seen that the regimes have also learned from the revolutions in Serbia, Georgia and Ukraine. They know the concept, they know what to expect and react accordingly, positively perhaps in the case of Moldova, negatively for certain in the case of Belarus.
The complications even deepen when we take into account the role of the United States of America and The Russian Federation in countries like Uzbekistan where they have a common interest in keeping the countries stable and in their sphere of influence. Then suddenly freedom and democracy became of lesser importance than the global fight against terrorism. The representative of YOX stated the same about Azerbaijan. Although the Aliyev regime is repressive and clearly undemocratic, the main powers in the world seem to be driven by the goal of keeping the oil flowing and the country stable. Here, democracy is much less on the march, and although the murder of the journalist Elmar Huseinov shocked the international community, it did not have serious consequences for the regime. The YOX movement is now starting its activities for a democratic Azerbaijan, using leaflets and graffiti as its weapons.
In the debate with the audience a number of important additions were made. Someone noted that these movements are not the only ones fighting for democracy and that they are only a link in a chain of human rights groups, women groups, political parties, independent media etc. This statement was followed by the analysis that the main question is what will happen after the revolution. How sustainable are the changes? The case of Serbia shows that progress is very slow and sometimes in the pace of two steps forward, one step back. What will happen with the new leaders of Ukraine and Georgia? Will they repeat the faults of the past or will they be faithful to the cause of establishing true pluralist democracies in non-corrupt societies where the rule of law prevails, NGOs and independent media thrive and administrations are transparent?
Questions were raised about the obvious support from especially the United States (private and governmental funds) to the civic youth movements. One person in the audience stated that taking money from the same country that invaded Iraq and is responsible for death squads, Guantanamo bay and sending possible Al-Qaida terrorists to be tortured in other ‘friendly though undemocratic’ countries cannot be reconciled. PORA activists Oleh replied as follows: ‘In case a child is dying and the only thing that can safe it is the kidney of a serial killer: would the mother refuse the kidney out of principle?’ This statement opened the eyes of some in the audience and raised the eyebrows of others, shouting in protest: ‘How can you compare the US with a serial killer…’
The importance of international support and the doubts that come with it were discussed during the whole day. Mr. Jonathan Steele of The Guardian en Mr. André Gerrits of the University of Amsterdam led the last discussion, which was titled the Revolution in Perspective. This part of the debate focused especially on international involvement in democracy promotion. André Gerrits posed four question regarding this phenomenon: First, what is at stake when we speak about international democracy support? Second, do we have the right to interfere? Third, does it work? And fourth, what do we gain from it?
According to Gerrits the popular revolts in Georgia and Ukraine have also shown a potential problem related to democracy promotion: it creates new troubles between Russia and the West. There is no doubt that for a series of specific reasons, we will face increasing tension between Russia and ‘Europe’ over the so-called Near Abroad. They have conflicting interests here. Gerrits stated however that increasing tensions could never be reason not to give support to democratic forces in the region. Not to support these forces because it might annoy the Kremlin is politically and morally repugnant. It reduces these republics to hostages of Russia. Europe should intensify the contacts with the former Soviet Republics.
Europe should employ all the means available to assist these countries in their political and economic reforms. All means, according to Gerrits, with the exception of one: EU membership. International democracy promotion is partly altruistic and partly foreign policy self-interest. The idea is that it is advantageous to all. For a fist full of dollars, democracy promotion strengthens the spread of democracy creating international stability and prosperity. Gerrits concluded: ‘I wouldn’t be too optimistic. Democratisation creates as much initial chaos and disorder as it may ultimately establish stability and peace.’
Jonathan Steele of the Guardian is well known for his critical stance on the different revolutions, especially the Orange revolution in Ukraine. He warned that the situation was and is not black and white. That we should be critical about the events and take into account that Ukrainians in the third round still voted for Yanukovich massively (over 40%). This does indeed give him a strong democratic legitimacy.
Steele also warned us that besides the probable altruistic motives the United States might have, we should not forget that their motives are also driven by self-interest, geo-political strategies and the urge to gain power and influence. He reminded the audience of the recent example of Venezuela, where the democratically elected president Chavez was nearly toppled by a coup, according to Steele, staged by the United States. He stated that the European Union should play a more active role.
Although everybody agrees that substantial support is given (estimates are that almost two billion euros is spent on all sorts of democracy support annually), the effects of it are strongly debated. Some like to play it down, some like to exaggerate the importance. Others stress the fact that money isn’t everything. Transfer of knowledge, training and facilitating the dissemination of information all play a major role. Besides that the human capital is crucial.
Later that evening the Dutch news programme NOVA showed an item on the Wave of resistance, suggesting these revolutions were instigated by the United States and strongly backed by US money. This is certainly a too simplistic way of looking at the events and does not take into account the influence the European Union and the Russian federation also have in the countries discussed. The Russians spent more than one billion dollar to back Yanukovich in Ukraine, outspending the United States and the European Union by far. Still Yushchenko and his coalition won. We have to avoid simplistic schemes and overcome our ideological biases.
Our conclusion is that money isn’t everything. Without the power, bravery and sheer persistence of the people of these countries, nothing is possible. The credits for change therefore should go to the people of Serbia, Georgia and Ukraine and not to foreign powers.
Arjen Berkvens and Alma Balesic, Alfred Mozer Stichting, Amsterdam