(en) Libcom.org: "The politicians had to obey the crowd": interview on the protests in Kiev

This interview with a comrade from the Autonomous Workers' Union in Kiev was done on 
January 28, 2014. It sheds some light on the events around the Maidan: the array of 
reasons behind the protests, their focus on the hated president, the differences to the 
"orange revolution", the role of the right, the weakness of social struggles and possible 
scenarios. ---- Q: Looking at the pictures from Kiev (for instance, here) it seems that 
all kinds of people are at the barricades. In your opinion, what brings them together? 
What do the people at the barricades and all the supporters discuss? Merely the practical 
issues of the fight against the cops? Or are there assemblies, or other forms of 
"organized" debates, at the barricades or elsewhere?

A: The main motive for the protests right now is extreme unpopularity of the president. Of 
course, the actual reasons are economic crisis, social inequality, corruption, decay of 
social services, poverty, unemployment - the usual set of grievances which make people go 
into the streets these days. This is not a leftist dogma; people do speak about all these 
issues. But nevertheless the force which made them stop grumbling at their kitchens and 
protest loudly is their feelings towards president Yanukovich. The demand of president's 
resignation is the ultimate one; unfortunately, this is the most radical thing people can 
actually think about.

The second thing is the sheer hatred towards the police forces. But then again, protesters 
just don't think there's anything wrong with the fact that one of the leaders of the 
protests - Yuriy Lutsenko - himself used to be Minister of the Interior; during that time 
Berkut and other special police forces existed as usual, and Lutsenko himself had 
announced that he would disperse protesting crowds with tear gas. So, here, too, protest 
against police as such (it has extremely bad reputation among all social classes here) is 
channeled into relatively harmless direction.

The president, his government and police are main subjects of discussions, I guess. 
Protesters' main task, as they see it, is to get rid of the Party of Regions, that's all. 
A small fraction talks about shifting the balance of power in the constitution from 
president to parliament. But of course, the main topics are indeed the practical matters - 
tear gas, food, shields, Molotov cocktails, tactics of street battles, and endless rumors 
- about the imminent threat of introducing the state of emergency, about snipers and riot 
police (whether they are Russians or not, whether they intend to fight any longer etc.).

About the assemblies - no, I don't know anything of the sort. The situation is too dynamic 
and unstable to do any such things, I guess; so, I don't see any forms of direct democracy 
evolving at the barricades right now.

Q: It seems that there are a lot of attacks on or occupations of government buildings, but 
the "normal" life in the city goes on. Is that so? Are people working during the day and 
going to the barricades at night in Kiev? What other forms of protest play a role? I heard 
about university faculties being occupied? Is anything going on at work-places against the 
late or non-payment of wages, for instance?

A: Yes, that's true. Only the central parts of Kiev are affected by the protests while in 
other areas business goes as usual, nothing is interrupted. There were several attempts to 
declare national political strike but they failed miserably: the opposition doesn't have 
any instruments for this, no political organization has a nationwide network of workplace 
cells, and the people themselves are also simply not used to such thing as strike. The 
only force that could theoretically do this - the old bureaucratic Federation of Trade 
Unions of Ukraine - is neutral. The student union Direct Action is trying to organize 
students' strike - so far they've partly managed to do this only in one university, 
Kyiv-Mohyla Academy. So, yes, most people work or study, spending their free time at the 
barricades.

There's an initiative group called Automaidan - car owners who use their vehicles for 
blocking the traffic, especially in the vicinity of important government sites or near the 
residences of people in power. One more form of protest employed here is the customers' 
boycott of goods manufactured by capitalists who belong to the Party of Regions. It turned 
out to be relatively successful, at least according to some reports.

There's been only one university occupation so far, and I'm not sure you can call it that, 
actually. Our comrades from Direct Action do try to occupy the whole campus and block all 
activities there but as far as I understand it is not physically occupied yet.

Protests at workplaces concerning wages etc. hasn't been connected to the political 
protests so far. For example, workers of Kyivpastrans - the communal enterprise which 
controls urban transit - held their protests in December, some leftist organizations 
helped them, but they didn't go so far as to declare an Italian strike and they didn't 
join Maidan. Actually, the local government did their best to pay them all the arrears in 
the end of December to calm them down.

Q: One of the last huge mobilization in the Ukraine was the "orange revolution". In 
comparison, what is different today? Does anyone refer to that "history"? How are the 
protesters talk about "democracy"? And what hopes are connected with a EU-membership?

A: First of all, the "orange revolution" was a highly personalized protest. People 
concentrated on a specific goal - to install their leader, Viktor Yuschenko, in the 
president's seat. Yuschenko's political structures controlled the crowd pretty tightly and 
organized everything very smoothly. Now the three leaders of the parliamentary opposition 
are not trusted by a majority of protesters. They represent Maidan at the negotiations 
with the President, but many people are not sure they have a mandate for that. For 
example, last Thursday they were booed by the crowd, and Maidan didn't accept their 
conditions which had been negotiated with Yanukovych. Despite all their anger, the 
politicians had to obey the crowd; generally, people are much more radical than their 
"representatives". The whole mobilization in November came as a surprise for them, and 
since then they couldn't grasp the events and take a lead. This vacuum was momentarily 
filled by the far-right groups.

Another difference is that in 2004 the scope of issues discussed was much wider. The whole 
"revolution" was dedicated to presidential elections, but still, you could legitimately 
propose left agenda there, discuss social and economic issues. In that respect, that 
protest was much more heterodox than the current one; now you can only talk about the 
matters of bourgeois politics. Any attempt to put forward other issues puts you at risk of 
being labeled as a "provocateur".

I wouldn't say that people imagine many parallels between the events of 2004 and the 
current protests. First of all, during the last ten years there appeared a new generation 
of young people who had been schoolkids back then. And now they are an important part of 
the mobilization. Second of all, Viktor Yuschenko turned out to be a major disappointment 
for all participants of the "orange revolution".

Protesters naturally say that they want a truly (bourgeois) democratic state, with the 
rule of law etc. They imagine that the only thing which separates them from this ideal is 
Viktor Yanukovych, And they are convinced that the EU membership is synonymous with 
democracy, also prosperity and all other good things. EU serves as a myth concentrating 
all their hopes; while Russia is a land of Mordor in this mythological view of the world.

Q: Right-wing parties and fascist groups play a role in the protests. How important are 
they actually? Do they get much support? How do other protesters relate to them?

A: Far right party Svoboda is the most organized of the three large political forces 
trying to control the protest. They are the only party which has real active cells in 
various regions, actual activist base. So, as the most organized and the most ideological 
of the three, they are gaining the most. Apart from Svoboda, there is an umbrella 
coalition of neo-nazi militant groups. It is called Right Sector. They were formed in the 
beginning of the protests, and by now they've succeeded to gain enormous prominence and 
conquer sympathies from apolitical and liberal people. They are mostly famous by their 
demonstrative militancy and aggression, and the public doesn't see anything wrong with 
these cute young patriots. Lately, the same pattern repeats in other regions, where 
neo-nazi football hooligans turned out to be the main assault force fighting the police 
and pro-government thugs.

The fascist hegemony was indisputable until January 19th, when the protests were joined by 
lots of other people - random apolitical citizens, liberals and even the left. That 
happened because the agenda of the protests shifted to repealing the "dictatorship laws" 
passed on January 16. Since then they had to step back a bit but nevertheless it's obvious 
that in the long run these protests will enormously benefit the far right, whoever wins. 
In the case of the victory of the opposition, they will surely get themselves the police 
forces, special services etc. If Yanukovych wins, this means that half of the country will 
become firm supporters of the far-right as supposedly the only patriotic radical force 
able to confront the dictator.

Meanwhile, most left activists also joined the protests after January 19 because those 
laws will severely damage them as well. They found their niche in infrastructural 
activities, such as vigils in emergency hospitals: they stay there in order to prevent 
police and thugs kidnap the wounded. Other area of left activity is the above mentioned 
attempt at igniting the political strike.

Q: From outside the protest seems to have a lot in common with the one in Istanbul last 
year (well, surely not the temperatures...). Do the protesters in Kiev and elsewhere in 
the Ukraine see a connection to the uprisings around the globe in the past few years?

A: There may be some parallels drawn indeed, but from the subjective point of view of 
Ukrainian protesters those other protests don't exist. They see these events as a purely 
national struggle, trying to embed them into Ukrainian history, not into the global wave 
of protests.

Q: Last not least, you have been following the movement from its beginning, and I have 
read some of your statements. What is your hope for the protest, what positive outcome can 
you imagine? What is the worst outcome you can imagine? What kind of support do you expect 
from outside the Ukraine?

A: Like I said, there are two possible outcomes. One is the victory of Yanukovych, which 
will bring about a harsh authoritarian regime in the mould of Latin American dictatorships 
of 1970s. Still, it will be problematic to govern the country for Yanukovych because he 
will still be supported by half of population at best; dictatorships cannot survive in 
such conditions. One of the probable scenarios then can be emerging of a militant 
underground guerilla movement not unlike the IRA in Northern Ireland of 1980s and 1990s.

The other outcome will be eventual victory of the parliamentary opposition. This will 
result in a weak bourgeois democratic republic, politically unstable but retaining the 
basic freedoms - like Ukraine in 2005-2009. Only now the fascists will be much stronger 
both in the power lobbies and in the streets.

Now, there is also third scenario - maybe that would the worst one - it's the full-fledged 
civil war between Western and Central Ukraine, including Kiev, on the one side, and South 
and East, on the other. Naturally this would be catastrophic because people will fight for 
nationalist chimeras on both sides. On the other hand, this still looks unlikely to me 
because Ukraine is such a large industrial country. The EU, Russia and other global powers 
are unlikely to allow a chaotic war zone in a country which has major gas and oil transit 
routes, 15 atomic reactors etc.

I guess in such conditions the best form of support from abroad would be efforts to make 
the Ukrainian government back off, but without showing solidarity with the far-right. My 
guess is that such messages - "we support your struggle but not your fascists" - would be 
optimal form of pressure from abroad.