Dear Dr. Umland,
As a careful and appreciative reader of your works, I was really startled having found your name endorsing the project under the highly controversial subtitle "Towards a theory of democratic revolutions? Some evidence from Eurasia 1998-2006".
By no means am I going to question the importance of the project per se, or the
professional qualities and good intentions of its authors. But I cannot believe that you are unaware of the dubious connotations that the term 'Eurasia' evokes.
First, several Russian émigré intellectuals in the 1920s elaborated on this term, which, from the very beginning, has been heavily charged with Russian imperialistic, hegemonic, and messianic ideas. Today, it is even more sinister and aggressive since is employed by the most reactionary and revengeful chauvinistic forces in Russia as a clear substitute for the old-new empire, a 'Greater Russia', that strives to re-establish and legitimize its dominance over the so called 'near abroad' (another euphemism for the same ideological-cum-geopolitical project).
Secondly, there are only two countries, besides Russia itself, that can be qualified, technically speaking, as 'Eurasian' – Turkey and Kazakhstan. People in Ukraine, Belarus, or Moldova do not perceive their countries as 'Eurasian' in any sensible terms. Even the so-called 'pro-Russian' forces in all these countries have never mused this idea; even for them the 'Eurasian' identity would be strange, to put it mildly.
Actually, I do not understand why you cannot use more precise and politically correct term 'post-Soviet' or 'postcommunist countries' instead of the unfortunate 'Eurasia' that entails Russian imperialistic meanings and chauvinistic overtones. In any case, I believe, reputable journals and respectable intellectuals should abstain from spreading propagandistic formulas promoted by Kremlin, and at least not to strengthen Russia's discursive dominance over the former colonies.
I hope my colleagues in both Ukraine and abroad would support my objections, and help to ultimately untie Ukraine from the notorious 'Eurasian' bag.
With best wishes,
Mykola Riabchuk,
a Senior Research Fellow at the Ukrainian Center for Cultural Studies
From: H-Net Discussion Network on Postsocialist Studies
[H-SOYUZ@H-NET.MSU.EDU]
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 7:04 AM
To: H-SOYUZ@H-NET.MSU.EDU
Subject: CfP: Coloured Revolutions in Eurasia
From: Andreas Umland <andreumland@yahoo.com>
The Hannah Arendt Institute for the Study of Totalitarianism
(http://www.hait.tu-dresden.de/ext/homepage.asp)
is preparing a special number of its journal
“Totalitarianism and Democracy”
(http://www.hait.tu-dresden.de/td/)
focusing on the coloured revolutions happened in Eastern Europe and former
Soviet Countries (see the rationale below).
The issue will come out in spring 2008 and the deadline is the 20 of October,
2007 (for the first submission, articles will then be reviewed and the final submission
date will be the 25 of November)
Interested authors are invited to send an abstract (max 500 words) by
the 17 of August to
Prof. Donnacha Ó Beacháin
donnacha@kimep.kz (back up address donnacha_1@yahoo.com)
Abel Polese
Abel.Polese@mailbox.tu-dresden.de (back up address abelpolese@yahoo.co.uk)
Authors of accepted abstract will be notified by the 22 of August 2007.
English is preferred but articles in German can be accepted as well
"Towards a theory of democratic revolutions? Some evidence from Eurasia 1998-2006"
(NB contributions focusing on previous protest movements such as those in
Czechoslovakia or the Baltic are very welcome, as long as they can show a connection
between them and those that form the primary focus of our analysis)
Since 1998 the Eurasian geopolitical landscape has been affected by what have
been labeled the ‘colored revolutions’, referring to a number of socio-political transformations
attempted, but not necessarily achieved, in a number of countries, namely: Slovakia (1998), Serbia (2000), Belarus (2001 and 2006), Georgia (2003), Ukraine (2004), Kyrgyzstan (2005) and immediately sedated in Russia, Uzbekistan (2005), Azerbaijan (2005), Kazakhstan (2005).
Those events have certainly some elements in common with the second wave of
revolutions, which occured in Germany , Poland , the Czech Republic and the Baltic Countries in
1989 but they also some completely new features like the growing use of the Internet, humor and art to deliver a message, and the significant involvement of grassroot NGOs.
In some cases these ‘revolutions’ have led to a radical political and social change in the country, in other cases not. It is our belief that the ‘people’ factor is decisive in determining the nature of a revolution and popular attitudes are crucial for a successful movement. However, it is up to leaders to create the conditions for people to become aware and motivate them to act. How is it possible to create the conditions necessary for a revolution to happen and to be successful?
To answer this question one should go beyond the vision that sees economic and logistic support to the opposition as the main elements of a successful revolution. Likewise the opinion that ‘people stood up and fought for democracy’ should be examined and analyses should try to understand the relative importance of external aid and popular attitudes in determining the ‘success’ of a revolution. A revolution is ‘successful’ if it leads to a substantial change in the country. The easiest indicator of this change is a political one, however a social change might also be employed as an indicator of success, when it is measurable.
All the opposition movements made use of protest techniques developed over the years and often based on Gene Sharp’s theory of power (1973) and his a guidebook ‘from dictatorship to democracy’.
Some theoretical questions we want to answer are: Why did the use of revolutionary tools not lead to the same result all over the post-communist spaces? Is it because those tools were used correctly in some cases and incorrectly in others or because ‘geography’ matters?
What was the role of the ruling elite in preventing the development of civil society and stymieing protests and to what degree was the role of the political opposition, external actors and NGO networking important?
Is there a saturation point for the ‘colored revolutions’ after which all attempts to use such techniques will be futile ? Or is it the case that some ‘revolutions’ were not attempted in the right place or at the right moment?
By exploring these questions above and drawing from the experiences of these ‘revolutions’, we seek to spell out a theory of ‘colored revolutions’ that can provide some common points for all the social changes that have occurred between 1998-2006. To do this, we welcome theory generating contributions that focus on a country as case study or propose a comparative analysis of a number of countries.
Contributions should analyze one or more elements that have to be encountered when ‘organizing a revolution’. In particular we might divide the topics in the following way:
(the list is not exhaustive and potential contributors are welcome to discuss with the editors a possible focus)
a) Ideology and a theoretical framework
The role of previous waves of revolutions
The reference texts of a revolution
The role of Gene Sharp’s ‘theory of power’, ‘from dictatorship to democracy’ and other ideological sources
b) The will to set up a revolutionary apparatus
The work of the Einstein Foundation in Eurasia
The role of foreign and domestic intelligence forces
The legacy of previous protest movements
Democratic ideology in regional context
Existence of a team of revolution makers at national and international level that has been operating in Eurasia and is extending its field of action to other regions
c) Fundraising
Relations with foreign foundations
Domestic fundraising: contact with local businessmen
Door to door fundraising: gathering goods other than money (labor force, commodities, ideas, services, ideological and physical support)
d) Training of activists Contact with other successful protest movements Relations with foreign foundations Domestic trainings of activists
e) Coordination and cooperation of forces Relations between the political and NGO forces before, during and after the political crisis Networking between domestic NGOs Relations between the political forces, national based and grassroot NGOs
f) Containing the influence of hostile actors The role of external forces such as the EU, Russia and USA and their influence on civil society Coping with an hostile environment and limiting the influence of the current regime Alliances of the opposition and civil society with some major personalities of the ruling elite that subsequently/thereafter support the protest movements
g) Involving and motivating people The People’s attitude, in a comparative historical and/or geographical perspective Communication between the leaders and people to motive them The relations between NGOs and “ordinary” people Communication between active and passive strata of the population
h) Capacity to choose time and modality to carry out the revolution The logistics of a revolution How to prepare scenarios (optimistic and pessimistic) of a revolution The right time to carry out a revolution
