Olga Onuch

Euromaidan Protests in Ukraine: Social Media versus Social Networks

Employing original, on-site EuroMaidan Protest-Participant Survey data collected by the author in Kyiv between November 26, 2013, and January 13, 2014, triangulated with interview, focus group, and documentary data, the article contextualizes who was the average EuroMaidan protester and what did they want? Yet, the main focus is on the question of how the protest participants were mobilized. Making a contribution to several ongoing debates regarding the micro-level foundations of protest, the article elucidates that while social media and internet news sites played an important role in diffusing information and framing protest claims, they are not in themselves mobilizing. The author argues that social media can compound and facilitate the role of pre-existing social network ties that are more influential in the mobilization process.

The Maidan in Movement: Diversity and the Cycles of Protest

Abstract The Maidan protests provide us with insights into Ukrainian society and the dynamics of mobilisation more generally. Based on the EuroMaidan Protest Participant Survey, on-site rapid interviews with protesters, interviews with politicians, activists and journalists, and focus groups with ordinary citizens and activists, this essay maps the actors, claims and frames of each phase in the protest cycle. It highlights the diversity of actors and the inability of activists and party leaders to coordinate as the central features of the protests. Our analysis reveals the fluid and contingent nature of cleavages commonly portrayed as fixed and politically salient.

Studying identity in Ukraine

While it is common wisdom that “identity matters” in Ukrainian politics, we still lack a robust understanding of precisely when and how it matters. Reflecting challenges facing the broader interdisciplinary field of comparative identity politics, authors frequently bring to their analyses very different notions of the nature of identity itself, skipping a rigorous examination of these notions in an effort to get right to documenting the effects of identity. Similarly, identity is frequently operationalized in quantitative studies without much discussion of the implications of selecting one particular measure over another or of what precisely each measure is reflecting, not to mention what might have changed over time. While we do have nuanced research on Ukrainian identity, it tends not to address the evolution of identity over time or the moments and conditions of identity change. Such issues are particularly important for current research since identities and their associated meanings may shift or “harden” during severe crises or conflicts like those that unfolded in Ukraine during 2013–14. The five original articles that make up this special issue1 all address these challenges, with important implications for how we understand Ukrainian politics after the EuroMaidan. They take advantage of five original data sources collected by the authors that capture the crisis period in different, innovative ways:

Capturing ethnicity: the case of Ukraine

Abstract Building on past survey-based studies of ethnic identity, we employ the case of Ukraine to demonstrate the importance of taking seriously the multidimensionality of ethnicity, even in a country that is regarded as deeply divided. Drawing on relational theory, we identify four dimensions of ethnicity that are each important in distinctive ways in Ukraine: individual language preference, language embeddedness, ethnolinguistic identity, and nationality. Using original survey data collected in May 2014, we show that the choice of one over the other can be highly consequential for the conclusions one draws about ethnicity’s role in shaping attitudes (e.g. to NATO membership), actions (e.g. participation in the Euromaidan protests), and the anticipation of outgroups’ behavior (e.g. expectations of a Russian invasion). Moreover, we call attention to the importance of including the right control variables for precisely interpreting any posited effects of ethnicity, making specific recommendations for future survey research on ethnic identity in Ukraine.

BELIEVING FACTS IN THE FOG OF WAR: Identity, Media, and Hot Cognition in Ukraine’s 2014 Odesa Tragedy

ABSTRACT How do people form beliefs about the factual content of major events when established geopolitical orders are violently challenged? Here, we address the tragic events of 2 May 2014, in Odesa, Ukraine. There, Euromaidan protest movement supporters and opponents clashed following Russia’s annexation of Crimea and the onset of the Donbas conflict, culminating in the worst civilian death toll the city had seen since World War II. Shortly after, we surveyed Ukraine’s population about who they thought had actually perpetrated the killings and relate people’s answers to alternative narratives (frames) that an original content analysis finds were available to Ukrainian citizens through different media. We find evidence, consistent with theories of hot cognition and motivated reasoning, that the Odesa violence triggered emotional responses linked to ethnic, regional, and partisan identity, which then activated attitudes associated with these identities that, in turn, led people to adopt very different (sometimes highly improbable) beliefs about who carried out the killings. Ethnic identity in particular is found to have strongly moderated the effects of television, with Ukrainian television greatly influencing Ukrainians but backfiring among Russians, and Russian television mainly impacting non-Ukrainians. Education and local information are found to reduce susceptibility to televised factual narratives.

The Activist and Elite Interaction and Information Exchange Game

We have thus far mapped out the different developments and structural factors of the mobilization process leading to mass protest. In order to place the moments of mass mobilization in context we traced the longer history of activism, we analysed medium-term and contextual structural variables, and investigated how these variables help us identify how patterns of mobilization and crises set precedents for actor coalitions, and set the stage against the backdrop of which the mobilization process is played out. We have identified several attempts at mass mobilization on the part of activist and opposition politicians in the past, which did not bring mass support out onto the streets. And we have identified how past political and economic crises (in both cases), as well as ongoing foreign financing in the case of Ukraine have not consistently produced a protest response. Therefore we need to delve deeper into the analysis — taking into consideration past experiences, structural variables and the immediate context. We are promoted to ask again: Who are the key actors involved in the mobilization process? and When do they become involved? In this part, we will explore in greater detail the moment of mass mobilization itself, through the eyes of the key actors involved. In this part we focus on agency. We dissect at which point each actor joined into the mobilization equation, exploring what motivated their actions.

Mapping Moments and Movements in Argentina and Latin America 1920–2001

Social movements in LA seem to follow a similar pattern of busts and booms to those in EE. The main difference is that the claims through which mobilization has been framed seem to be almost opposite. Whereas liberal and nationalist ideas were combined in EE, socialist and socio-economic claims were the key in predominant opposition movements in LA. Based on Argentine interviewees’ responses, key protest events and SMOs were traced historically — the most often mentioned are featured in Table 4.1. On the basis of these responses an archival, media and literature review was again conducted, and process tracing was used to identify links and discontinuities between the different phases of mobilization. In the case of LA and specifically Argentina, I have traced the ideological roots of mobilization to the claims and repertoires of early unionism and populism (Peronismo specifically).

Setting Precedents: Medium-term Structural Factors in the Mobilization Process

Now that we have mapped the historical foundations of activism, helping us understand the important legacy of mobilization in both countries, we can turn to the next stage of the mobilization process. As explained in the introduction, analyses of the Ukrainian (2004) and Argentine (2001) ‘moments’ of mass mobilizations have predominantly focused on structural variables. Medium-term ‘opportunity structures’, including international democracy promotion networks in Ukraine and the mounting economic crisis in Argentina, have been highlighted as the key factors mobilizing activists leading to the events. In line with social movement theory, civil society associations, networks, resources and political opportunity structures have been highlighted as central to activist mobilization. Yet, only a few analyses of mass mobilization look back to how these medium-term structural factors were important in the mobilization process (Bunce and Wolchik 2011, Levitsky and Murillo 2003). Thus, this relative gap in the literature leads us to turn to the second series of questions posed in this book: What is the process leading to the moment of mass mobilization? How do structural or contextual (endogenous and exogenous) variables affect this process? The following two chapters will explore these questions by dividing the discussion between medium-term (Chapter 5) and immediate (Chapter 6) structural variables, and their specific roles in setting the stage for larger mobilization.

Mapping Moments and Movements in Ukraine and Eastern Europe 1920–2004

Moments of mass mobilization, such as those experienced in Argentina (2001) and Ukraine (2004), do not occur in a vacuum. And thus, we return to the first question of this study: Are the patterns of mobilization actually different in democratizing states with differing authoritarian legacies such as those in EE and LA; Can we identify similar patterns and types of social mobilization in different regions, despite variation in historical legacies? A thorough process tracing of the connections between different SMOs and protest events over time can help us identify similarities of the types and trajectories of mobilization. The following two chapters will do just this, by mapping the history of moments and movements in each country throughout the last century (1920–2004), against the backdrop of regional patterns. This mapping will demonstrate that mobilization has followed similar patterns in both regions, and in both countries. At the same time, employing political process theory, the mapping will help identify how contextual political opportunity structures and mobilization resources have over time affected the way activist networks were formed, what repertoires they employed and how they framed their activities and claims.

Introduction: The Shock and Awe of Moments of Mass Mobilization

Moments of mass mobilization, like those in Argentina (2001) and Ukraine (2004), tend to catch governments and analysts by surprise. These are moments when millions of previously disengaged ‘ordinary’ citizens1 join activists in protests en masse, making regime change likely and systemic (social, economic or political) transformation possible. First the media, then social scientists, scramble to understand and explain the presence of ‘ordinary’ citizens, who left their private homes and entered the political arena. In recent years, we have witnessed several moments of mass mobilization and yet we still struggle to understand them. Be it in Argentina in 2001, Greece in 2007, Egypt in 2011, Turkey in 2013 or Ukraine in 2004 (or more recently in 2013), we watch as the sea of ‘ordinary’ citizens and activists floods the streets, filling up every nook and cranny of large cities and seemingly pushing aside all conventional and status quo politics in one swift swoop. We are astounded by their political courage and determination, and thus we marvel at the profound moment as it unfolds. Such exceptional moments astound us, not least because accepted theories in political science, such as those by Lichbach (2004), Muller and Opp (1986), Opp (2009), Popkin (1979), would have us believe in ‘collective action problems’ and ‘free rider’ incentives. Puzzled, we ask ourselves: How can we explain this mass mobilization?