European Humanities University

10
Yuri Matsievsky
all others. It is also incorrect to say that revolutions take place during elections. Finally, 
none of the authors who believed that a revolution took place in Ukraine could explain 
the course of events proceeding from any theory of revolution. The unwillingness or in-
ability  to  place  the  Ukrainian  events  in  a  wider  theoretical  context,  on  the  one  hand, 
can testify to an insufficient “methodological equipment” of the majority of Ukrainian 
researchers, while, on the other hand, it shows that the Ukrainian events do not keep 
within the methodology of revolution theories. Difficulties of most authors who define 
the dramatic events of the end of 2004 in Ukraine through the category of revolution have 
to do with these particular circumstances. With the purpose of a more thorough examina-
tion of the essence and features of revolutions below I am giving various definitions taken 
from several authoritative editions.
“Political revolution is a social movement and a coup d’état the purpose of which is 
to eliminate the old regime though the gain of political authority by force and to make 
fundamental changes in the political life of society” [17].
“Political revolution is a violent fundamental qualitative change of the political system 
of society as a result of coming to power of new sociopolitical forces and a radical change 
of the course of sociopolitical development of the country in their interests”[18].
“Revolution is a fast, fundamental and violent internal change of dominating values 
and myths of society, its political institutions, social structure, administration, and also of 
political activity of the government”[19]. 
It  is  clear  that  the  offered  definitions  do  not  enumerate  all  features  of  revolution. 
However, all of them emphasize essential characteristics of the given phenomenon:
1. violent character;
2.  deep, fundamental changes of the existing regime and social structure of society;
3. radical change of political institutions and the whole political system.
Authoritarian American researcher of revolution problematics Jack Goldstone identi-
fies three key aspects of revolution – collapse of the state (!), struggle between candi-
dates for central power and formation of new institutions [20]. 
If we also add that revolutions are long processes taking from several months up to 
several years thus representing macroevents which make active all layers of society, espe-
cially the least provided ones, first of all peasants, then it becomes obvious that to call the 
events of the end of 2004 in Ukraine a revolution is extremely problematic.
Some critics can object to it on the ground that the offered definitions do not take 
into account such characteristics of revolution as mass political mobilization, change of 
the ruling elite or political regime which probably were present in the Ukrainian revolu-
tion.
Other researchers can expand the concept of revolution itself. This is what O. Ro-
manjuk, T. Kuzio or American philosopher Bruce Ackerman do. The latter believes that 
revolution represents “successful efforts depending on collective and conscious mobiliza-
tion the purpose of which is to change the dominating principles and practices concern-
ing the main sphere of life” [21]. Such a flexible definition enables this author to call the 

---

11
“Orange Revolution” in Ukraine: Transitological Interpretation
events in 1989 in Eastern Europe revolutions. He considers the given type of revolutions 
to be “liberal” on the ground that they were not accompanied by any violence, and their 
purpose was not a total change of all spheres of life.
Similar ideas were also expressed by some other Ukrainian politicians and scientists, 
calling the events of the end of the 80s in the countries of Eastern Europe, Ukraine and 
Georgia “postmodern”, “post-communist revolutions” or “non-violent revolutions”. These 
intellectual exercises, certainly, represent an interesting attempt to interpret the dramatic 
marks of the historical process; however, I have significant doubts whether they will im-
prove the understanding of the essence of the events in Ukraine and other post-Soviet 
republics in 2003 – 2005.
With  the  purpose  of  a  more  detailed  examination  of  the  revolution  essence  as  an 
analytical category I offer a brief review of the most influential theories of the revolution 
offered mainly by western researchers in the XXth century.
Theoretical Explanations of Revolution
J. Goldstone claims that in the XXth century there were three generations of research-
ers engaged in the studying of the revolution phenomenon. The first theoretical explana-
tions  of  revolution  belong  to  representatives  of  “natural  history  of  revolution”  who  in 
the 20–30s formulated an exhaustive list of revolution features. Analyzing revolutionary 
events using the materials accessible to them, early researchers of revolution phenom-
enon could rather precisely reconstruct the sequence of a revolutionary process [22].
The typical sequence of revolutionary events looks as follows:
– increase of the role of “intellectuals” who refuse to support the existing regime;
– before the revolution the government tries to carry out essential reforms;
– the overthrow of the regime begins with a sharp political crisis caused by the in-
ability of the government to deal not so much with the actions of the opposition but with 
many political, military, economic or other internal problems;
– the rise of conflicts among revolutionaries after the revolution victory. There appear 
radicals, conservatives and people with moderate views;
– the first ones who manage to come to power after the revolution victory are the 
moderate revolutionaries;
– using moderate reforms they try to reestablish authority, in the meantime radicals 
organize mass mobilization;
– the change of the social order and dominating ideology does not come when the 
old regime falls but when radicals are supported by masses and change “the moderated”;
– order is enforced. As a rule, this is the beginning of the revolutionary “terror”; 
– the struggle between “the radicals” and “the moderated” and also between the sup-
porters of revolution and external enemies leads to the coming to power of militarians (G. 
Washington, O. Cromwell, Napoleon, K.Atatjurk, Mao Zedong, J.B. Tito);

---