 |
 |
|||
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
Fifth Assembly - Opening Plenary Session
Keynote Address:
Ms. Myroslava Gongadze
April 6, 2008
Ladies and Gentlemen, Esteemed Guests and Colleagues, Dear Friends:
Let me first thank the World Movement for Democracy for inviting me to speak at this distinguished forum. I am honored to address you today along with such prominent leaders as, former President of Peru Alejandro Toledo, Maina Kiai, from National Commission on Human Rights in Kenya, and first lady of Ukraine Kateryna Yushchenko.
Today Kyiv has become a meeting place for civic activists and democracy advocates from all around the world. We can freely exchange ideas and discuss ways to promote the democratic values in our countries.
However, only seven years ago I left Ukraine for asylum elsewhere thinking that I would never be able to return. In those days, democracy activists were the primary targets of the country’s autocratic regime. My husband, Georgiy Gongadze, paid with his life for defying the set limits on journalistic freedoms. Hundreds of other Ukrainians were harassed and persecuted for attempting to oppose the regime. Having lived through the horrors of constant police surveillance, I too felt that this country would long remain under the grip of repressive leadership.
Yet, Ukrainians managed to reclaim their rights and freedoms. Change required a truly collective effort from defiant citizens who reversed their country’s slide into political isolation. Ukraine’s example demonstrates how a broad network of civic groups, increasingly assertive media and the growing democratic movement can change a nation’s history.
In a way, the road to today’s forum started in late 2000, when a handful of courageous civic activists marched through Kyiv’s streets to demand the resignation of President Kuchma. Following Vaclav Havel’s moral dictum, they decided to live in truth and became a fundamental threat to a system based on lies. Their demand for justice resonated across Ukraine and bridged political and cultural divides. It helped to reawaken the dormant society and restore its sense of moral clarity. It also consolidated the fractured opposition, which later became a powerful challenge to the authorities. In fact, protests and demonstrations became the weapon of choice for opposition leaders in their struggle with oppressive rulers. Ukraine’s Orange Revolution rested on the alliance between civil society actors and political forces willing to end autocracy. This alliance made all the guns and tanks powerless in the face of genuine human solidarity. In the end, it forced the authorities’ to recognize the public will and accept their own defeat.
This alliance, however, also proved to have its limits. While successful in propelling the opposition to power, it fell short of producing the expected revolutionary change. The people’s desire to hold their rulers accountable for past wrongs was undermined- as often happens in these situations - for the sake of political expediency, as the ruling and opposition elites negotiated behind closed doors. When civic activists on the Maidan stood up for higher ideals, some politicians were willing to sacrifice these ideas in pursuit of power or personal wellbeing.
We still do not know whether security guarantees were provided to President Kuchma in 2004. What we do know is that many of the crimes of his presidency remain unpunished, while many of their alleged instigators still enjoy privileged status and material comfort. Some of his cronies even received awards or promotions from the new authorities. The promise of justice, which became the mantra of the Orange Revolution, has been lost in its aftermath.
Over the past three years we have witnessed the impact of these unfulfilled promises on the Ukrainian public. Bitterness and apathy have spread among the most energetic and idealistic, providing an opening for opportunistic political and business groups to sponsor imitations of civic action or use activists for their narrow purposes. Civil society for hire has been a new and unsettling Ukrainian trend. It has also fostered public cynicism about the effectiveness of civic participation in achieving political or social change.
Ukraine’s example, as so many of you know so well, is not unique—when civil society becomes involved in the political process there are always risks that can outweigh the potential advantages.
On one hand, the alliance between the NGOs, media and the political parties has demonstrated its value as a vehicle of democratization. In this, Ukrainians followed in the footsteps of Chileans, Filipinos, South Koreans, Serbs, Georgians and other civic activists around the world who helped opposition elites to topple their autocratic leadership.
On the other hand, once civic groups give up their independence to support the programs of political elites, they are likely to see many of their ideals cast aside for political interests. So, the toppling of authoritarian government through social uprising is only the first step in building genuine democracy. The next step requires civic activists to keep their distance from political power and continue to pursue a democratic agenda. They should act both as a partner to the new political elite, and also as an important check on state power.
Despite its successes Ukraine’s path to consolidated democracy remains long and complicated. But it is even more challenging for its neighbors, like Russia and Belarus. Autocratic leaders in these countries have fearfully watched successful democratic protests and have brutally suppressed civic activism. So, for every hundred protesters appearing on the streets of Moscow or Minsk there are even more policemen assailing them with clubs and tear gas. Still, even these limited expressions of discontent matter. The courage of those in the first wave helps others who sympathize with the cause of freedom to overcome their fear.
The emergence of a truly vibrant civil society requires people to share a fundamental belief that they are the makers of their own destiny, that they have sufficient power, when acting collectively, to improve the life of their community, rectify social injustice or hold corrupt officials accountable.
I have personally experienced the power of collective action. The investigation into my husband’s murder was deliberately stalled under the previous regime. Only constant pressure from civic groups, like Ukraine’s Institute of Mass Information, National Union of Journalists of Great Britain, Reporters without Borders, International Union of Journalists as well as the attention of individual journalists in Ukraine and across the world, prevented the state officials from dismissing the case. In addition, international organizations, like the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, became vital partners as we pressed the investigation forward. Due to these combined efforts and the actions of the new Ukrainian authorities, three of the four immediate perpetrators of my husband’s murder were arrested and convicted in a fair trial last month.
Still, our work is far from over as long as the instigators remain at large. What motivates me is not only my personal debt to my husband’s memory, but also my desire to attain justice and set a precedent for others.
Georgiy Gongadze was an eternal idealist and wanted to transform Ukraine overnight. His life and death, in dramatic fashion, prompted the start of such a transformation in this country. Democratic progress is never inevitable. And the cause of the Orange Revolution remains unfinished. Even our accomplishments are not going to last if we stop pressing our cause forward.
So, let us remain devoted to our movement’s noble MISSION. We may not achieve EVERY GOAL or win every BATTLE. But, as Mahatmas Ghandi reminded us, making a full effort will already be our victory.
Back to Opening Plenary Session Remarks.
||
|| Site map ||