Democratic sensibility has a long history in Ukraine, at least since the period of the Cossacks – four to five centuries ago. The desire of having a single strong leader is not a part of Ukrainian political or social sensibility, as it is in Russia. Ukrainians are more community oriented, have strong sense of compassion, and reject regionalism. Even most Russian nationals who were brought to the territory by Catherine the Great or Stalin have adapted to the local sensibility. There are exceptions, but as a general feature this sensibility has endured.

Thus, it is not surprising that people react against the assumption of privilege and the use of power that serves to protect a select few against the just demands of the majority. This is the fourth popular revolutionary moment since Ukrainian independence in 1991 and each one has brought healthy change to the country. However, what marks this demonstration is its purely popular root. Opposition parties have been trying for three years to get the masses out to confront the obvious and odious corruption of government. They have been unsuccessful due to this fact: no matter what party is in power, too much corruption, privilege, and lack of respect for the will of the people remain.

People’s hopes have long rested on a new generation coming into politics and new associations, like that with the EU, to finally bring about justice, morality and transparency in government, responsibility to the people, and freedom from corruption and meaningless bureaucracy. There have already been many very good fruits from the relationship with the EU in terms of new laws, improved infrastructures, new markets, and modernization of industry. The signing of the Association Agreement could only improve life for everyone, even for most of the privileged.

The unexplained and abrupt failure of the President to sign, after eleven years of preparation, was like throwing dynamite on a most sensitive fault line: the hopes and expectations of the people were dashed by likely the most corrupt and self-serving President in Ukraine’s history. This point needs to be understood since it has virtually apocalyptic dimensions. Without justification, without preparation, without an alternative vision, in the end without any transparency, the President did what he wanted against the will of the majority.

The people came out in significant numbers across the country against this highhandedness and the loss of promised hopes. Ukrainians, through wisdom and hard experience, know that violence is not the response that will bring the desired change. And with 700,000 people gather in Kyiv, they could have violently taken over whatever they wanted. International witnesses attest that the demonstrations are marked by commitment, peacefulness, unity, reaching out to opponents, and even joy.

The only response of the government, on the other hand, has been violence. And here is the apocalyptic dimension: the people’s demands are articulate, hope-filled, peaceful, promise benefit for all, and made in daylight in the open square, while the government has no rational explanation, argument, or alternative vision, only violence, often at night. One feels that it is a battle between light and darkness. Within the President’s own party, many have expressed their nervousness by the violent reaction.

What has been shocking to those in high office who have ordered the violence is that it is not having the desired effect. People are not cowed or fleeing into the fear of silence. People without defence have been mercilessly beaten, jailed without cause, their lawyers have been jailed without cause by the unreformed court system, sympathetic businesses have been “visited” by the police, residency permits of sympathetic foreigners are under review, traffic police attempt to fine buses and private cars carrying demonstrators, and attempts have been made to repress the media. The tactics have been impotent and the government has shown its only weapon, violence, and its fear.

What furthers the apocalyptic interpretation is that the churches unambiguously stand with the people. Cardinals, bishops, and priests have spoken on the “maidan”, where the crowds gather. There is prayer every hour led by priests of various confessions. Their appeal, like that of the people, is for the values that guarantee healthy society: justice, transparency, reconciliation, social inclusion. They speak the will of the people. And what foreign representatives have come to realize is that the people speak the values of the West.

As has been said in the European press lately, the Ukrainian people are European, even if the government is not. It is these very values, whose roots are Christian and which the West takes for granted, that represent the longing of the people and the healing of the country. However, the light has not yet won. Things could get worse before they get better. The only clarity is that this is the last time that such brutality is likely to be used by a Ukrainian government against its own people.

Russia is not the factor in this as many might imagine. From 2006 until today, with specious reasoning, Russia has cut off Ukraine’s gas in winter twice, forbidden Ukrainian meat imports once, milk products twice, confectionary products once–all attempts to force Ukraine into submission. Ukraine never submitted but kept to its European orientation. Why, then, has the current President made a change of course? Because the EU demands values, I dare say even Christian values, among its potential members. All international evaluations have shown that corruption has increased during the current presidency. Because of the corruption, investment has dried up, something which had been increasing markedly after the Orange Revolution in 2004.

The President promised the EU in 2011 to deal with the corruption issue and to bring reform to the notorious court system. He cannot address either of these concerns without undermining his own network of dubious wealth. The country is now on the verge of default. It could have received the necessary 15B dollars from the International Monetary Fund at a lower interest rate than from Russia, but the West demands standards of transparency and accountability. To save the country from default and himself from scrutiny, his only route was Russia, which does not insist on such terms.

The West, despite its issues, has incarnated values and laws that derive historically from the gospel and are “salvific” for itself and for countries like Ukraine. It too quickly sees its problems without seeing the moral depth it has within its traditions and procedures. Ironically, perhaps Ukraine has something inspiring to offer the EU at this time. The values already in place are worth struggling for–insistently, peacefully, inclusively, and prayerfully.

++++++++++++

A slightly amended version of this article appeared in the Italian journal Popoli.