A 🧵on Yanukovych's 2014 removal to dispel some of the conspiracy talk out there. In short: it was not a coup! Rather, it was an ad hoc legal solution to power vacuum created by a crumbling executive. 1/
A coup is an "illegal and overt attempt by military or other elites within the state apparatus to unseat a sitting executive" (Powell & Thyne, 2011). The definition implies an elite-driven, not popular mobilization-driven process. Otherwise, revolutions would be coups. 2/
Also strongly implied is that the coup victim should be in clear control of the executive before the unseating attempt. Can you have a coup against an executive that has already crumbled and lost control over key state functions? No, that's not a coup, but govt collapse. 3/
Third, a coup has to be illegal, i.e. in clear violation of existing laws and constitutional provisions. With these definitional issues in mind, let's go over what happened on Feb 20-22, 2014 in Kyiv. 4/
Yanukovych's removal came after 3mo of sustained popular mobilization in Kyiv, then across Ukr. Initially, the antigovt protests were leaderless and oppo leaders were criticized for trying to take advantage. The process was popularly, rather than elite-driven.5/
On Feb 21-22, Yanukovych was no longer in clear control of the executive. Interior Min and Speaker of Parl had just fled, military chief had just resigned. Yan fled before signing the EU-brokered agreement w oppo for new elections. Govt had effectively collapsed. 6/
Third, impeachment process wasn't followed, but parl came up w alternative legal route--parl resolution--an ad hoc solution to an ad hoc situation (Const had no provisions for missing Pres and govt collapse). Parl voted for resolution by 2/3 majority, incl Yan party members. 7/
Ideally, parliament should've asked Const Court (CC) to interpret. But 1) time was of the essence; 2) CC lacked legitimacy due to court-packing by Yan early in his term (2010). Parl resolution was next best thing to a CC ruling as a legitimate solution to power vacuum. 8/
The legality threshold is the most difficult to adjudicate. Constitutional lawyers/scholars might disagree about the constitutionality of the Rada resolution route. However, the other two definitional requirements for a coup are not met. END 9/
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
