Colorful Revolutions in post-Soviet Countries

“One reporter refused to lie and stopped a live broadcast. Then we bought a satellite dish and got direct broadcasting links to Reuters, CNN and the BBC, channels we could never have imagined before” –
Irina Gerashenko, spokesperson for new Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko

The ‘Rose Revolution’ in Georgia and the ‘Orange Revolution’ in Ukraine grabbed world headlines, raising the question of the responsibility and impartiality of the media in reporting them, especially on television and the Internet.

Apart from Georgia and Ukraine, the media also had to deal with complicated election campaigns in Kyrgyzstan and Moldova.

This Forum session explored the fine line that journalists have to tread when dealing with embattled governments and rampant opposition forces.

From the start, session chairman Vladimir Rerikh, a senior Kazakh journalist, made clear that “colourful” revolutions are not new. “In Portugal in 1974 there was a revolution of carnations. And let us not forget that the carnation was the insignia of our own revolution in 1917.”

“It is not important who started them. The important thing is that all these things are born in the media,” he said.

Irina Gerashenko, spokesperson for new Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko, said the former authorities had tried to use the media to manipulate public opinion in Ukraine.

She said the media had played “a horrible role” in the rigging of the first election, when the count had indicated a presidential victory for Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych.

“You did not have to be an expert in the media to see that all the news was pre-prepared. There was not even any difference between text and video,” she said.

The media let themselves be used to ruin the meaning of words – for example, ‘patriot’ came to mean ‘national chauvinist’ – and to try to break up the country along the fault lines of religion, ethnicity and nationality.

Amid charges of electoral fraud, Yushchenko launched a campaign of street protest and civil disobedience that changed the mood of the country. The Supreme Court cancelled the first election and ordered a re-run.

Attitudes in the media also began to change, Gerashenko said. “Journalists started to come to us. One reporter refused to lie and stopped a live broadcast. Then we bought a satellite dish and got direct broadcasting links to Reuters, CNN and the BBC, channels we could never have imagined before.”

Yushchenko was then sworn in as president after winning the election re-run.

The session turned to Georgia, whose people have endured periods of civil war and widespread unrest. During the 11 years of Eduard Shevardnadze's leadership, poverty, corruption and crime gradually came to the fore. His presidency ended in November 2003 following mass demonstrations over alleged ballot rigging in parliamentary elections.

Malhaz Gulashvili, president of Georgian Times Media Holdings and leader of the ‘Georgia, Go Ahead!’ popular movement, said: “With us, everything happened differently, at least in principle. In November 2003, Georgian society was well prepared to justify everything that was taking place.

“There was manipulation of journalists. The NGOs were purposely playing a role in communication… of pro-government propaganda. But the opposition used mass media outlets, using resident psychologists, and gradually took over control of public opinion,” he said.

In 1987, before Perestroika, Gulashvili published an anti-government newspaper and headed an influential student movement. “I had difficulty publishing the newspaper. I had several threats from the Special Forces to exterminate me.

“The government later sent financial police to arrest me on any pretext and then imprison me. For me, it was so awful because from 1987 I was heavily involved in dissident activity,” he said.

Coming back to the present, he said: “Now some people fear death. Our people were expecting a lot of changes. Business people are very concerned about their capital.”

What influence, if any, did the US exert in both the Georgian and Ukrainian revolutions? Zeyno Baran, director of International Security and Energy Programs at the Nixon Center in the US, said: “The US was opposed to the revolution in Georgia.”

For many years the US had helped to build up civil society, to promote the role of NGOs and the free media in Georgia and other countries in the region, but Shevardnadze’s reforms were beginning to slow down amid growing corruption.

“What became clear was that the November 2003 elections were going to become a turning point,” she said. “There was a very strong sense in Washington, and I think among Georgian people, that if it’s not a good election… who knows where it will go?”

Using exit polls and direct reporting, the independent media were able to show that the elections were not free and fair, Baran said.

“When people stormed into parliament with roses in their hands, that was the end of it.”

The initial reporting of the revolutions in Georgia and the Ukraine came from international organisations like the BBC, CNN and Reuters but reflecting the Russian viewpoint, because most of the journalists were based in Moscow, she said.

“What was interesting to watch from Washington was how (Ukraine) state television turned. That was a clear indication for us that the game was over.”

A Russian delegate, speaking from the floor, said journalists should not be blamed for liking revolutions because they helped to sell newspapers. “They like revolutions as they like rail accidents or terror attacks, preferably with plenty of victims…”

But he praised the role of journalists for risking their lives, or at least their jobs and reputations, in reporting the revolutions as they happened.