Abstract
The paper considers the EuroMaidan in 2013/14 as a misinterpreted revolution misjudged by the triggered consequences. Using the theoretical framework of a 'non-violent protest' of the 'powerless' as suggested by Jonathan Schell, I explicate the Ukrainian uprising as a short-time affirmation of popular power that embodies a peculiar type of democracy, namely 'civil democracy' or 'radical democracy'.
It is stressed that upon the historical closure of the event, the policy-makers worldwide framed it according to their agenda thus depriving the people of their political agency and the event itself of its authenticity. Herewith the protesters lose not only any leverage in their country's governance, but also the monopoly for interpreting the events they enabled and engendered.
Some legacy of the 1989 can be traced here in a twofold manner. The velvet revolutions in East-Central Europe also stood as declarations of 'radical democracy', which was commonly disregarded as well.
The main trope for assessing the meaning of the 1989 has been the 'end of history' claim by Francis Fukuyama, treating the former as a sign of the ultimate victory of the US and of the liberal democracy model. The paper aims to prove that the model of 'civil democracy', as it emerged in 1980s in East-Central Europe, presupposes a bigger role of civil society (the power of people) while restraining the state and the market rationality.
It has important implications both for the democratic practice and the democratic imaginary nowadays.