Understanding campaign “axiotechniques”: Their nature and practical usage in Ukrainian elections

Abstract

This article seeks to shed more light on Ukraine’s parliamentary elections by considering campaign tools that were derived from values in the electorate and used in elections between 2006 and 2012. The influence of political values on the electoral process was pointed out by American political scientists in the mid-20th century. My research demonstrates, however, that the political choices of Ukrainians in the 2006–2012 elections gave rise to campaign techniques that were not based on “classic” political values like freedom, human rights and democracy. Instead, their source was national identity-related values including the importance of a common history, culture and language along with religious and geopolitical preferences. These values differed between the western and central regions of Ukraine on the one hand and the southern and eastern parts of the state on the other. This regional polarisation did not seem very dangerous, however, until the emergence of election campaigns based on political ideology. As ideology gradually lost its mobilising potential, there was a need for an effective new system of political influence. Manipulative techniques were deployed to incite artificial clashes between citizens with different political identities. This article analyses specific uses of these techniques and uncovers links between their application and the destruction of the electoral space in Ukraine as well as the division of the country’s real political arena.

When Hedging Goes Wrong: Lessons from Ukraine’s Failed Hedge of the EU and Russia

“…The multi‐vector foundation of the strategic culture Yanukovych inherited was undoubtedly an important initial factor in explaining, in part, why Yanukovych pursued a more ambitious hedging strategy during his term as president. However, Yanukovych’s personality, that is, the main source of his leader images, was also an important factor, especially his uncompromising ‘bulldozer’ style (Kutsenko, 2018). Motyl (2010) argues that when he ascended to the presidency in 2010, Yanukovych’s personality traits led him to create a ‘hyper‐centralised and personalistic – or “sultanistic” – regime’ and probably, the onset of some form of megalomania.…”