To justify overthrow of a democratic government, you are correct that one has to prove that it is effectively no longer a democracy (not just a flawed democracy), and to a high degree of confidence. I'm afraid neither you nor the then-Ukrainian opposition has met that burden. The best evidence that that burden is met is by overwhelming popular consensus. That doesn't exist in Ukraine, as evidenced by the internal conflict. That is not to say that Ukraine was not a flawed democracy, or even that there was an overwhelming popular consensus that it was a flawed democracy. It absolutely was. But (1) believing the democracy is flawed and needs reform and (2) believing the democracy is flawed and should be overthrown are two different beliefs. It is the latter that must be justified here. Most democracies are flawed, and this is what makes your argument, cavalierly put forward, potentially quite dangerous. I do not want putative political minorities deciding for the whole country when a government is no longer legitimately democratic.
There's a number of issues, here. The first is that the popular consensus was, by late December, in favour of the Euromaidan movement. Of those who chose to express an opinion, 56% were in favour. [
1] The second is that you keep falling back on this phrase "putative political minority". You gave a definition of putative political minority earlier, which I've quoted here:
I said putative political minority, which it must be, because there were no elections declaring them a political majority.
So, your argument runs "a democracy can only be legitimately overthrown by a political majority. A political majority is not a true political majority unless it was declared so by an election, otherwise is is a putative political minority". The trouble with this is that if a group can meet the barrier you require to become a political majority, it has already won an election and thus presumably no longer needs a revolution. This runs entirely counter to your agreement that democracies should be able to be overthrown, if not in this specific circumstance.
I suggest this is because you realise you have no other way to legitimize your argument, because you have realized there is no way you can stick to your earlier argument while still having a definition that excludes the present situation. Let's look at a more reasonable definition of a political majority; a group of people sharing an opinion who comprise the majority of society, full stop. At that point, the Euromaidan does indeed have the necessary support to fulfil the conditions you yourself laid out earlier, and only avoided by twisting the meaning of the word 'putative' until it died a sickly death.
First, democratic governments are justified in using force against violent provocations. You (wrongly) assume that the government was facing only peaceful protest.
let me clarify your first statement. Democratic governments are justified in using
proportionate force against violent provocations; the concept they can use any response whatsoever is immediately apparent as abhorrent. To this, I have two responses. The first is that I dispute the democratic nature of the Yanukovych government. The second is that the force was in no manner proportionate. At the point you kidnap a genuinely peaceful protester and torture him to death (Yuriy Verbytsky), you are not being proportionate. At the point you use a Berkut sniper to kill a protester who was hiding behind barricades (Mikhail Zhiznevsky), you are not being proportionate. At the point you detonate the gas tank of someone driving to his home (Serhiy Synenko), you are not being proportionate. At no point in my argument did I state the government faced purely peaceful protests, so you do no favours by rebutting an argument I never even presented. However, even at the point there are number of violent protesters, innocent men and women have been killed. You have a high burden indeed if you seek to defend that.
This is not to say that there were no peaceful protests, nor even that the government did not use violence against peaceful protests, but you cannot so easily gloss over a democratic government's prerogative to maintain order in the face of threats of violence. Protesting to demand the resignation of an elected official is completely acceptable. Violent rebellion against a democratic government is not, at least in the absence of overwhelming popular consensus. The irony is that I doubt you are given much pause about the installed, unelected Ukrainian government using force against Ukrainians in the east. This is in fact far more difficult to justify than the Yanukovych government using force. Second, this is once again a dangerous argument. Most people do not want their lives upheaved by conflict, but you propose that a political minority can and should take it upon themselves to decide when a democratic government has crossed a line. To be sure, there are lines, but the best evidence that a line has been crossed will be overwhelming popular consensus. In the absence of such consensus, there will be conflict (which is what we have now).
I am very much concerned about the welfare of those in eastern Ukraine who desire closer ties with Russia; unfortunately much like Zuhzuhzombie!!, you have to assign false views to those you disagree with to stand any chance at making any even loose argument. My personal preference for the unfolding events is for United States, the constituent members of the European Union and other interested parties to push sever enough sanctions that Russia withdraws troops, then send in a United Nations task-force to oversee a fairly contested series of elections and referendums. Given that many European Union countries are not willing to put forward these sanctions, my secondary preference is that the interim Ukrainian administration, given a lack of a more legitimate (as we're on the comparative here) actor, secures the withdrawal of Russian troops necessary to make that elections and those referendums possible. Following that, I would note that the Yanukovych government was responsible for the deaths of over 110 people. Even the point that two-thirds or three-quarters of those were violent protesters who it was a legitimate response to
kill, a vast claim in and of itself, that leaves 30, 40 innocents killed. As it stands, the interim Ukrainian is responsible for a single death as far as pro-Moscow protesters are concerned, while attempting to retake Slovyansk, during the midst of exchanging fire with Russian (as in, not pro-Russian, literally
Russian) operatives. I know which I find a more tolerable record.
EDIT: As of earlier today, that number has increased to between five and twelve deaths pending unconfirmed reports about events in Slovyansk.
