OBSERVARE

Universidade Autónoma de Lisboa

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2

November 2025-April 2026

216

EVOLUTION OF THE POLITICAL REGIME IN UKRAINE: FROM INDEPENDENCE

TO THE PRESENT

OLEKSANDR SYCH

oleksandrsych@meta.ua

Full Doctor, Professor at the Department of Politology, Vasyl Stefanyk Precarpathian National

University, Ivano-Frankivsk (Ukraine).

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3697-7636

DMYTRO DZVINCHUK

dmytro_dzvinchuk@outlook.com

Full Doctor, Professor at the Department of Public Administration and Management, Ivano-

Frankivsk National Technical University of Oil and Gas, Ivano-Frankivsk (Ukraine).

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6391-3822

IHOR DEBENKO

i.debenko@ukr.net

PhD, Associate Professor at the Department of Journalism, Vasyl Stefanyk Precarpathian National

University, Ivano-Frankivsk (Ukraine).

https://orcid.org/0009-0000-2911-2952

BOHDAN HRYVNAK

bohdan-hryvnak@meta.ua

PhD, Associate Professor at the Department of Social Sciences, Ivano-Frankivsk National

Technical University of Oil and Gas, Ivano-Frankivsk (Ukraine).

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4593-3862

DARYNA SEKH

daryna_sekh@hotmail.com

Graduate Student at the Faculty of International Relations, Ivan Franko National University of

Lviv, Lviv (Ukraine).

https://orcid.org/0009-0006-2963-587X

Abstract

The establishment and evolution of Ukraine's political regime is a complex and dynamic

process shaped by socio-economic and political transformations. This study aims to analyze

the specific features of Ukraine's political regime in its contemporary context. Using methods

of analysis, synthesis, comparison, and formal and legal techniques, the study examines the

structure and functioning of Ukraine's political system, which involves various institutions such

as government bodies, political parties, public organizations, and the media. The findings

reveal that political decisions in Ukraine are largely influenced by democratic principles, which

guide the mechanisms of state power and allow citizens to influence political processes. The

paper also explores the role of symbolisation and mythologisation in shaping the political

regime, highlighting their negative impact on Ukraine's political development and institutional

effectiveness. These processes contribute to the distortion of political narratives and hinder

democratic consolidation. The study's findings are valuable for formulating political strategies

aimed at strengthening democratic practices and rebuilding Ukraine's political system.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2

November 2025-April 2026, pp. 216-230

Evolution of the Political Regime in Ukraine: from Independence to the present

Oleksandr Sych, Dmytro Dzvinchuk, Ihor Debenko, Bohdan Hryvnak, Daryna Sekh

217

Keywords

Democracy, state power, institution of presidential power, legitimacy, authoritarianism.

Resumo

O estabelecimento e a evolução do regime político da Ucrânia é um processo complexo e

dinâmico moldado por transformações socioeconômicas e políticas. Este estudo tem como

objetivo analisar as características específicas do regime político da Ucrânia em seu contexto

contemporâneo. Usando métodos de análise, síntese, comparação e técnicas formais e legais,

o estudo examina a estrutura e o funcionamento do sistema político da Ucrânia, que envolve

várias instituições como órgãos governamentais, partidos políticos, organizações públicas e

mídia. Os resultados revelam que as decisões políticas na Ucrânia são amplamente

influenciadas pelos princípios democráticos, que orientam os mecanismos do poder estatal e

permitem que os cidadãos influenciem os processos políticos. O artigo também explora o

papel da simbolização e mitologização na formação do regime político, destacando seu

impacto negativo no desenvolvimento político da Ucrânia e na eficácia institucional. Esses

processos contribuem para a distorção de narrativas políticas e dificultam a consolidação

democrática. As descobertas do estudo são valiosas para formular estratégias políticas

destinadas a fortalecer as práticas democráticas e a reconstrução do sistema político da

Ucrânia.

Palavras-chave

Democracia, poder estatal, instituição de poder presidencial, legitimidade, autoritarismo.

How to cite this article

Sych, Oleksandr, Dzvinchuk, Dmytro, Debenko, Ihor, Hryvnak, Bohdan & Sekh, Daryna (2025).

Evolution of the Political Regime in Ukraine: from Independence to the present. Janus.net, e-

journal of international relations. VOL. 16, Nº. 2, November 2025-April 2026, pp. 216-230. DOI

https://doi.org/10.26619/1647-7251.16.2.12

Article submitted on 21st January 2025 and accepted for publication on 17th September

2025.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2

November 2025-April 2026, pp. 216-230

Evolution of the Political Regime in Ukraine: from Independence to the present

Oleksandr Sych, Dmytro Dzvinchuk, Ihor Debenko, Bohdan Hryvnak, Daryna Sekh

218

EVOLUTION OF THE POLITICAL REGIME IN UKRAINE: FROM

INDEPENDENCE TO THE PRESENT

OLEKSANDR SYCH

DMYTRO DZVINCHUK

IHOR DEBENKO

BOHDAN HRYVNAK

DARYNA SEKH

Introduction

The establishment and development of a political regime is a pivotal and complex political

and legal phenomenon in the context of state development. It determines the nature of

state power, organizes the political system, and shapes the interaction between the state

and its citizens (Herrfahrdt-Pähle et al., 2020). A political regime can be understood as

a system of methods and tools for legitimating and exercising power by a particular type

of state (Saha & Sen, 2021). The political regime of a country can be democratic,

authoritarian, or a hybrid form of the two.

Democracy refers to a system where power is vested in the people, either directly or

through elected representatives. In democratic regimes, there is typically a guarantee of

political freedoms and human rights, competitive elections, and a separation of powers

(Buribayev et al., 2020; Gandhi et al., 2020). On the other hand, authoritarianism is

characterized by centralization of power, limited political pluralism, and often restricted

civil liberties. In an adversarial authoritarian regime, although the state maintains control

over key political structures, it allows some opposition or societal participation in a

controlled manner, without threatening the core authority of the ruling elite

(Gerschewski, 2013). These regimes often manipulate institutions to create the

appearance of political competition while maintaining real power within a select group.

The evolution of Ukraine’s political regime has been marked by attempts to shift from a

more authoritarian model toward democracy, but this process has been interrupted by

political and social divides. The socio-political dynamics in Ukraine, especially the East-

West divide, have influenced the political transformations in ways that complicate a

straightforward transition to democracy (Romanyuk, 2020).

In the context of post-Soviet Ukraine, the political regime has often been analyzed

through the lens of neo-patrimonialism and the clientelist state. Neo-patrimonialism

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2

November 2025-April 2026, pp. 216-230

Evolution of the Political Regime in Ukraine: from Independence to the present

Oleksandr Sych, Dmytro Dzvinchuk, Ihor Debenko, Bohdan Hryvnak, Daryna Sekh

219

refers to a system where political power is exercised through personal relationships and

patronage networks rather than formal institutions (Erdmann & Engel, 2007). This

system often fosters a clientelist state, where political elites use state resources to

maintain loyal supporters, who, in turn, provide the elites with political power.

Researchers have noted that Ukraine’s political regime has been deeply influenced by

these patronage systems, which have shaped both its political institutions and electoral

processes (Romanyuk, 2020; Zelenko et al., 2021). This system’s persistence has been

particularly evident in Ukraine’s political transitions, where reforms have often been more

symbolic than substantive, reflecting the personalistic nature of power rather than

institutional development.

In addition to neo-patrimonialism, other perspectives on Ukraine’s political regime

evolution have emerged. Hybrid regimes, combining elements of both democracy and

authoritarianism, have been discussed in relation to Ukraine’s political development since

independence. The political transformations of the 1990s and 2000s reflect attempts to

consolidate democracy while maintaining significant authoritarian tendencies. The

Maidan Revolutions of 2004 and 2014 catalyzed a significant shift in the political

trajectory, yet political elites continued to manipulate the system to maintain control,

leading to a sustained crisis in political development (Prymush & Yarosh, 2020).

Other scholars have explored democratic transition and authoritarian consolidation in

Ukraine, particularly through the framework of post-Soviet transformation. In this

context, democratic transition is often seen as a gradual process in which the state opens

up to democratic practices but faces resistance from entrenched elites and informal

networks (Shaigorodsky, 2021). However, the process is often interrupted by shifts

towards authoritarianism, which can result in the consolidation of power in the hands of

a few, as seen in the control of key political and economic sectors by oligarchs

(Berezovska-Chmil, 2020; Galchynskyi, 2020).

The political regime in Ukraine has been framed in various ways depending on the lens

used. For instance, institutional theory suggests that Ukraine’s political regime has been

shaped by the actions and decisions of its elites, who have sought to influence the political

system in their favor, often through institutional changes driven by presidential

transitions (Bjørnskov & Rode, 2020). Moreover, the role of elites in the formation of the

political regime is central to understanding how power has been exercised and contested.

Political elites in Ukraine have often oscillated between competing for control over state

institutions and monopolizing power within a narrow group, resulting in fragmented

democratic processes and repeated setbacks in the democratization efforts (Berezovska-

Chmil, 2020).

The evolution of Ukraine’s political regime has been marked by tension between

democratic aspirations and authoritarian practices, influenced by neo-patrimonial

networks, elite competition, and the impact of the Maidan revolutions. A deeper

exploration of neo-patrimonialism, clientelism, and hybrid regimes provides a clearer

understanding of how political and social dynamics have shaped Ukraine’s trajectory.

Furthermore, to grasp the full scope of this transformation, it is necessary to examine

the literature that frames democratic transition and authoritarian consolidation in post-

Soviet states, including Ukraine, to understand the underlying mechanisms of regime

change.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2

November 2025-April 2026, pp. 216-230

Evolution of the Political Regime in Ukraine: from Independence to the present

Oleksandr Sych, Dmytro Dzvinchuk, Ihor Debenko, Bohdan Hryvnak, Daryna Sekh

220

Constitutional Foundations of the Political Regime in Ukraine

The study of the transformation of the political regime in Ukraine provides for the need

to highlight the essence of this concept and its structural elements. This is important in

the context of conducting a comparative historical analysis of the category of “political

regime”, which should be understood as the way of distribution of power, the reasons for

its establishment and development in the public consciousness of the nation. Thus, the

establishment of this mechanism involves not only the extension of power to certain

types of public relations, but also the influence on the life of citizens. The structure of the

political regime consists of: methods of exercising state power; the degree of freedom of

a person and their rights; approaches to political decision-making; pluralism; in

particular, the presence or absence of legal (illegal) opposition; the configuration of the

party system; features of the ruling elite (Helms, 2023; Ketners et al., 2024).

An important step towards changing the political system of Ukraine was the adoption by

the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine (VRU) of the Declaration on State Sovereignty of Ukraine

(1990). The latter provided for the consolidation of the sovereignty of a developing state

in accordance with its borders and exercising the right to self-determination. The essence

of the constitutional principles consolidated in the Declaration was revealed in the

approval of the principle of separation of powers (legislative, executive, judicial) and

departure from the idea of democratic centralism. Subsequently, as a result of the

referendum held on 1 December 1991, the Resolution of the Verkhovna Rada of the

Ukrainian SSR No. 1427-XII “On Proclamation of Independence of Ukraine” (1991) was

signed, which affected the political status of the state. The title of Chapter 7 of the

Constitution (Basic Law) of Ukraine (1978) was changed from “Ukrainian SSR – a union

republic within the USSR” to “Ukraine – an independent state”. On 19 June 1991, the

Verkhovna Rada of the Ukrainian SSR adopted Resolution No. 1056-XII “On the Concept

of the new Constitution of Ukraine” (1991), which consolidated the relationship between

the citizen, the state, and society as the main object of constitutional regulation. On 28

June 1996, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine adopted and enacted the new Constitution of

Ukraine (1996), which established the priority of human values and democracy in

Ukraine.

In accordance with the principles of the political system of Ukraine provided for in this

regulatory document, its structure consists of three levels. The highest category includes

the principles and norms that have the highest legal force and characterise the

constitutional system of Ukraine. As for the general principles based on which the political

system as a whole is formed, they belong to the second level. It should be noted that it

in fact details the principles of the constitutional order. The third level consists of

approaches that regulate the status of a particular category of subjects of the political

system, and the algorithm for implementing various types of political activities (Sych,

2020).

It is worth noting that among the set of principles that determine the political system of

Ukraine, it is popular sovereignty that is fundamental. This is conditioned by the fact that

it consolidates the source of power and the “coordinate system” in the political sphere.

Accordingly, the only source of power and bearer of sovereignty in Ukraine is the people,

who exercise power through state and local government bodies. As for the principle of

the highest social value of a person, it characterises the axiological orientation of the

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2

November 2025-April 2026, pp. 216-230

Evolution of the Political Regime in Ukraine: from Independence to the present

Oleksandr Sych, Dmytro Dzvinchuk, Ihor Debenko, Bohdan Hryvnak, Daryna Sekh

221

political system and regime in Ukraine. The Constitution of Ukraine (1996) establishes

the principle of republicanism, according to which the establishment of the highest state

authorities occurs either directly by the people or by representative bodies.

Defining for all elements of the political system is the principle of democracy, the essence

of which is the democracy of political consciousness and regime. In close connection with

this principle is the principle of transparency, which determines the implementation of

unhindered dissemination of information flows in the context of the political and legal

system (Apakhayev et al., 2017; Ongan et al., 2025). In addition to the above principles,

the principles on the basis of which the establishment and development of the political

regime in Ukraine takes place include: Unitarianism, social and legal state, separation of

powers, legality, legal equality, the rule of law, and the guarantee of local self-

government. Analysing their essence, it should be noted that Ukraine is developing a

democratic political system, which is based on pluralism.

As for the second level of the foundations of the political system of Ukraine, they cover

secularism, dynamism, and the role autonomy of the subjects of this system. Thus, they

are characterised by a constitutional and legal nature, while detailing the content of the

constitutional foundations of the political system. Examples of the third level of principles

include: the multi-ethnic nature of the Ukrainian people, subsidiarity, and the ubiquity of

local self-government or community groups. Their essence consists in expressing the

specifics of various spheres of political life of citizens, asserting the status of specific

subjects of the political system. The combination of the above principles reveals the main

vectors of the establishment of a political regime in modern Ukraine, which involve

consideration of the specific characteristics of the political system.

Structure and Transformation of the Political System of Ukraine

The system of structural elements of the political system of Ukraine includes: the

institution of presidential power, the parliament, and the government. The first one

should be understood as a specially created system of higher power, which is aimed at

implementing sovereignty and ensuring the independence of the country through the

effective functioning of various state authorities. The legitimisation of the institution of

the presidency through a referendum or free elections indicates its constitutional

consolidation as a mechanism of representative form of public power of the people

(Galymzhan et al., 2020). An analysis of its historical development shows that the

president is characterised by four main functions, namely guaranteeing and protecting,

coordinating, constitutive, and representative. This is explained by the fact that the

president acts as a guarantor of the Constitution of Ukraine, its sovereignty, and also

contributes to ensuring human and civil rights and freedoms. The president coordinates

the activities of public authorities so that they are characterised by high efficiency and

prevent a political crisis. During the implementation of the constitutive function, the

president defines and implements the main vectors of Ukraine’s domestic and foreign

policy. As for the representative function in the activities of the president, it is reflected

in the international arena and in the organisation of public power based on the institution

of civil society. The constitutional status of the president is developing, and therefore,

there are positions in the scientific doctrine regarding the expediency of transferring

certain powers to specialised bodies. For example, I.B. Debenko (2011) suggests that it

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2

November 2025-April 2026, pp. 216-230

Evolution of the Political Regime in Ukraine: from Independence to the present

Oleksandr Sych, Dmytro Dzvinchuk, Ihor Debenko, Bohdan Hryvnak, Daryna Sekh

222

is necessary to introduce changes to the status of the president, namely, to give him the

opportunity to be a participant in the legislative process and to have his own rule-making

powers. Based on this, the researcher’s opinion provides for the establishment of

presidential control over the rule-making activities of state authorities. The approach

proposed by the researcher allows considering the special role of the president in the

context of protecting and implementing constitutional legality. Thus, what is common

between the conclusions in these papers is that the legal status and functions of the

president of Ukraine in the field under study are clearly defined by law, and therefore,

can be expanded in the context of the establishment of new specialised institutions.

In general, the institution of presidential power is one of the most important links in the

context of the functioning of the political system of Ukraine. This is consolidated in the

provisions of the Constitution of Ukraine (1996), according to which it is the president

who is endowed with the status of head of state. The president’s powers cover a wide

range of issues, in particular, decision-making on national security, implementation of

foreign and national policy, and higher personnel issues. This list is not exhaustive, since

the activities of the institution of presidential power are systematic and cover, among

other things, the right to initiate legislative initiatives or impose a veto (Romanyuk,

2020).

An equally important role in the development of a civil and democratic society is played

by the institution of the parliament, local self-government bodies, the ombudsman,

elections, and referendums (Ketners, 2025). It is worth noting that parliamentarism is

characteristic of various stages of the historical development of Ukraine. For example,

the power that the Grand Prince of Kyiv possessed was limited, since it was implemented

in cooperation with the consent of the prince’s armed forces. As for the period of the

country’s independence, it is worth noting that the new stage was started in 1990. This

is conditioned by the fact that for the first time, the elections to the Verkhovna Rada of

the Ukrainian SSR were implemented considering the principles of pluralism, since parties

opposed to the Communist Party (which were grouped under the name People’s Council)

took part in them. Subsequently, the activities of the Verkhovna Rada of the Ukrainian

SSR became permanent, which were governed by the norms of the temporary

regulations. Thus, the Verkhovna Rada of the Ukrainian SSR was reformed into a

parliamentary-type institution even before Ukraine’s independence. After the adoption of

the Constitution of Ukraine (1996), the Parliament of Ukraine was defined as the main

legislative body, whose activities were aimed at passing laws, approving the budget, and

implementing monitoring of government activities. In modern Ukraine, the Verkhovna

Rada has the status of a single-chamber authority and, accordingly, consists of 450

people’s deputies. The activity of the Parliament of Ukraine has many vectors, but its

ultimate goal is to ensure and develop a democratic system of government. Thus, it

promotes the realisation of the voice and interests of the people in decision-making,

control over the government and authorities, and coordinates the actions of the

authorities with constitutional principles.

As for the subjects of power, they also have specifics, since they are characterised by

their own regulatory framework, purpose, functions, and procedure for making decisions.

Accordingly, the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine is obliged to adhere in the course of its

activities to the general principles of legal regulation, namely: the rule of law, good

governance, division of state power, continuity, and collegiality. At the same time, its

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2

November 2025-April 2026, pp. 216-230

Evolution of the Political Regime in Ukraine: from Independence to the present

Oleksandr Sych, Dmytro Dzvinchuk, Ihor Debenko, Bohdan Hryvnak, Daryna Sekh

223

tasks are clearly defined in the Law of Ukraine No. 794-VII “On the Cabinet of Ministers

of Ukraine” (2014), which ensures the constitutional rights and freedoms of citizens. In

this case, the legal status of the government is formed from competence, which includes:

powers, subject matter, and functions. The Cabinet of Ministers belongs to the category

of subjects of general competence, as it coordinates the work of other central executive

bodies, including ministries. It is important to ensure compliance with laws, the

Constitution, and human and civil rights in the course of its activities. Its competence

covers a number of public relations, including: economic, labour, socio-economic, legal,

and others related to the activities of the state.

Thus, the political system of Ukraine consists of elements whose activities complement

each other. This shows that all its links play an important role in the context of the

establishment of a political regime and, accordingly, should be developed at a high level.

The holistic development of political institutions is aimed at consolidating the democratic

foundations and principles on the basis of which public life is ensured. The analysis of

each of the elements allows us to characterise the political regime in Ukraine, which is

based on the ideas of democracy, pluralism, protection of human and civil rights and

freedoms. Based on the above analysis, it is advisable to consider the activities of these

elements in the process of forming a political regime in different periods of Ukraine’s

development (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Stages of development of political regime in Ukraine

Source: compiled by the authors.

The period 1991-1994 was characterised by general institutional weakness and low

legitimacy of the authorities. This was influenced by several factors, namely: the

unwillingness of political actors to structure their activities; the lack of democratic

experience in solving political problems; parties were not the main political actors. Based

on this, the specifics of this period were the rapid loss of legitimacy by the institutions of

power. The lack of institutionalisation during this period was especially evident in the

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2

November 2025-April 2026, pp. 216-230

Evolution of the Political Regime in Ukraine: from Independence to the present

Oleksandr Sych, Dmytro Dzvinchuk, Ihor Debenko, Bohdan Hryvnak, Daryna Sekh

224

absence of effective checks on power, with the executive branch largely left

unchallenged. This initial phase was largely shaped by the legacy of the Soviet system

and the newly independent state's struggles to establish stable governance

(Yanyshivskyi, 2025).

The 1994-1998 period saw a shift toward increased political influence of the president

and a fragmented Verkhovna Rada following the 1994 parliamentary elections. This era,

under President Leonid Kuchma, witnessed the adoption of the 1996 Constitution, which

granted the president sweeping powers, including in administrative, legislative, and

personnel matters. These powers transformed the president into a hegemonic figure,

capable of independently steering the political direction of the state. The privatization

process (1998-2000) further consolidated the influence of political and business elites,

contributing to the rise of an oligarchic-bureaucratic system (Tsurkan-Saifulina &

Popelnytska, 2023). The transition was marked by the increasing centralization of power,

where business moguls began to shape the political sphere through control over media

outlets and political parties (Ilychok et al., 2024).

The presidency of Viktor Yushchenko (2005-2010) introduced a shift toward a

parliamentary-presidential republic, reinforcing the principles of electoral democracy.

However, the political landscape remained unstable due to the fragmented nature of the

Ukrainian political elite and a lack of cohesion in the legislature. The Orange Revolution

of 2004 marked a pivotal moment, leading to the consolidation of democratic

mechanisms but not the natural evolution of democracy. Yushchenko’s failure to establish

control over the country’s political apparatus resulted in significant instability, and the

Party of Regions, led by Viktor Yanukovych, rose to power in 2006. This shift marked the

onset of adversarial authoritarianism, where key political decisions were influenced by

competing elites. By 2012, following electoral victories, the regime had shifted to a form

of consolidated authoritarianism under Yanukovych (Semenenko et al., 2024).

The 2014-2016 period was transformative, catalyzed by the Euromaidan protests and

the ousting of Yanukovych. This led to a semi-competitive authoritarian regime, often

termed “soft” presidential-oligarchic authoritarianism. The consolidation of power in the

hands of President Petro Poroshenko was coupled with the formation of patronage

networks involving the President, Prime Minister, and the People’s Front party. This

regime was marked by informal power consolidation, soft repressions, and pressure on

opposition forces. Reforms in the police, army, and decentralisation during this period

signalled attempts at democratic consolidation, but they were hindered by the

persistence of oligarchic control over the state (Semenenko et al., 2021).

After the presidential elections in 2019, the institutions of political and ideological

pluralism were restored in Ukraine. In modern Ukrainian society, the freedom of

ideological positions of citizens, including in relation to political activities, is being

consolidated and ensured. The current vector of political development of Ukraine is aimed

at achieving a consolidated democracy. For this purpose, Ukraine is implementing

political reforms, dynamically developing mechanism for cooperation with the European

Union, and opening up prospects for participation in regional projects envisaged by the

modernised Three Seas concept (Sekh, 2023). On the Europeanization axis, Ukraine has

increasingly aligned its policies with EU standards, particularly after the Association

Agreement between the European Union and Ukraine (2014), which fostered reforms in

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2

November 2025-April 2026, pp. 216-230

Evolution of the Political Regime in Ukraine: from Independence to the present

Oleksandr Sych, Dmytro Dzvinchuk, Ihor Debenko, Bohdan Hryvnak, Daryna Sekh

225

areas such as trade, energy, and decentralization. These reforms demonstrate Ukraine’s

commitment to EU integration. However, progress is slowed by internal political

fragmentation, resistance to certain reforms, and external geopolitical pressures,

particularly from Russia. While Ukraine has made steady advancements in adopting EU

norms, its efforts to fully integrate with EU governance and legal frameworks remain

inconsistent, especially in the areas of rule of law and governance reforms.

Symbolisation and Mythologisation of the Political System in Ukraine

After Ukraine declared its independence, the country set out on a path of democratic

development, which was marked by shifts in spiritual and cultural values. These reforms

aimed to improve the public’s well-being, but they also led to contradictions in public

consciousness, often reflecting deep social fragmentation. As S.F. Moore and B.G.

Myerhoff (2020) noted, such transitions in state values and ideals make it difficult to

consolidate a unified public consciousness, particularly when outdated political norms

persist. This duality is a critical challenge in post-Soviet states, where political

socialization can be manipulated to shape public opinion. In Ukraine, this challenge was

compounded by the rise of oligarchic control over mainstream media, preventing the

intellectuals and media from becoming effective change agents (Cassani & Tomini, 2020;

Aleman et al., 2021). Instead of providing a unifying force, these sectors became tools

for legitimizing the status quo.

Symbolisation in Ukraine’s political context refers to the use of images and symbols that

replace real aspects of political life. These symbols often carry only a conditional

resemblance to the issues they represent, yet, they are perceived by the public as

authentic. As S. Hellmeier and M. Bernhard (2023) explain, political actors in Ukraine

have utilized symbolisation to construct certain political narratives, which helped them

maintain power by appealing to the emotional and psychological aspects of citizens.

Symbolisation is particularly powerful in the post-Soviet context, where it substitutes real

political realities with idealized images of the state. For example, the political imagery

surrounding Ukraine's independence in 1991, as well as the symbolic use of the

“Euromaidan” protests in 2014, were used by political elites to establish legitimacy and

foster national unity, despite the underlying fragmentation and instability (Drescher,

2020). This approach, while potentially strengthening political authority, also creates

opportunities for manipulation, as symbols can obscure the real challenges facing the

population.

Symbolisation in Ukraine is not a temporary phenomenon but has been embedded in the

political culture since independence. It continues to shape political legitimacy through a

substitution of political reality. For example, political actors have used symbols like the

“national hero” or “enemy” to justify actions, whether by framing protests as acts of

patriotism or labelling political opposition as traitorous (Lai, 2020). Symbolisation

increases symbolic capital, which can foster political loyalty, but it can also alienate

citizens when the symbols lose their connection to real-world issues.

Connected to symbolisation is mythologisation, the process of creating political myths

that simplify complex realities for public consumption. M. Feischmidt (2020) argues that

political myths are constructed through language and discourse, transforming ordinary

political actions into narratives that resonate with the masses. Political actors use myths

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2

November 2025-April 2026, pp. 216-230

Evolution of the Political Regime in Ukraine: from Independence to the present

Oleksandr Sych, Dmytro Dzvinchuk, Ihor Debenko, Bohdan Hryvnak, Daryna Sekh

226

to shape perceptions, often by creating simplified dichotomies – such as the “good vs.

evil” narrative in political discourse.

In Ukraine, mythologisation has been a strategic tool for political actors to improve the

public’s perception of the regime. Political figures have constructed myths around events

like the Maidan revolutions, portraying them as a fight for freedom and democracy, while

often overlooking the broader political and social challenges. E. Arbatli and D. Rosenberg

(2021) note that political mythologies help to shift the public’s focus away from deeper

political issues by emphasizing symbolic victories, such as national identity or territorial

integrity, while ignoring critical problems like corruption or governance failures.

Mythologisation, as M. Saud et al. (2020) point out, not only shapes collective memory

but also individual behavior, influencing how citizens engage with the political system. It

constructs a distorted political reality where certain actors are either elevated as heroes

or demonized as enemies of the state, diverting attention from more pressing issues.

This process has contributed to the deformation of political discourse, where the true

nature of political struggles is masked by mythological narratives that obscure the real

political dynamics.

The combined forces of symbolisation and mythologisation in Ukraine have both positive

and negative consequences. On the one hand, they have helped solidify political

legitimacy by appealing to the national sentiment, especially during times of crisis like

the annexation of Crimea or the war with Russia. However, they have also created a

polarized political environment in which symbolic victories overshadow substantive

reforms. The influence of these processes on the population’s political consciousness can

sometimes result in passivity, as citizens are drawn into mythological narratives rather

than engaging critically with the political system (Dzvinchuk et al., 2018). As I. Stihi

(2022) observes, political actors can use these tools to reshape public opinion, not only

to defend their positions but also to redistribute power resources. The manipulation of

public discourse through myth and symbolism is particularly dangerous in unstable

political conditions like Ukraine's, where political struggles often escalate into

manipulative battles for control over public consciousness.

The processes of symbolisation and mythologisation have played crucial roles in shaping

Ukraine's political regime from 1991 to the present. These mechanisms allow political

actors to construct political realities that justify their actions, while simultaneously

diverting attention from deeper issues. The study of these processes is essential for

understanding how political regimes can evolve through symbolic manipulation, often at

the cost of genuine democratic progress. As Ukraine continues to face political instability

and external threats, the role of symbolic politics will remain central to both maintaining

power and shaping national identity.

Conclusions

The political regime in Ukraine has undergone significant transformation since

independence, with a dominant shift towards democratic development. However, ongoing

socio-political and economic challenges require continuous efforts to consolidate

democratic values and ensure transparency. The study shows that Ukraine's political

trajectory is characterized by alternating phases of democratization and authoritarian

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2

November 2025-April 2026, pp. 216-230

Evolution of the Political Regime in Ukraine: from Independence to the present

Oleksandr Sych, Dmytro Dzvinchuk, Ihor Debenko, Bohdan Hryvnak, Daryna Sekh

227

regression. From the early 1990s to 2004, a struggle between power centers defined the

period as competitive authoritarianism. The Orange Revolution of 2004 marked a

breakthrough towards electoral democracy, which was balanced by political forces rather

than individual strategies. However, 2010-2012 saw an authoritarian rollback under

Yanukovych, which was overturned by the Revolution of Dignity, reinvigorating

democratization efforts.

The political regime evolved further between 2016-2019, shifting from electoral

democracy to competitive authoritarianism again. By 2019, democratic development

resumed, alongside mechanisms to protect citizens' rights and freedoms. The study

highlights the role of symbolisation and mythologisation in Ukraine’s political system,

where political elites use these tools to gain power and reform the state. Symbolisation,

through imagery and ideas, substitutes the real actions of political actors, creating a

distorted narrative. The study advocates for a moral political policy that considers

citizens' views and adheres to national traditions, contributing to a more open civil

society. Future research should focus on minimizing the negative effects of manipulative

symbolisation in politics.

In terms of legal reform, the study recommends changes to the Constitution of Ukraine

to define the president's role more clearly, particularly in guaranteeing state sovereignty

and coordinating national actions. It also suggests establishing a Commissioner for the

Rights of Servicemen to protect military personnel's rights, given the ongoing war. This

new position would be appointed by the president and endowed with control and

investigative powers, ensuring greater protection for Ukraine’s armed forces.

References

Aleman, J. A., Lee, D. W., & Woods, D. (2021). Exceptional politics: Why regimes declare

states of emergency. Retrieved from https://www.v-

dem.net/media/publications/uwp_42_final_1.pdf

Apakhayev, N., Koishybaiuly, K., Khudaiberdina, G., Urisbayeva, A., Khamzina, Z. A., &

Buribayev, Y. A. (2017). Legal basis for ensuring freedom of access to information on the

operation of state administration bodies in Kazakhstan. Journal of Advanced Research in

Law and Economics, 8(3), 722-729. https://doi.org/10.14505/jarle.v8.3(25).04

Arbatli, E., & Rosenberg, D. (2021). United we stand, divided we rule: How political

polarisation erodes democracy. Democratization, 28(2), 285-307.

Association Agreement between the European Union and Ukraine. (2014). Government

Portal. Retrieved from https://www.kmu.gov.ua/en/yevropejska-integraciya/ugoda-pro-

asociacyu

Berezovska-Chmil, O. (2020). Neo-totalitarian trends in the modern world: Challenges

for Ukraine. In Materials of the All-Ukrainian Scientific-Practical Conference with

International Participation “Totalitarianism as a System of Destruction of National

Memory” (pp. 496-499). Lviv National Medical University named after Danylo Halytskyi.

Bjørnskov, C., & Rode, M. (2020). Regime types and regime change: A new dataset on

democracy, coups, and political institutions. The Review of International Organizations,

15, 531-551.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2

November 2025-April 2026, pp. 216-230

Evolution of the Political Regime in Ukraine: from Independence to the present

Oleksandr Sych, Dmytro Dzvinchuk, Ihor Debenko, Bohdan Hryvnak, Daryna Sekh

228

Buribayev, Y., Khamzina, Z., Belkhozhayeva, D., Meirbekova, G., Kadirkulova, G., &

Bogatyreva, L. (2020). Human dignity - The basis of human rights to social protection.

Wisdom, 16(3), 143-155. https://doi.org/10.24234/WISDOM.V16I3.404

Cassani, A., & Tomini, L. (2020). Reversing regimes and concepts: from democratization

to autocratization. European Political Science, 19, 272-287.

Constitution (Basic Law) of Ukraine. (1978). Retrieved from

https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/888-09#Text

Constitution of Ukraine. (1996). Retrieved from

https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/254к/96-вр#Text

Debenko, I. B. (2011). Symbolization as the problem of the pseudo moral politics

(Ukrainian context). Gilea, 48(6), 582-591.

Declaration on State Sovereignty of Ukraine. (1990). Retrieved from

https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/55-12#Text

Drescher, S. (2020). Political symbolism in modern Europe: Essays in honour of George

L. Mosse. Routledge.

Dzvinchuk, D., Zahrai, L., & Kononenko, V. (2018). Ukrainian priority: Nation, society,

culture. Vasyl Stefanyk Precarpathian National University.

Erdmann, G., & Engel, U. (2007). Neopatrimonialism revisited: Beyond a catch-all

concept. GIGA Working Paper No 16, 1-39. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.909183

Feischmidt, M. (2020). Memory-politics and neonationalism: Trianon as mythomoteur.

Nationalities Papers, 48(1), 130-143.

Galchynskyi, L. (2020). Estimation of the price elasticity of petroleum products’

consumption in Ukraine. Equilibrium Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic Policy,

15(2), 315-339. https://doi.org/10.24136/eq.2020.015

Galymzhan, B., Kanatbek, A., Akylbek, I., Akmaral, S., Yernazar, B., Akzada, M.,

Zhannat, T., & Indira, B. (2020). Constitutional rights of the president in determining the

economic development strategy for the period of his office (based on the experience of

Central Asian countries). Journal of Legal, Ethical and Regulatory Issues, 23(6), 1-12.

Gandhi, J., Noble, B., & Svolik, M. (2020). Legislatures and legislative politics without

democracy. Comparative Political Studies, 53(9), 1359-1379.

Gerschewski, J. (2013). The three pillars of stability: Legitimation, repression, and co-

optation in autocratic regimes. Democratization, 20(1), 13-38.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2013.738860

Hellmeier, S., & Bernhard, M. (2023). Regime transformation from below: Mobilization

for democracy and autocracy from 1900 to 2021. Comparative Political Studies, 12(56),

1858-1890.

Helms, L. (2022). Political oppositions in democratic and authoritarian regimes: A state-

of-the-field(s) review. Government and Opposition, 58(2), 391-414.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2

November 2025-April 2026, pp. 216-230

Evolution of the Political Regime in Ukraine: from Independence to the present

Oleksandr Sych, Dmytro Dzvinchuk, Ihor Debenko, Bohdan Hryvnak, Daryna Sekh

229

Herrfahrdt-Pähle, E., Schlüter, M., Olsson, P., Folke, C., Gelcich, S., & Pahl-Wostl, C.

(2020). Sustainability transformations: Socio-political shocks as opportunities for

governance transitions. Global Environmental Change, 63, 102097.

Ilychok, B., Novakivskyi, I., Marmulyak, A., Shkolyk, T., Chernyshev, A., & Tsyrkin, A.

(2024). The effectiveness of public governance of Ukraine’s budget security: Current

state and trends. Democratic Governance, 17(2), 30-45.

https://doi.org/10.56318/dg/2.2024.30

Ketners, K. (2025). Adaptation of state security to modern military operations and

terrorist risks in the world. Space and Culture India, 13(1), 1-5.

https://doi.org/10.20896/e3p2jm77

Ketners, K., Jarockis, A., & Petersone, M. (2024). State budget system improvement for

informed decision-making in Latvia. Scientific Bulletin of Mukachevo State University.

Series Economics, 11(3), 86-99. https://doi.org/10.52566/msu-econ3.2024.86

Lai, T. H. (2020). Political vandalism as counter‐speech: A defense of defacing and

destroying tainted monuments. European Journal of Philosophy, 28(3), 602-616.

Law of Ukraine No. 794-VII “On the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine”. (2014). Retrieved

from https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/794-18#Text

Moore, S. F., & Myerhoff, B. G. (2020). Symbol and politics in communal ideology: Cases

and questions. Cornell University Press.

Ongan, S., Gocer, I., & Işık, C. (2025). Introducing the New ESG-Based Sustainability

Uncertainty Index (ESGUI). Sustainable Development, 33(3), 4457–4467.

https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.3351

Prymush, M. V., & Yarosh, Ya. B. (2020). Political discourse on functioning of political

parties in Ukraine. Bulletin of the Donetsk National University named after Vasyl Stus, 5,

22-28.

Resolution of the Verkhovna Rada of the Ukrainian SSR No. 1056-XII “On the Concept of

the new Constitution of Ukraine”. (1991). Retrieved from

https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/1056-12#Text

Resolution of the Verkhovna Rada of the Ukrainian SSR No. 1427-XII “On Proclamation

of Independence of Ukraine”. (1991). Retrieved from

https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/1427-12#Text

Romanyuk, O. I. (2020). Transformation of the political regime in Ukraine after the 2019

presidential and parliamentary elections. Modern Society: Political Sciences, Sociological

Sciences, Cultural Sciences, 2(19), 147-160.

Saha, S., & Sen, K. (2021). The corruption-growth relationship: Does the political regime

matter? Journal of Institutional Economics, 17(2), 243-266.

Saud, M., Ida, R., & Mashud, M. I. (2020). Democratic practices and youth in political

participation. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 25(1), 800-808.

Sekh, D. A. (2023). The Three Seas concept and Ukraine’s national interests. In Collection

of Scientific Papers “Nationalism Studies” (pp. 49-56). Lileia-NV.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2

November 2025-April 2026, pp. 216-230

Evolution of the Political Regime in Ukraine: from Independence to the present

Oleksandr Sych, Dmytro Dzvinchuk, Ihor Debenko, Bohdan Hryvnak, Daryna Sekh

230

Semenenko, O., Onofriichuk, V., Tolok, P., Rieznik, V., & Momot, D. (2024). Analysis of

Ukraine’s external military-economic relations during the war with Russia. Scientific

Bulletin of Mukachevo State University. Series “Economics”, 11(1), 71-82.

https://doi.org/10.52566/msu-econ1.2024.71

Semenenko, O., Solomitsky, A., Onofriichuk, P., Chernyshova, I., Skurinevska, L., &

Pekuliak, R. (2021). Methodical approach to assessing level of the state energy security

and its influence on the national security and economy of the country. Scientific Horizons,

24(4), 90-96. https://doi.org/10.48077/scihor.24(4).2021.90-96

Shaigorodskyi, Y. Z. (2021). Political culture as a factor in the development of a

democratic political regime in Ukraine. In Changes in Political Regimes and Prospects for

Strengthening Democracy in Ukraine (pp. 304-351). Kuras Institute of Political and Ethnic

Studies of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine.

Stihi, I. (2022). Mythologizing the political gesture, a vector of myth perpetuation in

contemporary society. The dance of reality and Alejandro Jodorowsky. Concept, 24(1),

22-30.

Sych, O. M. (2020). Modern Ukrainian nationalism: Political science aspects of paradigm

transformation. Institute of Political and Ethnonational Studies named after I.F. Kuras.

Tsurkan-Saifulina, Y. V., & Popelnytska, Y. D. (2023). Discrimination and rights violations

of minorities in Ukraine: Evaluating ethno-national policies for reform. Pakistan Journal

of Criminology, 15(4), 29-47.

Yanyshivskyi, T (2025). Strategies for combating separatism implemented in post-

communist countries: Lessons for Ukraine. Democratic Governance, 18(1), 64-76.

https://doi.org/10.56318/dg/1.2025.64

Zelenko, G. I., Bevs, T. A., Brekharya, S. G., Karmazina, M. S., Kovalevskyi, V. O.,

Kondratenko, O. Yu., & Shaigorodskyi, Yu. Zh. (2021). Changes in political regimes and

prospects for strengthening democracy in Ukraine. Kuras Institute of Political and Ethnic

Studies of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukrain