In November 2004, the regime-controlled media claimed victory for Viktor Yanukovych, who had been chosen by a corrupt president at the time. Even though the exit polls indicated Viktor Yushchenko as the winner of the elections, it was clear to the public that electoral fraud had been committed. This was just the beginning of the Orange Revolution in Ukraine that put the country's political future at stake. Furthermore, most experts would agree that the 2004 presidential election was "the dirtiest election held since the proclamation of Ukraine's independence in 1991." Although the Central Election Commission (CEC) declared Yanukovych the winner, Yushchenko objected and called on his supporters to meet at the Maidan. The corrupt regime feared a bloodthirsty mob, but instead it turned into a peaceful protest with "people from different backgrounds who had risked their safety to defend simple ideals of decency and fairness easily understood around the world." Successfully overturning the rigged election, the CEC eventually called for another election to be held which resulted in Yushchenko being the clear winner and being sworn in as president in early 2005. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay This case study will analyze the Orange Revolution in Ukraine through the theoretical framework of the theory of revolution. Therefore, it will focus on the consequences of the revolution itself and how this coincides with the academic literature based on the theory of revolution. Using the theory of revolution as a framework for analysis, I will be able to fully understand the post-revolutionary state of Ukraine by also examining the fundamental principles of revolutions proposed by academic scholars such as Sidney Tarrow. Comparing the case study to key notions of revolution will allow me to establish a pattern of revolutionary similarities while examining what differentiates them from each other. Furthermore, to examine and understand what the Orange Revolution was all about, it would be important to define what a revolution is. According to Charles Tilly, the definition of revolution is “a forcible transfer of power over a state, in the course of which at least two distinct blocs of contending parties advance incompatible claims to control the state and a significant portion of the population, subject to state jurisdiction, acquiesces to the claims of each block". In other words, radical change requires the overthrow of an old regime and replacing it with a new one. This would normally involve a conflict between two competing forces within a country. When examining the theory of revolution, it is important to consider how it originally relates to the Aristotelian notion of a weak basic cultural value system making a society vulnerable to a weak basic cultural value system. revolution. Any radical amendment to core values ​​or beliefs within a community sets the stage for revolutionary upheaval. Furthermore, Anievas argues how revolutions have been vital to the structure and dynamics of international relations and "begins to understand the interconnections between revolutions and international relations as emerging organically from a unified process of world-historical development." Furthermore, Tarrow identified four stages in which the success of a social movement such as the Orange Revolution. The first dimension is having a political opportunity structure which in this case would be corruptionand the election fraud committed by both Kuchma and Yanukovych. The second dimension focuses more on how to adapt to different political opportunities by using “repertoires of contention as a strategy and tactic to produce political change.” The third and fourth dimensions focus more on the mobilization of structures and framing. Mobilization structures are made up of institutions or organizations that give the movement a platform to bring about change, and political framing involves observing how the movement communicates its goals to the broader population. Although social movement theory is not sufficient to explain the post-revolutionary situation in Ukraine, it highlights the conditions that lead to the moment of political change within the country. It also fits well with the fundamental principles of revolutions which, as Tilly stated, is "a forced transfer of power over the state..." which is what has been achieved here. In this regard, Michael Kimmel focuses more on the aspect of whether the revolution itself produces a society with more equality, justice or freedom than the previous regime. In this case, it would be fair to say that Yushchenko managed to achieve this by rallying the public at the Maidan and leading a peaceful protest that led to another election being held due to voter fraud. To a greater extent, the main aim of the revolution was to contest the original declared results and this was easily achieved thanks to the unity and determination of Yushchenko and his fellow supporters in convincing the CEC to hold another election. Although “it is not possible to measure nor the cognitive mental state of large masses of individuals…” the paradigm shared by the general population was the demand for a no longer corrupt Ukraine through Yushchenko becoming the new president. While there are no fixed rules or path that a revolution will follow as each is different and has its own goals, it is evident that many revolutions related to the overthrow of an old regime tend to use the power of the people to be heard, but also push for action to be undertaken for political change to occur. Applying this theory to my case study, the four dimensions proposed by Tarrow fit the Orange Revolution relatively well. The political opportunity structure would be electoral fraud and corruption that would make the country susceptible to change. Adapting to different political opportunities by providing “repertoires of contention” to bring about political change would be the youth civic organization called “Black Pora,” pora meaning it is now in Ukrainian. This movement was founded in 2004 to coordinate young people in the fight against Kuchma's corrupt regime and has since split into two different entities. Mobilizing structures and frameworks would be the aspect of using the media to convey to the rest of the world the message that Ukraine is standing up to corruption and will no longer want the country to continue to be an authoritarian regime. The fact that “popular demand and coordinated pressure from the international community pushed forward the institutional approach” demonstrates how Yushchenko and his fellow supporters managed to gain the support of the international community by supporting the Orange Revolution and also shows the rest of the world that what what people want is what matters more than greedy and power hungry people. «We are free. The old era is over. We are a new country now.' it also highlights the positive outcome of the revolution. This also indicates an exclusivist approach due to the fact that the focus is more on the end result of the revolution than on.