Our previous question was: "Do you believe that free elections (one where even an incumbent can be defeated) can change a country?"

Opinions were mostly divided. Of those who answered the question, 53% thought that such elections could bring positive change to the country; 43% thought they could not. Around 4% did not have an answer.

One side considered Yushchenko’s defeat symbolic of the disgraceful end of the orange revolution; the other side used just the opposite argument—that precisely on account of the orange revolution was it possible for the CIS region to have the only presidential election where not only was the acting president defeated in consecutive elections, but in the next stage of the election, the acting prime minister and the opposition leader were able to take the lead, with the result of the opposition leader defeating the acting prime minister. While, for elections in CIS regions, the acting presidents are never “defeated” in consecutive elections—they are either removed by revolution or rule for two consecutive terms, or even more.

For the first time in the span of 18 years, elections in the former Soviet space (with the exception of the Baltic States) had an acting president removed from office in democratic elections that were approved by OSCE observers; this, however unprecedented, is still a hopeful occurrence.

Analyses of Yushchenko’s ruling years differ. One can talk at length about the problems of those years and about corruption, but it’s obvious that at that time in the Ukraine the system of government was able to develop counterbalances such that in the end normal democratic, consecutive elections were able to occur for the first time in the CIS region; this, in every case, should be difficult to consider as anything but a positive attainment.