This development can be divided into several distinct periods, each marked by its own set of unique political structures, influences, and challenges.
The movement towards political liberalisation began in the 1980s. First, glasnost spread (the policy of relative openness and accessibility to information in the USSR), followed by the formation of political movements and parties.
The amnesty of political prisoners, in particular from the Ukrainian Helsinki Union (a Ukrainian civil, political and human rights organisation), contributed to the emergence of openly anti-communist parties.
The Ukrainian Republican Party was formed on the basis of this organisation. In the 1990s, an extraordinary congress repealed the provision on the Communist Party of the Soviet Union's leadership role.
The People's Movement of Ukraine, a civil-political movement aimed at achieving Ukrainian independence, served an umbrella organisation and the main opposing force to the Communist Party.
After Ukraine gained its independence, the diversification of political forces began. In particular, believing that the independence was declarative, Stepan Khmara and a group of like-minded people separated from the Ukrainian Republican Party to form a separate political force—the Ukrainian Conservative Republican Party.
The political regime during this period is considered pluralism by default; the struggle of the political actors is explained not by the desire for democracy but by the weakness of the state apparatus to establish authoritarian rule.
Ukraine's first years of independence saw a loose commitment to democratic principles but they were also marked by weak institutions, economic crises, and a high degree of uncertainty.
Despite gaining independence, Ukraine remained heavily influenced by its Soviet past with an administrative and political system that struggled to assert democratic values effectively.
In 1994, as a result of the political crisis and early election, the presidential election was won by Leonid Kuchma.
He initially served as a missile engineer and rose to prominence as the director of the Yuzhmash missile manufacturing plant in Dnipro, one of the Soviet Union's largest defence enterprises.
Entering politics in the early 1990s, Kuchma served briefly as Ukraine’s prime minister before running for the presidency in 1994, when he defeated incumbent Leonid Kravchuk.
When Kuchma came to power, the modality of a neo-patrimonial regime had been developed. Kuchma built a system of patronage that permeated all levels of government, including local administrations.
Regional elites were dependent on support from the centre and, in exchange for loyalty, received access to local resources and permission to control local businesses.
This dependence ensured the stability of the central government and control over the regions, while failing to promote democratic development at the local level.
Regional elites used patronage to strengthen their own influence, which gradually consolidated the oligarchic nature of Ukraine’s political system.
The further development of the political regime was also affected by some features of governance under the Soviet Union, such as departmentalism and localism.
For example, agriculture was subject to republican governance bodies, which formed a feature of departmentalism - the separation of interests between the sectoral economic administration (department), its individual units and other employees associated with this department, to the detriment of the national interest.
Instead, the heavy industry was managed by vertical ministries, which resulted in the feature of localism (adherence to narrow local interests to the detriment of the common cause, the cause of the state).
After gaining independence, control passed to financial and industrial groups that formed clans: Surkis and Medvedchuk in Kyiv; Yanukovych and Akhmetov in Donetsk; and Lazarenko and Tymoshenko in Dnipro.
Since no one had dominance in resources and the clans were relatively equal, no one could seize absolute political power.
The year 2004 marked an important milestone in the transformation of Ukraine's political transformation.
Following widespread fraud in the presidential election, which sparked public outrage, a large-scale protest movement known as the Orange Revolution began.
Viktor Yanukovych was the protégé of then-President Leonid Kuchma and was known for his pro-Russian views.
Kuchma, having served two controversial terms, was constitutionally barred from running again and sought a successor who would continue his policies and protect the interests of his administration.
These events led to a second round of elections, which were won by Viktor Yushchenko, a candidate who symbolised democratic reforms and a European vector of development.
Ukraine transitioned to a parliamentary-presidential republic, but reemerging conflicts between the executive and legislative branches of government—between President Yushchenko and Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko—significantly complicated the reform process, creating political instability and frustration in society.
As a result, expectations of democratisation were not fully achieved.
Viktor Yanukovych's rise to power in 2010 signalled a return to authoritarian tendencies. His administration attempted to re-establish centralised control over the state by restricting the political opposition and civil society.
The judiciary became an instrument of pressure over his political opponents, and freedom of speech and assembly was severely curtailed.
A 2004 constitutional reform that had increased the role of parliament was also reversed, returning sweeping powers to the president. The vertical of power worked in favour of the so-called Yanukovych family, i.e., those close to the regime.
The course of rapprochement with Russia and the refusal to sign the Association Agreement with the European Union in 2013 sparked mass protests known as Euromaidan.
Following the beating of peaceful protesters, the socio-political movement evolved into the Revolution of Dignity, which became the starting point for new attempts at democratic transformation and calls for the rule of law, transparency, and government accountability.
After the Revolution of Dignity in 2014, the political regime in Ukraine underwent a significant shift towards democratisation.
When the new government took power, it declared its commitment to European integration and launched broad reforms in various areas, including anti-corruption, judicial reform, and law enforcement.
New anti-corruption agencies (National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine, Specialised Anti-corruption Prosecution) were established, police reform was implemented, and the role of local governments was strengthened through decentralisation reforms.
The ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine, which began in 2014, can indeed be viewed as an external suppression orchestrated by the Russian Federation.
Ukraine’s pursuit of a democratic path, which gained momentum during the 2004 Orange Revolution and was reinforced by the 2014 Revolution of Dignity, posed a significant ideological challenge to Russia.
These democratic shifts in Ukraine stood in contrast to Russia’s increasingly authoritarian governance under Vladimir Putin and demonstrated to neighbouring countries that an alternative political trajectory was possible.
It becomes clear that Russia’s actions are not merely about territorial ambitions; they are a part of a larger effort to suppress democratic momentum in its neighbouring countries.
Since independence, Ukraine's political regime has evolved from a weak democratic framework to a neopatrimonial one, followed by periods of democratic reform, authoritarian backsliding, and renewed democratic efforts.
Each administration has faced the challenge of navigating a complex landscape of oligarchic influence, regional divisions, and external pressures, especially from Russia.
Although Ukraine continues to face challenges, the resilience of its civil society and the democratic aspirations of its people have driven a continuous push for reform, even amid crises.
Today, Ukraine’s commitment to democratic principles is evident in its resistance to authoritarian aggression, positioning it as a pivotal player in the struggle between democratic and authoritarian systems in Eastern Europe.
