This essay aims to explore the difference in the political system between the Ukrainian regime in the period 2010-2014 and the regime that emerged out of the euromaidan protests in 2014. Through this the essay will determine if there has been any democratical progress between both of the timelines and if any of the periods achieved the status of democracy. Democracy is defined as polyarchy which gives a clear structure to study both periods and compare them to the criteria’s that this type of democracy offers. The areas that will be studied are: Free and Fair Elections, Universal Suffrage, Elected Representatives, the Right to Candidate in Elections, the Right to Organize, Freedom of Speech and Alternative Sources of Information. The essay is a Theory Consuming Case Study with both descriptive questions and a descriptive approach to answer the questions. The framework that is used to analyze the information is of a qualitative nature. This essay concludes that both periods have had large democratic problems. Although the problems for both periods differ, in the first problem there are several events with rigged elections, crime against journalists and restraints of freedom of speech. The second period saw several improvements in several areas but issues with universal suffrage emerged. This caused both periods to not being able to fulfill the criteria’s of polyarchy which, in this study, is the benchmark for a democracy. Instead, both periods achieved the criteria’s for a hybrid regime which in many ways are equivalent of a flawed democracy.