In society

Transit

November 12, 2007 George Satarov

Tired. Tired that they ask me all the time: what will Putin do? Who will be the next president, etc. Tired that everyone around is written and trembling about the same thing. Maybe I’m some kind of geek, but I am most interested in what will happen to me with my family, with my work, with different social groups, with the country, and after all. Maybe I'm a round idiot, but it is much more interesting to me than Putin’s personal fate. Therefore, I decided to write this series of articles for the same geeks and idiots as I myself, poorly hoping that the like remained in the country with total -in -stubborn brains.

But I warn you in advance that I am seriously related to my family and country. And therefore, you will not find political jokes and common plots in these articles. What will happen to us, geeks and idiots, who are little interested in Putin's fate is not a question that is completely idle. For the efforts of this Putin himself and the bureaucracy propping his bureaucracy formed an extremely unstable political system in which the change of leader (transit of power, or simply transit below in the text) - this is a tragedy not so much for the leader and his retinue as for the country. For us that is. So, all this must be seriously sorted out. That's why I will write seriously. Don't blame me.

So, we need to understand the following issues:

What happened to the Putin regime to date?

What problems does this create from the point of view of the transfer of power?

What are these problems of transmission of power mean to us?

What can be cooked with the country?

What can we do so that the elections cease to be “fateful” in the worst sense of the word?

To answer these questions, we need, first of all, to answer such a simple question:

Why do you need elections at all?

With an answer to such a seemingly easy, we will begin the question.

It is interesting that there are many answers, which is not surprising, because the elections, like any complex institution, are loaded with many functions.

Let's start with the most popular answer: elections are needed to replace bad politicians with good ones. We (like many people like us in other times or in other countries) always go to the polls, flattering ourselves that right now, it is we will finally choose such (such) who, not an example of the chosen ones earlier, will not deceive us, solve all our problems, is smart, fair and disinterested, and our wings will not unfasten at night. We go again and again, quickly forgetting about all the previous disappointments.

There is nothing new in our naivety. After all, the overwhelming number of women believes in pre -wedding promises (to love to the coffin, to wear in their arms, etc.). And the human race does not stop with weddings, despite the fact that promises are not fulfilled.

Let's try to get closer to reality, to raise the question more accurately, namely:

Is it true that with the help of fair competitive elections the most worthy won?

The answer is obvious - no.

And if you slightly modify the question:

Is it true that as a result of fair competitive elections, each subsequent chosen one in some reasonable political sense is better than the previous one?

And then any reasonable person will answer: of course, no.

In short, it happens for anyone. That is why, i.e. Precisely because sometimes lucky, and we easily recall examples of a successful choice in different countries (George Washington, Vaclav Havel, etc.), we retain the opportunity to flatter ourselves and return to the polls. And we either forget about unsuccessful examples or remember when we need to do the criticism of elections and democracy. But only in such cases. We do not remember bad cases when we go to the polls.

As for the general trend, it was noticed and aphoristic expressed by Alexis de Tokvil. Back in the first half of the 19th century, Alexis de Tuquilus in his great book “Democracy in America” sentenced: “The elections do not lead to an improvement in the breed of politicians.”

We can easily find confirmation of the thesis of de Tokquille, observing the different convocations of our Duma. But if, with the help of elections, good politicians do not come to the place of bad politicians, why then to fence the garden? Here, for example, Plato proposed delegating the sages to the power. At first glance, the idea is wonderful. But the whole experience of mankind shows that any attempt by this kind has degenerated. For example, commissions on the selection of sages were headed by bastards.

Let us return to the thesis that we analyze: "Using the elections, we are replaced by good politicians." Let's slightly castrate this statement. Then we get approximately the following: "Using the elections, we will replace politicians." It seems to be undoubtedly. Politics are really useful to replace. But the question "Why to fence the garden?" It remains. Still, the election is an expensive thing.

It is not surprising that Aristotle considered the opponent of Plato in disputes about the ideal state structure the best way to seize the highest state posts. By the way, this method was widely practiced in ancient Greek Republican cities. I ask you to remember this example; We will have to return to him later. And we will also have to deal with the question, which probably arose among many and which is directly related to the general problem “Is it necessary to change politicians at all?”

Let's go to the next substantiation of the need for elections. Many say: elections are a manifestation of democracy. The people with the help of elections form power. There is a lot of practical meaning: no matter how bad or good politicians are, it is useful for them to remember that they are in power thanks to the votes of citizens, and therefore they should work for citizens. After all, we understand that politicians, getting power, are very inclined to use it for personal purposes.

But supporters of control over the elections and democracy (this can be called differently-sovereign democracy, controlled democracy) says: since citizens form power, i.e. They make such a responsible decision, then they must demonstrate readiness for this. Are ours ready? Doubtful.

It is appropriate to recall the fact that the elections began with property qualification, the meaning of which is: only wealthy citizens can make responsible decisions already responsible for their property. It doesn't sound so wildly. Remember - how many of your acquaintances are lowering the ballot in the urn quite consciously? That's the same.

Someone else will say: elections are needed to choose policies, directions and methods of development of the country (region, city). Also right. Although why not provide such a choice of synclite of independent experts? In response, they say: citizens must make a choice meaningfully if they are citizens. Therefore, they should at least in general terms get acquainted with the programs of politicians and parties. Yes, it would be great. But tell me, how many voters do you know?

In short, this is the last justification of the need for elections as vulnerable as the previous one. And here is also a counterargument: why choose them along with their programs if they are deceiving us? It's a shame, because, indeed, we do not need politicians in our own, no matter how sweet they were, but their programs that seemed necessary to us, along with the conviction that they will fulfill these programs.

In the next article we’ll talk about two more arguments in favor of elections, very important. But now a sad trend is planned: no matter what argument we come up with in favor of the elections, it is easily refuted, and not just speculative arguments, but also many specific examples. We can easily find many historical examples of how, as a result of quite decent elections, not the best politicians were elected, not the best programs were selected, and the best were not executed. And then they also like to cite as an example of Hitler, who won power with the help of elections, and then canceled them.

And what to do with all this!?

To be continued

Author - President of the Indem Foundation