The choice between the elections

There is a variety of commentators whose task is to give the aggressive imperial policy of the Kremlin some decent and respectability. They squeamishly avoid hysterical screens about the "Kyiv junta" and "fascists-Bandera." They do not fall to the replication of obvious fakes about crucified boys. They are even ready to recognize such an obvious thing as the mismatch of the “elections” by the rebels for some formal rules accepted in the modern world. In order to explain in thoroughly that this is not important. Because these "elections" still showed that the leaders of the rebels enjoy the support of a significant part of the population of Donbass. Maybe not most. We cannot determine this for sure without the "rules". But in the queues of a few "polling stations" and by eye it is clear that there are a lot of these people, and you can’t just dismiss them. This is the reality that must be reckoned with.

About the same, the Kremlin authorities tried to tell the city and the world when it explained the difference between "recognition" and "respect" of the results of the "elections". Like, we do not say at all that they legitimize the power of the field commanders of Donbass. We only want to say that these figures received a mandate to negotiate on behalf of the population.

So, it turns out, why did all this cheese border be needed! In order to morally authorize some group of people to negotiate with Kyiv and Europe. So that the question does not arise: with whom is there negotiations? The rebels who were not aware of the outside world simply want to be understood, regretted and reassured. To tell them that they respect. To talk to them.

Apparently, from this strong desire to get a heart -to -heart conversation, the rebels first signed paper on holding elections in December according to Ukrainian rules, and then immediately stated that they were not going to fulfill this obligation. That they themselves will hold their own elections in November, without coordinating it with anyone. They will be carried out in conditions that exclude their recognition from someone in the civilized world. And they do not care deeply, whether at least someone recognizes these elections. They will still do it in their own way. And Europe with all its ideas about elected procedures can go forest.

Everyone who has come out of the transitional age knows: if you want to talk to you, you don’t have to be rude to start. And the easiest way would it be to explain the situation by the fact that all the Donbass "rashists" are people with the psychology of the seeking recognition of a difficult teenager. Or not very distant crooks, and really hoping at least to inflate someone with such rude and primitive techniques. Or they did not even think of daring, and all the conversations about negotiations were only a disguise of the consistent line to continue the war.

Not that such a picture was incorrect. But it seems to me not complete enough. Among the rebels, the percentage of ideologically motivated people is quite high. Difficult adolescents and crooks can be ideologically motivated - one does not exclude the other. But here it is important that for many leaders, participants and supporters of the rebellion, the election without European rules is not just a “show -off” or playing a thimble. This is their political ideal, social utopia, which they strive to realize.

The dispute about whether the elections without generally accepted rules and procedures in the modern world are considered the real will of the people is a dispute of two fundamentally different models of democracy. The modern Western bourgeois -liberal (individualistic) democracy has created a complex system of rules, procedures and guarantees for several centuries, the main purpose of which is to ensure the freedom of expression of each individual individual will. To protect it from possible pressure from other individual will, which are stronger or which is simply larger. And each individual will should be separately calculated and taken into account as equal to everyone else. In such elections, the will of "trembling" and "right to" have "superhuman are equalized.

An alternative model of democracy can be called communal or cathedral. With it, individual will seem to be compressed, consumed in a shapeless lump of a certain collective will, deform and dissolve in it. Such democracy eliminates equality. Those who are more assertive, more aggressive, angrier, is impudent. Those who are more passionate if you use the term from concepts that are very revered by domestic traditionalists. Those who scream louder or who have a more machine gun. This is the same Leninist-Gitler democracy not the arithmetic of the majority, but most of the strength and will.

For such democracy, delimiting barriers that protect an individual from pressure are not only not needed, but also harmful. They interfere with the formation of collective will, which must subjugate every individual will. The exact counting of votes is not needed. Elections can be held not only without voter lists, but also without lists of candidates for deputies. The first three names are enough. Voting for them, you delegate them the right to appoint missing deputies at their discretion (this is how the Donbass rebels held the elections). And it doesn’t matter if people vote on their own convictions whether they came for a grocery ration or are simply afraid of militants with machine guns. Maybe these harsh warriors under the escort do not vote and do not drive, but it is not known what can be expected from them. If you managed to ensure the voting ritual with the desired result, it means that you have proved that most of the strength and will are behind you.

Common democracy existed in many archaic societies, where the heroes-warriors dominated. Until the era when the bourgeois modernization liberated the personality and equalized the plowmen with the heroes. Today, communal democracy has become a banner of radical traditionalists fighting in the Donbass for the girls to sit at home and embroidered with a cross. Traditionalists are actually those pseudo -lane, which supported the Donbass rebellion. Among the lefts themselves they had long been given the nickname "Kraskons" (red conservatives).

In the modern world, communal democracy can exist only as an extremely unstable transitional form. It may arise as a result of an uprising against an authoritarian-bureaucratic oligarchy, in which both plebeian traditionalists and supporters of bourgeois modernization are involved jointly. And then she has a chance to evolve in modern liberal democracy. But if it arises as a result of the uprising of traditionalists against bourgeois-liberal democracy, it can evolve only in the totalitarian tyranny of the fascist type, and very quickly. Since the 20th century, archaic can be revived only in the form of fascism. Fascism is the extreme form of a traditionalist reaction.