Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that everything written in various political programs actually makes sense, can be implemented, and may even be useful. Let us reflect, so to speak, within the framework of the existing paradigm.
In this case, we should start with the fact that at elections, voters vote for certain programs. There are many of these programs. There are party programs, and there are also programs of individual majority candidates running separately. That is, the number of programs carried into parliament by the people’s will equals 225 plus the number of parties that made it through.
Then a majority is formed in parliament—several party programs plus a certain number of individual programs. Let us believe that from all of this one can compose some averaged document that would suit all participants. Those who have dealt with such activity know that this cannot be done. But still, we believe in the extraordinary abilities of the people’s representatives, don’t we? So let’s squeeze our eyes shut and imagine that it is possible. As a result of our squeezing of eyes and the titanic efforts of deputies, there will appear a “common” program of the majority, which is called a coalition agreement here. This is what can very, very generously be called “what we fought for in the elections.”
And now the government enters the stage. And presents its program. Stop, you will say, but what about us, the voters? Well, nowhere. Even Semen Semenchenko, with the naivety of a novice, is surprised, saying, we didn’t write anything like that in the coalition agreement that Yatsenyuk is telling us here. Well, what prevents Yatsenyuk from writing in the program what he wants, and not what Semenchenko wrote? Absolutely nothing.
This is the first thing you need to understand when you hear about the government’s program. Any government, not just this one.
However, the second thing you need to know about programs is even more interesting and instructive. It lies in the fact that no one and nothing compels the government to do what is written in the program and, most importantly, not to do what is not in it. The restrictions on the government’s freedom of action, which impressionable French people discovered in the English, had a simple financial origin. The “power of the purse” belonged to parliament, and for any action the government had to beg there for money. Anglo-Saxon states over time got rid of this unpleasant misunderstanding, and in other places “separation of powers” was always simply a more or less successful imitation. Today it is such a charming tradition, like Scottish kilts and bearskin caps of the royal guards—tourists from developing countries love to stare at them, but they no longer have any practical significance. So, if you look at our sad reality, you will easily notice the fact that governments have never paid any attention to all sorts of programs in their actions and inactions. This rule is true for all governments at all times. What differs here is only the degree of respect for the voter’s tender feelings shown in the process. From the moment when parliament stopped controlling the money, nothing stopped and stops governments from introducing new taxes and restrictions when they found it necessary. Therefore, there is one thing you need to know about the government’s program—it has no relation to the real actions of the government, and consequently, discussing it in this key makes no sense.
Of course, the program carries certain meanings. Actually, there are two types of them—various “signals” and meanings of democratic ritual. In our case, in the program there are signals to foreign sponsors that the government allegedly intends to cut spending, that is, “to come to its senses.” This is part of such a game—whether the sponsors will find these promises satisfactory depends, of course, not only on the program, but also on that game. Well, as for ritual, “unfulfilled promises” are the motor of democracy as a process. Without it, it will simply stop. In any country at any elections, you will hear about how “they deceived us.” And it is for this moment that the government program has significance—it is needed in order not to be fulfilled. But one must understand one fundamentally important thing here. When you are beaten in a back alley, it happens not at all because you didn’t give a cigarette. Exactly the same way, when Yatsenyuk or any other boss in any other country in the world is being smoked out of a warm office, this happens not because he didn’t fulfill his program. But the program is certainly mentioned then, otherwise the audience will stop coming to the show.