Interesting things are happening. It turns out quite a lot of decent, respectable people voted for “Svoboda” precisely because it is… against the PR. I wrote this off as some Kyiv eccentricity, but I have to admit I was wrong—it’s a rather widespread… phenomenon.
I’ll remember this detail from the 2012 elections, since it illustrates beautifully how “democracy works”: namely, that even seemingly literate, educated voters choose based on packaging alone, without bothering to understand the substance.
Let’s clarify what “being against the PR” actually means. What would “Svoboda” have to do for us to say it’s genuinely “against” them? Obviously—relentlessly monitoring the PR’s actions, sabotaging decisions and appointments, criticizing them, posting demotivators on Facebook. But by definition, this is what any opposition does, and sometimes even members of the ruling party itself. I can accept that people voted for “Svoboda” because they shout loud, they look serious, their brows are furrowed, their eyes are bulging. This is undoubtedly an important factor in voting decisions, and I fully accept that it works. People tend to trust those who shout the loudest when the cry is “stop thief.” But you see, I would never have written this column if opposition activity were institutionalized separately from power. I mean, if “power” and “opposition” operated in separate parliaments, with completely different functions and funding sources. But this, alas, is not the case. Television and the internet make it look as though politicians are locked in perpetual warfare, but in reality, 90% of all deputies’ work—without exception—consists of tedious, monotonous lawmaking: creating the orders, directives, and regulations that dictate how you and I are to live. And here “power” is in no way separated from “opposition.” Both develop and pass laws in the same institution, following the same procedures.
So to claim that one party is genuinely “against” another, you must be absolutely confident that their ideas and methods differ fundamentally in this core area of activity. But in our case—alas—this is simply not so. Even those who advocate voting for “Svoboda” on the grounds that it’s “against the PR” will usually admit that both parties subscribe to the principle of “grab and distribute.” In their approaches to the regulations they’ll impose on us, “Svoboda” and the PR differ perhaps only in their rhetoric toward Russia. Will “Svoboda” oppose the expansion of state power, interference in private life, in the economy? Will they oppose, say, biometric passports? No—they’ll simply add a column for “nationality.”
A wonderful phrase circulated on the internet: in the old days, syphilis was treated with malaria. Since we’re discussing “diseases of love,” let me complete the analogy by substituting gonorrhea. It’s clear that someone who tries to treat gonorrhea with syphilis ends up with both gonorrhea and syphilis. The gonococci and pale treponemes may wage brave battles inside his body, but the patient is no better off for it. He’s clearly worse.