Now the entire “progressive public,” judging by the slogans it scrawls on walls, is obsessed with bringing to power in Washington a new and righteous… uhhh… excuse me, their very own Saakashvili.
However, the calculator clearly shows the public that in every configuration, there are still more grandmothers than Saakashvili supporters. So the public despairs and prepares to vote for Tyagnybok.
I will venture to advise the public to finally tear itself away from the calculator and think a little in a different direction—namely, to consider whether the electoral system as we know it serves any useful purpose. I’m not even asking whether it is “fair,” but whether there is any internal logic or common sense in it. Thoughts on this matter are slowly creeping from the internet into the light of day, although for now they are considered “heretical” by the same public. They are, without question, far more productive than reflections on the “grandmotherization” of the population, because if it turns out that the system of “choosing power by majority” is no good, then one will have to set Saakashvili aside and get to fixing it—otherwise one will look completely silly.
So, let us examine elections as an institution. Why does it exist at all? Let us imagine, say, a philatelists’ club. All its members are philatelists, and the club is maintained by their joint efforts. The philatelists use elections to choose themselves a chairman. In principle, any of them could do it, since each knows the tasks facing the club and how to solve them, each is in the know. As philatelists, these people—who may be completely different in every other respect—are practically equal to one another. They choose from among equals the one who can best handle the specific tasks necessary for their activity.
Now imagine that it is legally established that any goat off the street can come to the club’s elections and participate. What a pity for the club, wouldn’t you say?
If we look at the historical application of the institution of elections, we will see, first of all, the approximate equality of participants in elections. In fact, it is this equality relative to the functions for which elections are held that makes elections necessary. Since everyone can do it, but one person must, let us choose that person.
Now the second point. Democracy is not so much an abstract invention as a naturally developing set of institutions over time. Countries where representative, then legislative, and then executive power was elected happily combined democracy with the limited nature of the state. Of course, state decisions affected many people one way or another, but there were other centers of power—for example, local self-government and other institutions of civil society—which influenced people’s lives to a much greater extent.
The voting qualifications that existed at that time had a simple meaning: those who are concerned with a matter and who, therefore, are in the know should handle it. The others did not suffer much from this arrangement, since it did not much concern them. Let us add that the legislative process had an important advantage then—it was extremely slow. Before decisions were made, special commissions gathered information most thoroughly, published reports, which were then discussed for a long, tedious time. The most well-known English laws, like the Poor Law, or the law introducing police service, or the law on working mutual aid societies, were passed exactly this way. In the USA, to introduce the first federal tax (income tax, 1913), it was generally necessary to pass a Constitutional amendment. In short, the state could not, just like that, with its left leg, hungover, climb into the taxpayer’s pocket or arrange some other nastiness.
In general, democracy worked then when it was limited. On the one hand, by the insignificant powers and capabilities of the state; on the other, by various kinds of qualifications for participation in elections.
Then politicians noticed that there was a huge “electoral reserve” in the form of various categories of workers who did not have the right to vote. And if these politicians could not win with the votes of those who were in the know, they began to consider whether to expand the “electoral base,” which was just lying idle, and seek fortune there. This process of “liberating workers” and granting them the vote proceeded naturally, and not so much various swindlers put their hand to it as completely sincere fighters for workers’ “rights.” This took many years, but today we fully enjoy its fruits. We live in a country where a person who cannot correctly spell his own surname is the same proud voter as some professor.
We are accustomed to reasoning at length about the equality of rights of candidates in elections and the like, but we have completely forgotten that the first and main condition under which elections have any meaning at all is the equality of voters. This has long been absent in every country in the world. And therefore democracy has also been absent for a long time.
Now a proposal. Ukrainians are convinced that they absolutely need special “uncles” called the state, to whom Ukrainians must pay money. Ukrainians do not doubt for a second that these uncles know better how and where to spend it. Ukrainians are terrified even to think about what will happen if the uncles’ ability to take and spend their money is somehow limited. The main thing is that the uncles be good and have the surname Saakashvili.
Since this is the case, I propose to at least consider how to introduce some common sense and logic into the process of bringing these uncles into being—that is, into what makes democracy democratic. The principle of “one person—one vote” condemns our unfortunate country to eternal wretchedness. Introducing voting qualifications will not help. A property qualification will not work. An educational one will not either. Equality of voters cannot be established by restrictive measures. It is easier to simply abandon the principle of “one person—one vote” and, on the contrary, posit the inequality of citizens—that is, to grant citizens votes in accordance with their contribution to feeding the uncles, if you’ll pardon the expression, to the common good. For example, a perfectly workable principle: the number of votes equals the percentage of declared income paid in taxes. Pay 20% of your income in taxes—you get 20 votes.