Among the words that fill our, so to speak, political life, “democracy” is perhaps the most popular. Everyone who has anything to say about politics uses this word. We treat democracy as some kind of desirable state, a goal worth fighting for. Everyone agrees with this, except for the occasional frank authoritarian—and with those, everything is clear.
But is democracy really needed by Ukrainians?
Can this question even be answered, and if so, how? It seems rather rhetorical, or, as we like to say, “philosophical.” Yet strange as it may seem, sometimes there are simple ways to find the answer.
Let us imagine that some Vasya decided, say, to win the Horowitz International Piano Competition in Kyiv. Everyone around got excited; the only topic of conversation is Vasya’s intentions. They discuss everything under the sun—Vasya’s concert program, Vasya’s diet, Vasya’s competitors. Among other things, there is a schedule of lessons showing that Vasya practices piano for half an hour once a week. But this goes undiscussed. It is considered unimportant. After some time, word gets out that Vasya now practices half an hour once every two weeks. And again, this concerns no one.
I think it is obvious that if victory in the competition is to be taken seriously, the first thing to look at is the time and regularity of practice. And clearly, the worse Vasya plays, the more time he needs to train and the more often he should do it.
It is the same with democracy. Want to know how seriously democracy is taken in one place or another? Look at how often elections are held there and what the terms of office of elected bodies are. Americans, for example, elect their Congress for a term of two years. Ukrainians elect their Rada for five years. An American is constantly electing someone—congressmen, senators, presidents, state legislators (sometimes in two chambers), state governors, judges, sheriffs, firefighters, police chiefs, city mayors—and all these elections take place at different times. A Ukrainian elects a president, deputies, mayors, and local deputies, trying to do it all on the same day “for budget savings.”
If our “progressive public” truly cared about democracy, the first thing it would do is reduce the Rada’s term of office to two years and schedule all other elections so they do not coincide. This is the very beginning, the very alphabet of democracy. Without frequent and regular practice in the endeavor itself, there is not the slightest point to the whole thing. The “progressive public,” if it really cared about democracy and not something else, should have picketed, gone on hunger strikes, convened Maidans when the Rada extended its term. Do we see this in practice? No. In practice, they will tell you that “the term of office does not matter.” In practice, you will not find parties advocating for shorter terms and more frequent elections. In practice, “democrats” do not discuss terms of office or election frequency at all.
Having accumulated a solid amount of electoral experience in Ukraine, one can easily notice the following. Every election here is “the last and decisive battle,” while in democracy, elections are a fairly routine procedure, similar to regular piano practice. Why is this so? If you pay attention to the agenda of our elections—which has practically not changed since independence—you will easily notice that Ukrainians treat elections as a means for the full and final arrival of the Kingdom of Heaven. Their goal is to elect such a government that no more elections would be needed. The best illustration of this is that Tymoshenko and Yanukovych both made it to the second round of presidential elections, each promising exactly this.
It is from here, by the way, that that clearly unhealthy, excessively emotional attitude toward elected bosses comes. They always turn out to be scoundrels who have not justified the hopes. It is not surprising, for such hopes simply cannot be justified.
In general, none of this has anything to do with democracy. Let me say right away that I myself am not a supporter of the political system called “democracy”—rather, I am its opponent. Everything stated above is written on the understanding that clarity of definitions greatly helps in practical activity. Treatment for drug addiction begins with the acknowledgment of that addiction. Similarly, our democrats should first admit to themselves that their goal is not democracy. I think such clarity will only benefit everyone.