Didn't understand anything, didn't learn anything

The author of this column has no particular love for commonplace quotes, especially in headlines. Such is the way of things. Only the fact that these words literally describe the actions of the new Ukrainian president excuses me, and, as they say, one simply cannot put it better. I am not, of course, talking about the negotiations in which Putin negotiates with Poroshenko. I am talking about more important things, namely, about how the president sees “all this here”—society, the political process, and his place in it.

These ideas are most clearly reflected in constitutions. Just in time, another series of amendments to the Constitution has come out, and in them is reflected what has been reflected¹. The reader can easily find these amendments on the web; I will only comment on them. Actually, there are three main points. The first is the elimination of the imperative mandate. That is, elections by party lists, which Poroshenko so advocates, lose all meaning, because the point of elections is the formation of a majority and a government. If there is no imperative mandate, then after the election, deputies are free to wander as they please, and consequently, the coalition of the majority, and therefore the government, is formed not according to the results of the elections, but according to the results of “scuffles” and pressure from the administration.

The second point is the president’s influence on appointments of security officials and the prime minister. From the text circulating on the web, one can conclude that this influence is growing. This applies especially to the prime minister, because now for appointment the formula “submits taking into account the coalition’s proposals” (instead of “submits at the coalition’s proposal”) is suggested. That is, if the president fails to fix things with the coalition, then “taking into account” its incorrect proposals, the president can still submit the “correct” candidate.

The third point is the long-suffering local self-government. Only fantasists or MMM activists can present Poroshenko’s proposals as “an increase in the powers” of local self-government. The “amendments” boil down to the fact that oblasts are renamed regions, and instead of presidential administrations we will now have presidential representatives with essentially the same functions. Even the creation of executive committees changes nothing in essence, because the essence of the problem is not the method of election or the form of subordination. The essence of the “local self-government” problem lies in the budgetary process, in the situation when money flows first from the regions to the center, and then from the center to the regions. Since all powers are connected with expenditures, the “scope of powers” that local authorities really have, not just on paper, in such a system is a variable quantity depending on constant bargaining between the regions and the center. It is precisely this variability, the inevitable backroom dealing in decision-making, and the ability to arrange bargaining at any moment that gives rise to our mega-corruption and political bacchanalia. One can only speak of changes when regions exercise their powers exclusively through their own budget, in no way connected to Kyiv.

In general, there is an unmistakable return to the times of Leonid Danylovych, when the president was the main “fixer,” had power whose volume he set at his own discretion, and responsibility tending toward zero. Note, for example, that Poroshenko does not intend to win parliamentary elections. If a coalition can be assembled at any moment from carcasses running around seeking a better fate, then there is absolutely no need to strain during elections with any parties and lists. That is, in effect, the rules of political decency, all this openness, transparency, and fair political struggle that progressive society expects from the president are openly… eeeee… ignored in the draft amendments to the Constitution.

My remark “they didn’t understand anything, they didn’t learn anything” is addressed to those who believe that circumstances can force politicians and the state to act “appropriately”—to carry out reforms, to reduce their own power. This is a very common point of view, but, as we can see, it is erroneous. Nothing by itself can “force” the state to change in a direction useful to people. Let us recall those royalists and revolutionaries in France—the revolution established an order that, one might say, differed little from the “old regime.” Many people died, Napoleon essentially started a world war, and all for nothing to change. The state is not Poroshenko, and not even Napoleon. It is bureaucrats, their “business,” and other people dependent on them. All events in history always end in the triumph of precisely their interests. They don’t care what color the tip of the iceberg is painted. Ukraine means Ukraine. Putin comes—they will serve Putin. Revolutionaries come—even better, “establishing order” is their favorite work, under which one can always get a decent budget, not to mention numerous bonuses. In general, quoting the words of one young emperor over his freshly strangled father—“everything will be as under grandmother.” Always. Forever and ever. Amen.