Putin's Victory is a Victory of Democracy

A reader seeing such a title certainly expects something along the lines of “you yourselves chose such presidents, now deal with it” or “the majority is always wrong, because the majority are idiots.” To some extent this is, of course, true — after all, Putin would have won even without falsification¹; they falsified to guarantee there’d be no second round, since that would have been much harder to manage. But, I repeat, this note will not be about that.

The note will be about the principle of democracy itself. Let’s separate the essence from the emotions, myths, and expectations attached to this principle. When we say “democracy,” we mean something unconditionally positive, correct, effective, in short, something that always and everywhere brings benefit to people. The word “democracy” in everyday speech functions as a generalization meaning “how they have it over there” — the West. Things are good over there, there is democracy everywhere, therefore democracy is the reason things are good there. To avoid getting tangled in these notions, let’s define democracy as a procedure for decision-making by majority vote — in particular, direct elections of various state officials and passage of laws by voting in parliament. That is democracy, and that is what we’ll be discussing. Democracy is also inseparable from the notion that any action of a legitimately elected authority is legitimate if it conforms to a norm adopted through an established procedure, and from the idea that “the law is the same for everyone.”

Now let’s agree that “Putin” in our note is not a specific person, but any elected official — the personification of the system. And let’s also agree that we’ll be talking about democracy in general, applied to any country. Of course, post-Soviet “us” has quite special features and specifics, and these features — who would argue — distort the functioning of democracy, but in this case, we’re talking about the principle itself.

Here’s how the popular exposition of the principle of democracy looks. Since the law is the same and binding for everyone, then “everyone” must participate in the procedure for its development. These “everyone” vote in elections; their elected representatives, again by majority, adopt laws; and the executives elected in other elections — or the same ones, in the case of a parliamentary republic — implement these laws. There are also cases when judges, those who interpret the laws, are elected, but that’s details. It’s clear that in such a system the majority can adopt laws that infringe upon the minority, but, we’re told, such is life, guys — you just got unlucky, work, and at the next elections everything will be fine. Moreover, we’re told, “majority” and “minority” exist on every issue; there are many issues, they’re different, they intersect with each other, so, in the end, everything balances out, harmony arrives and the air is filled with contentment.

However, let’s think about the following. When do we in ordinary life resort to the procedure of voting and decision-making by majority? When all participants are, as they say, in the know and have a good understanding of the consequences of the choice. And very often in situations when it’s necessary to choose a specific executor of a completely clear and specific function — when the choice has even greater significance for the executor himself, not for the voters, since the function will be performed in any case. But is that how it is in the case of political democracy? The question is rhetorical.

Since the law is the same for everyone and any correctly adopted law is legitimate, then in democracy there will always be a steady tendency to profit — in the broadest sense — through voting in elections. For example, to rob “the rich” in favor of “the poor.” To impose one group’s ideas about life on others. To imprison and kill people because that’s what the majority decided. Democracy, by itself, does not contain protection against such a course of events.

I hear people shouting that everything is protected by “human rights.” But where do they come from? They are written into the constitution. And what makes the constitution strong? The fact that it was adopted by parliament or referendum. Why will it compel human rights to be observed? Because human rights are written into the constitution. And what makes the constitution strong? That it was adopted… Is it only me who sees a snake biting its own tail here?

The course of events in a democratic system will be exactly like this — everything will gradually evolve in the direction of direct legal violence of some people over others. And the consequences are obvious: why work if you can rob in a legal way? And this applies to both sides — those who could work but won’t, because they’ll be robbed anyway, and those who don’t work because they expect everything to come to them.

And the most interesting thing is this. It only seems that in a democratic system the winners change from election to election. No — in fact, regardless of election results, a third side always wins: Putin. Because the winning side first of all increases Putin’s powers and capabilities. The losing side won’t object to this, because it hopes to use them when it comes to power itself. Coming to power, it further increases Putin’s powers, and so on. Putin himself, in his numerous reincarnations, always acts the same way in elections — promises as many golden mountains and “solutions to problems” as possible, which, of course, implies the growth of his powers.

What do we see in the end? Ukraine or Russia, where all real political-economic power is concentrated with Putin — the political class, the authorities, the state — call it what you like. All this is the logical outcome of majority democracy and the principles of “everything that is legal is legitimate” and “the law is the same for everyone.” Why isn’t this the case in the West, where there is the same democracy? There isn’t this there (yet) because, unlike us, democracy there is limited. It is limited by law, by traditions of private property, by accountability, and by the powers of the state — or rather, by people’s notions about what is permissible for the state to do and what is not. Remove all that, and you’ll have Russia with Ukraine. And, by the way, “all that” is being gradually removed.

In our case, only a natural process of self-organization can neutralize democracy. And it can only happen if the newly elected Putin does nothing. But he will, that’s the thing. Democracy encourages “fighting,” “establishing order,” “rooting out” — in general, all sorts of interference with people organizing viable social connections on their own. The saddest thing is that everyone agrees with democracy here. Nobody discusses not only the elimination of the vicious principle, but even the necessity of limiting and clearly fixing the powers of the state, let alone its elimination. Therefore, it seems, Putin is here to stay.