Observing progressive society, I am convinced once again that some people, as they say, never learn from life. Although, of course, it would be more correct to say that life does teach them—but far from everyone can see the lesson in the obvious sequence of events.
Judge for yourselves. After the parliamentary elections, and especially after the first decisions of the “new” authorities—which for some reason surprised many—progressive society began to say that “once again nothing ever works” and “something went wrong.” And, as usual in such situations, the process resumed with renewed vigor under the general slogan: “All decent people must unite to defeat all the bad ones.” The public again attends gatherings where they try to find common ground on all sorts of things. The internet is again full of conclusions like “first we need to agree on what kind of Ukraine we want” and calls for “unity,” which, of course, “is necessary now more than ever.” Beautiful diagrams and clever charts are drawn again; in general, the experts are back in business and back in the saddle. Meanwhile, right before these people’s eyes stands a living example of how a seemingly unattainable goal was achieved in an entirely different—I would even say opposite—way. I am referring to the Maidan and the expulsion of Yanukovych. In truth, Yanukovych was expelled only because this goal was essentially the only one that united the efforts (not words) of everyone involved. I am fully convinced that if somehow things had gone differently and the Maidan had been associated with two or three goals that everyone acknowledged, it would have failed. If the Maidan had been the cause of only “Svoboda” or “Batkivshchyna” (and they did everything to make people think so), it would not have lasted a week. But it happened that no one held a monopoly on ideology or on formulating goals (recall the comical attempts to elect Maidan leadership), and this is precisely what brought success.
This works as follows. All the goals we strive for are arranged for us in a hierarchy; we choose the more important ones and postpone the less important ones, since our resources are always limited. Obviously, only the most tedious among us would represent such a hierarchy as a list (and this list far from always reflects real priorities), but it exists for everyone. What unites people’s efforts when they try to jointly achieve some pre-announced goals? The presence of common points in their goal hierarchies. At the same time, it is extremely important that in each person’s hierarchy these points may occupy different positions. For example, one person wants Ukraine’s greatness, a ban on abortions, everyone to speak only Ukrainian, and Yanukovych’s resignation. Another person wants European Union membership, Yanukovych’s resignation, a new iPhone, and outdoor advertising banned everywhere and forever. Their goal hierarchies coincide in only one point—Yanukovych’s resignation—and even there, this goal holds a different level of importance in each person’s hierarchy. As a result, both of them end up on the Maidan. If, for some reason, the Maidan had been associated with two goals—for example, Yanukovych’s resignation and the European Union—the first person might not have shown up.
By the way, as you have probably already guessed, this is one of the reasons why the very worst candidates always win elections, rather than the best—or rather, because, alas, people have the most overlap in all sorts of foolishness and ignorance.
Only concentration on a single goal unites. The more points there are in your program, the fewer allies you have. By the way, the Komsomol members knew this well. I remember how, at the dawn of perestroika, when Soviet people plunged headfirst into public life, the communists sent the Komsomol members out among the people instead. They were, as it were, young and progressive, and even somewhat oppositional. Therefore, at first they were allowed into all sorts of gatherings and even given the floor. Now, the Komsomol members always used the tactic of “let’s write down an item or two here as well.” Usually quite harmless little items. But somehow, after their appearance, the “movement” usually wound down by itself. I don’t know whether they were specifically taught to do this or whether it was simply a necessary survival skill in the brutal world of the Komsomol, but they were good at it. So when you hear something along the lines of “let’s determine what kind of Ukraine we want,” know that nothing will ever come of it. There will be a party or a public organization. Some of them may even make it into parliament, but what is written in their detailed program will never happen.