Perhaps one of the few new ideas that emerged during the current Maidan is the idea of “unconstitutional authorities.” More precisely, it appeared earlier, and during the Maidan it was merely widely disseminated. The essence of this idea is that, since according to Article 140 of the 1996 constitution, local “authorities” should represent the interests of “territorial communities,” the entire current government is illegal, since such communities have not been created. The solution, accordingly, is seen in the creation of territorial communities at the local level and the formation of “authorities” by them. This procedure, according to its supporters, is supposedly capable of “restoring constitutional order” and bringing us all to stability and prosperity.
Recently, the public has begun to pay attention to the so-called “sovereignty of the people” and the practical consequences derived from this principle. Here, for example, is a wonderful idea of the nationalization of central banks. They say most modern central banks are private enterprises and hence all evil comes from there. In reality, of course, there is no difference whether a central bank is a private enterprise or state-owned, since the problem is not some nominal “form of ownership,” but the fact that the central bank cannot go bankrupt, possesses the ability to create money out of thin air indefinitely, and is a monetary Gosplan for banks operating on its monopoly currency. Likewise, there is no difference how much the authorities conform to some elaborate legal reasoning, whether they are formed by “territorial communities” or otherwise, or are simply appointed from Kyiv. The real problem is these authorities themselves, not the method of their formation, and above all, the fact that they are the center of local monopolies (transport, utility services, etc.) and links of national monopolies (healthcare, education, “law enforcement agencies,” etc.)
However, despite the complete barrenness of the idea of “restoring constitutional order” through the formation of territorial communities, the very topic of “territorial communities” is very important. Its importance consists of two points. The first point is the fact that the very concept of “territorial community” is an excellent illustration of the problem we are dealing with. If one thinks a little, it is easy to notice that “territorial community” is just another conceptual guinea pig. In this phrase, the words contradict each other. A “community” is a voluntary association of people, explicit or implicit, formal or informal. However, regardless of the degree of institutionalization of a community, it exists because it is a means by which the people included in it achieve certain goals. The territorial way of defining a community, to put it mildly, is arbitrary. It says nothing. Even if we take what seems an obvious case of a village, we will find that a community is a functional, not a territorial concept. For example, is the territorial community of a village limited by its physical boundaries? Perhaps the fields, meadows, and forests cultivated by the village residents should be included in this territory? After all, in most cases, a community is a tool for resolving issues arising precisely in this activity. The absurdity of a “territorial community” becomes even more obvious in the case of cities. Some high-rise buildings house more people than an entire village. Could these people constitute a territorial community? If not, why not? And if yes, what could it occupy itself with, what could unite these people? Obviously, it can only be the problems of managing the building. It has nothing to do with territory as such.
Why then is there talk of “territorial communities”? After all, people, whether united in communities or individually, use objects and resources, not “territory in general.” The answer is simple. The need for “territory in general” exists only for the state. It “secures” territory for itself so that any objects and resources that were used, are used, or will be used in the future on this territory inevitably fall under its care and cannot escape it. Hence comes the contradictory concept of a “territorial community.” This is an attempt to statistize associations of people, to tie them to the territorial principle characteristic of states.
Thus, the very concept of a “territorial community” is an excellent illustration of the contradiction between the territorial principle, existing for the convenience of collecting tribute for the ruler, and voluntary self-organization, existing for the needs of those who participate in it.
The second point I would like to say just a couple of words about is that “territorial communities” may under certain conditions become one of the means of change. Two conditions are needed for this. The first is individual membership, that is, refusal to “tie” oneself to the state administrative-territorial division. A multitude of “territorial communities” should be able to operate on one state “territorial unit.” The second is self-financing, that is, refusal of any attempts to tie the financing of a community to some taxes fixed by law. In this case, we may get completely amazing results from the “territorial communities” movement. In other cases, as usual, we will get nothing.