A dilettante’s reflections on governing
Governing society has long been regarded as one of the most important and difficult arts, for which one has to have innate talent and continue to master for a lifetime. But in some countries it is thought that anyone can govern well as long as they seize the reins of power. They only need to take hold of the wheel of the ship called society and issue orders: “Right — left — forward — backward and simultaneously up and down...And the gubernia set about writing!” as Gogol once said.
In the meantime, according to taxonomists, the governing systems in question “defeat us (the people) with their complexity.” Most people simply lack memory or analytical capabilities to grasp and predict all possible troubles and options (even with the aid of computers). You can grab one opportunity and lose thousands of others. You may think you have settled a conflict while you have actually opened another explosive Pandora’s Box. As the saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Since the days of the Riuryks Ukraine has had longstanding, decisively important problems with government, and thus for centuries it was a plaything of its neighbors. We are told that now everything has changed. But as the last 15 years have shown, the “only” problem is that there is no one to rule the country. There is nothing for it but to summon the Varangians. With rare exceptions, the people can only see dilettantes in the government, parliament, Presidential Secretariat, and lower bodies. The situation is worsened by powerful corruption, which adds to the professional incompetence.
In the first place, why do wealthy lawmakers need public money? They have everything that a normal (and abnormal) person might want. It turns out that accumulated wealth in no way frees a person from anomalous and criminal greed.
Long ago influential people understood that it is necessary to make drastic changes to the “methods of selecting” the highest state officials. Elections as such do no good — no matter who is elected, no matter how hard people fought on the Maidan — the outcome is the same. So public opinion has begun to ponder other possible solutions to the problem of governing.
The first variant is not very original — it proposes the appointment of qualified foreigners for the chief strategic positions in our state. Such schemes were at one time introduced in medieval Europe and China. Undoubtedly, this approach has a positive aspect: educated Europeans long ago curbed the abnormal passion for material values. This thought is risible. Experimental transplantations of foreign experts onto our soil have shown that no sooner than a foreigner, honest and transparent as crystal at home, occupies a high post in our country, he soon begins to behave exactly like our domestic leaders.
This phenomenon still has not been scientifically explained. Some people say that “this is the kind of air we have in our country, from the days of the Varangians,” while others shift the blame to pressure from the Russian oil mafia, and others accuse the White House. But facts will be facts.
Since no altruistic people have been found on earth, and our country continues to suffer from corruption, a more radical approach was suggested — to turn to the residents of outer space. The stake was on our faraway “brothers of the mind,” who have absolutely different values in their galaxies. That is why there is a chance that after taking up governing positions, they will remain indifferent to our unconquerable temptations: foreign bank accounts, precious valuables for harems, land, etc.
The Academy of Sciences has energetically knuckled down to establishing contact with ETs, but nothing good has come of this. Firstly, someone from the government immediately “rebribed” the academicians and rudely turned the ETs down; secondly, the country’s scientific potential was in such a pathetic state that they were even short of money to fly to outer space on a business trip, not to mention conducting research.
But that country had enough brainy people. A junior research fellow at the Academy of Sciences proposed an ambitious plan to design special super robots. That was a real brainstorm — robots are impossible to tempt, bribe, confuse, or scare to death. But a “regular” academic problem instantly emerged — the same one that can Н elled the previous project: “a kind of disease called lack of money” (Francois Rabelais). The whole world knows that decent fees are “not to be expected” in that country.
Finally, let us consider one more ingenious option — encouraging exclusively poor people to rule the country. Since time immemorial that country was confident that its poor citizens are always hard-working, wise, and — what is crucial — very honest (unlike wealthy citizens). Many people believed that the problem of optimal governing would be resolved if honest paupers came to power. However, we were heading for a huge disappointment because after the initial “field research” it was clear that although the saying “Honest means poor” is 100 percent true, its inverted variant, “Poor means honest,” is not true at all.
There is nothing to wonder at. As a result of being under the control of other states for several centuries, the nation’s morality was significantly deformed. Self-respect was supplanted by coercive loyalty to a foreign regime or, in the 20th century, by a party card in one’s breast pocket. Philosophers argue that honest citizens can only be free individuals, who are protected by the law and confident of themselves and their rights.
This is the way we live — without respect for elected officials, without the slightest trust in their actions, as though someone else, not we, elected them. But after all, this is the way it was. So we have a paradox: the overwhelming majority of citizens (not engaged in “profitable” politics) cannot sincerely answer such seemingly easy questions as, whom would you like for president, prime minister, and member of government or parliament?
