1) Every one of Ukraine’s “political elite” has let Ukraine down – the ones that were elected in order to implement the promises of the Orange Revolution.

Some people shout and scream and want Yushchenko to resign now. But his failure to keep his promises will be reckoned with at the next election.

Failure to keep political promises is not a crime. Politicians who fail to keep their promises have their day of reckoning in the next elections.

However, if the president commits a crime, he must be held accountable – that’s what impeachment is for, and that’s what criminal prosecution is for.

2) Dictatorships are more “efficient” than a democracy in the sense that a dictator does not have to wait for the normal mechanisms of a democracy to make and implement decisions.

As I mentioned, Ukraine’s already had dictatorship.

3) There are lots of ideas that have been discussed, and Yushchenko, and Tymoshenko, and Yanuk have all contributed to the “war of all against all.”

To put it bluntly, it is like sharks in a feeding frenzy. Even wild dogs are better behaved than the “political elite.” And dogs don’t kill people with their BMW’s and Mercedes and Maybachs and Lexuses.

Part of it is called “NIH” – “Not Invented Here”, meaning that each of the “political forces” wants to take credit for everything that’s good, and to block anything proposed by the other side.

Which illustrates that government in Ukraine is not representing the people, but oligarchs.

And it’s really, really inconvenient for them to actually have to deal with elections and people.

Soooo – what are Ukrainians going to do about it?

What points are you trying to make?

PS Winston Churchill, even in time of war, was subject to checks and balances. Noone would reasonably call Churchill a dictator.

Dr.Taras, I’d like to answer elmer’s questions in previos article and don’t know were to place them. Last comment relates to Constitution, so I place it below. Feel free to move it on your choice.

(Elmer)
2) “should serve his full term …unless he has committed high crimes in office”
- I don’t understand why some people insist on that “letter of law” is higher than “spirit of law”. The laws of society are not the “laws of nature”. The last ones in some form of scientific representation or interpretation (also revised from time to time) are working independent of us, and all we have to do is accommodate to them and use for own good. In contrary, the “laws of society” have absolutely polar source and direction: they are made by people (and you know that some of people “are good” and some “are bad”), they have to serve for the good of majority (but never for all100 %) and are nothing more, including Constitution, as social agreement. What to do in situation when some law works against the good of majority and97 % (as in our case) understand this? What is more important in such extraordinal situation? “Letter of law” or simple common sense that the laws are not given by God, that they are made by people and they can be changed by them if they start to work against them. And answering your question: should society wait for some criminal act as murder (save God!) or bribe with “marked dollars” documented on video? And as for the head of the state – is not such reason as simple professional unfitness that pushes country backwards enough for this?
5) “Dictatorships are “efficient.”
- I absolutely don’t understand where you could find such statement. Maybe I should write: “…long discussions somewhere in warm dry place about the purity of…at the time when hurricane is near your home?” – I tried to make accent on the word “purity” but not on “democracy”. I’ll try to explain. I’m not sure, maybe Dr.Taras will correct me: I’ve heard that Sir Winston Churchill was highly respected due to the fact that at the time of World War II it was he as Prime Minister who made decisions so needed for defense whereas some of other high authorities were in the state of deep confusion. Can you see “dictatorship” in such cases?
6) “It is BEFORE they are implemented – not after a mistake has been made.”
- You are right, but do you know that this proposition was made by Tymoshenko yet before elections 2007? There were 9 questions on advisory referendum, this idea was supported by several millions of signatures and it was Yushchenko who blocked this idea. The form of 2 questions on what type is preferred – presidential or parliament was absolutely identical. (http://vybory.org/articles/902.html)

By Yuri_D on Jun 9, 2009

Another big problem – the tendency of Ukrainians to make simple things complicated.

2) You are right again – sometimes the source of a statement, who said it, is not relevant. But Kravchuk calling for Yushchenko’s resignation is wrong, not because Kravchuk said it, as a “former” Commie, or member of Medvedchuk’s party, but because Yushchenko was elected for a 5-year term, and he should serve his full term – unless he has committed high crimes in office.

3) You are right again – there are 165 political parties registered in Ukraine, not all of them are really interested in anything other than draining votes away from specific targets, or acquiring power for themselves. In a sense, a parliamentary system is more democratic, because there are multiple parties represented.

But the overwhelming, over-arching parameter here, the immutable force of gravity, which Ukrainians can’t seem to figure out how to get rid of, is – oligarchs.

Despite the multiple parties, it’s oligarchs who are waging war, and it’s oligarchs who have a stranglehold on Ukraine’s government, and they seem to be cemented into place.

Noone is immune.

Akhmetov, the wealthiest, is a member of the Rada, but he never shows up for sessions.

Tymo is, of course, herself and oligarch.

Yushchenko, who claims that “these hands never stole,” has apparently learned the old trick perfected in Western democracies before corruption was largely eliminated – “don’t pay me, pay my brother and my family, or other relatives.”

I could not understand why Yushch supported Firtash. Now I do.

Question – who represents you in the Rada? Where can you go if your rights are violated? Or if you have a complaint? Does Yanuk’s son represent you? Does Akhmetov? Or Lytvyn? Or Hanna Herman?

4) You are right – in large measure, ordinary people, who distrust government in Ukraine, go about their daily business.

But ignoring government and its shenanigans is a dangerous thing.

I am glad that these amendments to the Constitution, hatched in secret closed-door meetings, have been defeated – for now. It looks like the maggots will try again.

5) You are partially right, if I understood you correctly – with regard to “purity of democratic ideas,” — “don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.”

Democracy is not perfect. It is not “efficient.” Dictatorships are “efficient.” Ukraine has already gone through that.

I’m not sure exactly what your point is there, and I’m not sure exactly what you are talking about.

But you are flat wrong about the time for discussing “democratic ideas.”

It is BEFORE they are implemented – not after a mistake has been made.

6) In Ukraine, EVERYONE KNOWS the government is corrupt. EVERYONE KNOWS the government is inefficient. All you have to do is take a look at Euro 2012 preparations. All you have to do is look at the space lunatic who is the mayor of Kyiv – and doesn’t speak Ukrainian in the capital of Ukraine. All you have to do is look at Yanuk’s Mezhihirya, his huge mansion estate with its own soccer field and children’s playground.

Question: How long will Ukrainians let it continue?

Wonderful! Because I started to doubt (sorry) in your independency of thinking.
And that’s the case – I’d like only to ask you about your hypothetical choice – whom do you vote for in given conditions (assuming you are supporter of democratic way, you know that ignoring elections will give negative result and in that way your vote will be a gift to Yanukovich & Co. Ltd.) I don’t like you to accept my relatively high estimation – for thinking voters they must differ down to the level of “lesser evil”. Also don’t consider me as “a fan” – I cannot be such by education (physics) and work in research labs. I pretty well know the difference between “real” and “ideal” vapors, crystals, and before interpreting results firstly try to check for apparatus or own errors.
Well, a few points to consider.
From the point of view of ordinary US voter the choice between two parties is smth. near of “where it’s better to live: in New-York or San-Francisco?”. The difference in expected variations of social parameters, economical growth etc. is no more than 5-10% to say nothing of unchanged style of life and what’s the main – political and economical system as a whole. Can you imagine such a situation if one party (supported by wealthiest) agitates for the system like in South American countries, other – like in Northern ones? More over – one of the three small parties (5-7%) want to live like in Northern Korea, and the rest two also small don’t say before elections whom they will support after? Thrilling, isn’t it?
But it’s very close to our political situation. More over one should add lack of democratic education and experience, majority of mass-media are owned by supporters of mixed “South-American” and so-called “Asiope’s (Russian) way. Also add artificially created by the same mass-media the highest level of polarization of society (division by supporters of political parties, language, even ethnicity). How do you like such “logics”: Kravchuk is not right recommending Yushchenko to resign because: a) he is Communist b) he was in Medvedchuk’s party”? Maybe it means that I have to reject communist’s statement “2+2=4″ or believe some BYuT’s member if he write Newton’s law in a form: “a = F x m”? Unfortunately it’s not so rarely when people evaluate political events not thinking of “what was said?” but “who said?”.
Current political battle can be compared with “cold civil war”. No, this war is not between ordinary people – it’s not rarely picture in L’viv (Western Ukraine) to see people peacefully drinking coffee (or smth. else) one of them speaking Ukrainian, other Russian and discussing their business problems or last football game. But at the same time how do you like to see Tyahnybok or Kendzior on the meetings or local TV and discussing: “Why Tymoshenko does not say that her grandfather was “Latvian Jew” whereas Yushchenko’s N generations were “pure” Ukrainians?” How it is called in US or other democratic countries? I think – “narrow-minded racism”. Unfortunately, it also works, maybe only on several percents, but if you are tracking Ukrainian politics, only two votes in Rada (Plushch, Kril’) was enough for Yushchenko to bury (de facto) yet so weak and unstable democratic coalition. Maybe after that somebody would say that Tymoshenko likes Lytvin? Or Yuanukovich? And if one can agree that in some extent it’s similar to “war”, the value of victory is absolutely polar: “a way to the western democracy” OR “to Asiope”. And don’t we know what methods are used in the war? I don’t believe that in peaceful life any business or political negotiations between sides are openly translated in “live” mode. As for me, in the state of hard and dirty political war the best time to discuss the questions of “purity of democratic ideas” is AFTER the victory of democracy. Because one may open his eyes next morning and find himself somewhere like in R.Sheckley’s “Status Civilization”.