 Let the People Decide |
Oligarch is a term in vogue in Ukraine (and in neighboring Russia) that seems to mean... well what? Loosely applied it seems to mean almost any affluent businessman (or woman, though they be few) who owns a big Mercedes, has a big house (an estate of some significant size) and is a person of some influence and, perhaps, exercises some power. Now, further, it seems the term has a negative connotation. But should it?
The answer to the question presented would be no, but for the italicized some power. And even then it should yield no general approbation to the holder of such a title unless it indicates some power over the people in their government. And even further then, it still should not be a negative term if the person who wears it has been voted upon by the people. In other words, if the people (the body politic) have properly decided (by election presumably) to have that person be their representative in the Rada then where is the affront that causes a negative connotation? Where is the affront to democracy?
In fact, in most democracies there are some compromises in the direct election by the people of their representatives. In the United States, isn't the presidency decided by electors (the electoral college)? And aren't there other compromises with direct election by the people? One remembers that each state in that union elects two senators. And of course the citizen of Wyoming has far greater power in representation than the citizen of California, a far more populous state. Further back in American history it may also be recalled that until 1913 the important office of senator in each state of the United States was chosen by the legislators of that state. Is all this so different from what is proposed in Ukraine?
Another question. If you have oligarchs in government do you have an oligarchy? That is, "a form of government in which the ruling power belongs to a few persons" (a Webster's definition). And if so, is that bad? The term oligarchy itself has a bad reputation. But should it? Maybe, it depends on how many oligarchs and whether they are elected by the people? Well, here a point. If you have a lot of oligarchs in government, say as many as there are ministers in the current Ukrainian Rada, then ergo, clearly this is not government by the few. Therefore, there is no oligarchy. And, if those oligarchs' appointment to office is decided upon by the people, what's the problem democratically speaking?
The answer to that last question seems to be there should be no problem, democratically speaking. A point of fact is that my experience tells me that there just aren't that many oligarchs in Ukraine. I've heard the number bandied that there are five. Whether this is true or not, I know not. But, are any of those five in the Rada? I don't know that either. I'm sure of the fact that some are not. Maybe there are some other big shots (pretend oligarchs?) that are in the Rada. If so, how many? Anyway, I'm sure that taking the "real" oligarchs and the pretend oligarchs altogether that there just aren't enough total oligarchs to go around. So what's the conclusion one is left with? Well it seems there are some rich (financially well off) people who are elected to the Rada in Ukraine. But, that's true in the United States and most other democratic countries too. Again, what problem?
So far this analysis would lead one to conclude that the minor adjustment (the tinkering with the mechanics again so to speak) with the presidential election process presently proposed for Ukraine should create no problem for Ukraine's fledging democracy.
Back in the bad old days (at least some say they were bad) of the Soviet Union the people voted in elections too. But, the people were left to decide leaders based on the slate (the proposed leaders) that was put before them. That slate of electors in practice was selected by the Communist Party leadership. And the Communist Party where the decision was made was at its highest level and that was but a few people. And though the word democratic was tossed about, I think all would freely now admit that the process was not democratic. The people in reality were not able to decide their leadership. The process itself was corrupt (if the pretense was the people making the decision). And in reality, the process was no less corrupt than the relatively recent example of Saddam Hussein and his 100% electoral victory in Iraq.
So, where does one draw the line? Oliver Wendell Holmes of some noted legal repute (being a judge and all) is said to have indicated that there is but one true legal question, That is, "where to draw the line?" Actually, I've googled and can't find Judge Holmes saying anything of the sort. Yet someone probably did at some time say it. And there may be some wisdom there but I'm not so sure.
But in any case, for the people to decide their leadership the process itself, whatever the mechanics, can't be corrupt. A line must be drawn. For Ukraine to be democratic the people must be the decision makers as to their leaders.
And the important penultimate questions? Is that what the current changes are designed to do? That is, to allow for the people to decide the president. Or is the process being manipulated so that only a designated few will be voted upon? And, will that few in that process be chosen only by the few? Like in the good old, bad old days of the Soviet Union?
Or will the people be allowed to decide?
|
Read also previous issue' articles:
What it Was, Was Football
An American in Perish
The Baseball Way to Pleasure and Wisdom
What a Fine Mess
At My Table
The King is Gone- and So are You
|
| |
CONTACT US |
|
|
|
