If Maidan in 2004 tried to solve problems of the country from below having mobilized maximum number of citizens-participants of the process. Elections of the year 2006, on the contrary, limited this number. The choice of the country development in sight of 2006 was already mediated from above - by the lists of selective associations. By virtue of it problems were solved not together and not equally with everyone.
The right to put forward representatives into authorities was received only by a part of society, its politically motivated part, elite. Conciliarism (differentia) thus, was unified, made a sacrifice to Unitarianism. Mechanism of coordination of interests from below was changed by redistribution of powers from above (political-legal reform).
“Universal” confirmed and fastened that tendency. Besides “universal” let the President to keep face. Having kept, among other things, contradictions between the levels of authorities (uniform) and branches (differentiated) – system defect.
Meanwhile, if to be guided by a principle of division of authorities in literal sense,then it’s logically and obviously that such division (ruling) powers is necessary to carrying out not only on a vertical line (between the branches of the authority), but also between the levels (across). That is between a local level - local self-management, medium - the subject of Federation and federal powers. Really, the tree of the state fructifies the blessing to the citizens only when they delegate it their plenary powers/juices from the roots to the crown, to the branches of the authority. Thus according to Gegel “society – is differentia between the family and the state”.
If to paraphrase that is said then the Federation can be said to be formative from the mandates delegated by the society – to the state. Federation – is differentia of the interests of gutter.
From the earliest times pyramid used to be considered as the most steadfast figure. Unlike, for example, cube pyramid has less windage. However, if to overturn the pyramid on one of its sides, its windage from the part of its former foundation will increase. Stability of the figure will decrease. If to continue an experiment further and to overturn it to its verge or top (quadrangular foundation upwards), stability of the construction will change once again. It seemed that nothing’s happening with the pyramid on the surface. No deformations, no transformations. But no, every time the square of the support will change. Consequently, “the risks of stability” will be changed on every stage.
Maximum stability, as you understand, will fall in case of support of the figure on the foundation (tetrahedron). With support on a trihedral stability will be limited. With support of a pyramid on the top, risks of collapse of the construction will increase to the maximum.
Something similar takes place in the state system as well. It’s one question when regions delegate their powers upward, to the top of the authority. Such situation is possible only under condition of the positions of a civil society firmly established. The matter is absolutely different when the top of authority lowers the instructions downwards, to people. In this case, interests of the state prevail over the interests of a civil society. As soon as in this case mutual relations between the society and the state are shaded, not transparent for the society.
In the first case the authority works in a transmisive mode from people, its bodies (local self-management) mechanism. In the second, in a mode of a driving belt alien to the foundation (i.e. to people) interests. The foundation, whatever one may do, always aspires to the ground. Whereas its top depends on the position of foundation.
For example, if you (you – people - in fact are the basis/foundation) consider that your destiny depends on the Supreme authority, you do the rate on "professionalism" of the Top. Risks thus, increase. As soon as the price of each separately taken mistake increases. Universal vertical line. In situation when regions delegate these or those powers (the rights and duties) upward, risks decrease. As soon as the probability of making of one and the same mistake in all regions simultaneously decreases.
