The President Will Teach Us "to Love Freedom"

At the World political forum (they like such forums very much, while FORUM.msk doesn't like it at all) on Friday in Yaroslavl the president made some not program statements about democracy. He never spoke on this theme in details before, now he is either grew bolder, or relaxed and allocated five standards which it should correspond to.

Legal embodiment of humanistic values and ideals he named the first one: giving them the force of law. He didn't open that thesis but he stopped in detail on the second - maintenance of high level of technological development having reminded of the course taken by him on development of innovations and modernization.

The third standard - ability of democracy to protect itself from underworld encroachments. Independent judicial authority and humane penitentiary system is necessary for it and it coincides with the approach of the country leaders, Medvedev noted Stating the fourth standard - high level of culture and education - he started talking about necessity of public discussions of acute problems.

The fifth standard - personal sensation of freedom assuming refusal of paternalistic moods.

It's interesting that having named whole 5 signs of democracy our president Dima somehow bypassed the theme of elections, selectivity, suffrage and so on in general. Though to make discoveries on theme of what democracy is for the nominal head of frankly dictatorial mode is kitch, certainly. Especially at "a world political forum". It's the same as though Nikita Khruschev began teaching all at economic forum what the market is

So, simple definition of democracy - it's when the power is elected and not appointed or inherited - it hasn't come to the president Dima (or those who write him clever speeches).

However, if our favourite leader paid attention to the question of democracy, possible, we also should understand what he wanted to say. As it's impossible to make head or tail of it at once - Dima is not notable for lucidity of mind.

What does legal embodiment of humanistic values and ideals mean? What relation it has to democracy, if almost a half of humanists of the past starting from Socrat was sent on scaffold by democratic way? If there was democracy in Athens? Yes, it was. Whether the sentence to Socrat was lawful? Apparently yes, if he himself recognized its legality.

Whether there is in general connection between democracy and humanism? It is but indirect, so it is impossible to name one derivative of the other.

What is the connection between democracy and level of technological development - absolutely not clear. The period from Stalin to Brezhnev was the highest period of technological blossoming of Russia but it's somehow difficult to name it the top of democracy. As well as Germany at Hitler or Italy at Mussolini.

History is full of such examples - autocrat Ivan III totally crushed the army of the Novgorod republic which several times surpassed it numerically because of the technological superiority of his army. Technological and modernization break of the epoch of Peter Alekseevich isn't connected in any way with democratization but, on the contrary, it was epoch of strengthening of authoritarianism. And so on.

If to talk about the fourth point, it's necessary to mention that Mussolini and Stalin were the most effective fighters with mafia while democrats from armies of the USA and Great Britain actively used mafia structures in war with fascism.

The fifth point is, probably, the most important. Really, democracy should be accompanied by feeling of freedom. But "paternalistic moods" give the most important component of freedom - social and economic freedom.

If it's freedom, when a person is afraid to lose work and together with it to lose habitation, property and social status, when he is compelled to pursue mythical well-being as work in the spin cycle and to die early? Brezhnev's period was the most successful on internal feeling of freedom, when even if you have such a desire, it was positively impossible to lose habitation and work. Though there were problems with political freedoms or the same freedom of speech - though not so awful as it is accepted to consider now.

Whether internal state of health of people is connected with democracy? Yes, it is connected. Ideally possibility to decide own destiny should add confidence in the future and respect to oneself and calmness. Whether it's so? Whether we move in this direction under the guidance of our president Dima?

If he considers that there's more democracy at him, than 5 years ago at Putin, while there was more democracy at Putin, than at Yeltsin 12 years ago.

May be he means something else under the word democracy? Judging by his 5 points - it's obvious. As well as by public state of health. There was no fear during Yeltsin's epoch, it appeared later. Many things were absent then - hot water and money, feeling of safety and confidence in the future but there was no fear. Fear appeared later, at Putin.

Though residual displays of democracy nevertheless remained at Putin, he gradually was getting rid of them. Dima-president is culmination of Putin mode, this appointment of the successor on legitimacy is comparable to appointment of tsar Simeon Bekbulatovich. It's full humiliation of parliamentarizm, it's a full profanation of justice, it's police mode erected in law. It is full loss of 99% of citizens of the right and possibility to put forward own candidates on elections and to be elected.

Well, at last we are told what democracy is - at that they manage not to use the word "elections".

In general, democracy - it's when Dima works as the president, all others have good state of health and no paternalism. It means that Dima-president and his state owe nothing to citizens... And citizens don't have any possibility to ask and to demand. They are not citizens in general, they are servants.

Send by mail

Print