Not long ago, I had occasion to write in the pages of “Trud news” that the political crisis is a crisis of the personalities and impersonalities that have fallen to (try to) rule the country. It is not a crisis of parliamentary government, it is not a crisis of the constitution (God save us!), it is not a crisis of democracy or republican principles. It is a crisis of lack of capacity in our “first party and state leaders”, forgive the reference. Our statesmen and women are the crisis. It is not systemic, but personal. The crisis has names, social security numbers and addresses. Don't listen to the shamans who, often driven mainly by their own interests, keep talking about how we should have thrown the baby out with the bathwater.
The political soothsayers are telling how, you see, a presidential republic was needed. A firm hand would rule us. Nice. But if you want a firm hand, dear shamans, why don't you go to a country with such a government? Why not experience it a little in Iran, in Russia, in North Korea? You want a firm hand there. They sit around in our European home and talk about how things should have been done with one-man rule. Shit, you see. If we leave aside my deep conviction that the concentration of power in one hand will turn us into a Balkan Belarus, then we have to say something else to the shamans.
First, yours won't happen. Stress is unnecessary, calm your passions and live your life, your wish will not come true. And secondly, in the current state of severe personal political crisis, what do we do with one-man rule? Do you think that one person, however good he may be, is immune from deficits affecting the whole country? It is quite the opposite. The only guarantee that we will not self-dissolve our country, as we persistently try, is to seek agreement, conversation and dialogue. Dictating and pounding on the table will not do. In general, wanting a presidential republic because there is an interpersonal political crisis is like wanting to heal a broken finger by amputating an arm from the shoulder.
Look, it will not happen with a change of the electoral system, nor with the destruction of parliamentary democracy, nor with a presidential republic, nor with a monarchy, nor with other such exotics. It will work. But a lot of work. With a lot of effort, painful and unpleasant, but irreversible. No one has ever received and held happiness in their hands, anywhere and in any way, if it was the result of life's chance or someone else's merit. Success, dear friends, begins, ends and happens only with enormous effort, planning, again with enormous effort, talent, again effort, capacity and again effort. Our politicians sit and somehow expect things to happen without their intervention and without their efforts. It is as if they were chosen not to rule, but to sit in one place and have wealth showered on their heads. And this while they talk about how they will never ally with this one, they will never govern with that one, they will not do this, they will not do that. Nice. Say what you will do. Say who you would work with. Say what you're for, not against, we got that. The situation is - they keep telling us how they don't want to do anything, and we are surprised that they don't want to do anything. No vision, no conversation, no debate. Just one measurement with unflatterings around the studios and a race to fry the opponent.
In other words, the problem is a systemic intellectual deficit. We live in a time of cognitive decline, which makes the movie “Idiocracy” to look like a documentary. It can be seen everywhere, why can't it be seen in politics as well? Our politicians, and here the innocent will not forgive me, are currently unable to generate stability and dialogue. Third year we drive, in which the steering is in a state of complete blockage. What is this due to? The constitution? The Martians? The reptiles? Or the personal inability of the people making up the political class to do basic work. The latter is out of the question. My grandmother, a light-hearted person, used to say that we should never choose people who, when we see and hear, we are left with the distinct feeling that they are incapable of giving bread to a tied dog. She was a wise woman, and apparently more people need to hear this advice.
We have politicians today who look, talk, act, and are in reality such grievous morons that I am sure if we changed their shoes in the morning they would not be able to leave the house. And we expect these people to help their country? Your society? It can't be done. They can't, dear. No-mo-gat. If they could, they would, but they can't, and so they don't do anything substantial. What do you think is behind every party mantra that only they are capable of governing? Nothing but an attempt to mask their own bankruptcy. It is obvious that no one can rule alone. But they keep babbling around the studios about how they alone would have saved the world. The situation is - they don't choose him a house manager in the entrance to get up, he calls you “I know how to solve the problems of the Galaxy”. In that line of thinking, it's obvious - whatever system we have, whatever constitution we have, once we're ruled by people who can't, things just won't happen. It's not space's problem that the rocket can't take off.
That being said, we still need to note something important. The political crisis today may not be constitutional, but that could quickly change. We have a constitutional crisis when either the constitution does not provide an answer to the question of what to do in a difficult situation, or when the parameter set by the constitution is unlawfully suspended. In this sense, it is very easy for a political crisis to turn into a constitutional one. Not necessarily right now, but it could happen. It's just that, if politicians start treating the constitution as something optional, not mandatory, then the gates of hell are opened and all kinds of monsters can crawl out from there.
An unpleasant precedent in this direction was created when the president refused to sign the decree on the appointment of Gorica Kozhareva's office. Personal assessments of this or that in the personnel composition of this project cabinet are legitimate from a political point of view. In the political arena, everyone can give whatever evaluations they want. But it is completely unacceptable for this type of interpersonal conflict to develop into an argument for non-compliance with the constitutional norm or for postponing elections. The latter, therefore, is one of the most dangerous steps in any democracy. I'm sure it won't go to extremes, but setting such precedents is dangerous and adds instability to the whole political mess stirred up by the party headquarters.