If Caesar’s Wife Must Be Above Suspicion, What About Caesar Himself?

Should society trust those in power? From Soviet times, our society and state have been instructed that it should not. As shown by the decade of Ukrainian independence, both the state and society have failed to realize the importance of such trust, first, as a political axiom and, second, as a vital precondition for longevity in politics. The so far insignificant quantitative changes that are taking place in both these segments of the social process, however, have brought no qualitative changes.

In light of our declared social goals of creating a market economy, democracy, and integration into Europe, lack of progress in reforming the relationship between the state and society has long become a major obstacle to the transformations that everybody supposedly wants.

Given the present state of Ukrainian society, the so-called cassette scandal seems to present a unique opportunity to serve as a catalyst producing qualitative changes in how both the state and society understand their current roles in the new political situation.

Everybody knows in what direction changes are objectively necessary. Those in power should start to perceive their role, specific and honorable as it is, as a servant of society. On the other hand, there should be a growing awareness in society that it is the customer and user of services rendered by the state. This would make it possible for the customers to chose their servants. Today in our society such new roles are viewed as unimaginable (by the “little Ukrainian”) and as preposterous (by officials).

And the quicker both participants in this process understand the real content of their new roles, the less painful it will be. Many political scientists, driven either by a desire to influence the development of the cassette scandal or falling prey to wishful thinking, believe that the mere fact that a political scandal can be so widely debated by the public is evidence of the democratic features of Ukrainian society.

If the scandal continues to unfold, involving more and more public meditations on the pro- Kuchma UTN television channel attended by support groups of various caliber, this could lead to mounting pressure in society without any corresponding political changes. In other words, the disease will again be quashed by massive chemotherapy, something that can only aggravate the disease. Such a scenario could have the only bottom line: the instinct of political self-preservation will continue to dominate among those in power with Ukraine’s national interests and economic, social, political or any other progress falling to the wayside and being overridden (not for the first time in history) by the officeholder’s instinct of self-preservation.

For this reason other alternative scenarios should be considered, if our vital interests reach beyond primitive physiological needs. The scandal should be viewed primarily as a moral and ethical issue because the legal way of solving it has little in store for many reasons, of which much has been said and written of late.

The moral and ethical scenario gives the best possibility to arrive at the truth because it makes it possible to involve unbiased foreign experts to assess the authenticity of charges. Approaching the truth in this way matters more than just establishing it in court.

Who needed this? It was needed so that, if proven openly and convincingly, unimpeachable accusations could serve as a basis for a political resignation. Ukraine desperately needs such a precedent.

First and foremost, Caesar must be above suspicion. In this case, we have the chance to rise to democracy standards. At least with the ancient ones and at least for a start.

P.S. There is one very important, if not central, aspect - appropriate guarantees must be given Caesar and his followers in case of their leaving office

Due to the specifics of Ukrainian society, a substantial part if not the majority of its members are bending or actually breaking the law and could face prosecution on the strength of one statute or another. Deciding which one should be used could involve society in and infinite and certainly futile debate.

Accordingly, a compromise should be reached on the measure of Caesar’s and his team’s liabilities following their resignations. This is central for the Ukrainian people and the state. The chance of establishing legal liability after resignation could render stepping down inconceivable for a long time, as the great Ukrainian people continues to sit in its own house oblivious to the rest of the world.

Historical Reference

1. Gaius Julius Caesar (100- 44 BC), Roman Emperor, who began his political career supporting a democratic movement and divorced his second wife because of gossip.

2. Caesar, a title of the emperor in Ancient Rome, a state where some people owned other people as slaves — Author.