Once Again on Morality in Politics
After entering the article “Politics and Morals” on my web site, I expected some public response, of course. However, despite the obvious topicality of the problem, which, by its very philosophical status, has an eternal standing, the said article seems to have passed unnoticed by both my opponents and exponents.
I understand that many are loath to broach the subject of morals in Ukrainian politics; it is easier to pretend it does not exist at all. Still, the political image of this country, badly damaged of late, and a part of the Verkhovna Rada members who have discredited themselves in the eyes of the international community, the unprecedented level of immoral political technologies being applied by some of the contestants in the ongoing election race, and a lot of other things in our political realities demand that I return to the subject.
Those seriously interested in the compatibility of morals and politics know that there are two polarized views on the problem. The latter-day followers of Machiavelli, Nietzsche, and Bismarck claim that politics cannot be based on morality, that its essence is strength and benefit. Confucius, Kant, and Rousseau were of precisely the opposite opinion. Rousseau said that everything bad ethically is also bad politically.
Most of our contemporary compatriots are convinced, and with reason, that politics is a dirty business. Indeed, it would be difficult to draw a moral line in the alignment of political forces in Ukraine, with honest and incorruptible people on one side and corrupt and treacherous ones on the other. Everybody interprets politics as an art of the possible, which, in a sense, justifies compromises and accords. The active subjects of political relationships (parties, volunteer organizations, and political leaders) are concerned only about keeping their efforts within the limits of the laws currently in effect, without warranting the enforcement of legitimized sanctions.
Morals are a different story, because transgressing them is punished not by the law but by one’s conscience (if one has any) and the community’s judgment. Moral norms are not rules of conduct but our inner imperatives upon which rest the notions of honor, conscience, and dignity. If, as Rousseau said, man’s morality is determined by his intent, then a political party must be assessed by its ideological objectives. True, this is easier said than done because a great many Ukrainian political parties and blocs do not even bother to identify themselves ideologically, rallying round their ideological banners all those opposed to Leonid Kuchma, or those supporting “unity,” although no one can understand what this is based on.
Thanks to world Social Democracy, moral values developed over a number of centuries by the best minds of the human race such as liberty, equality, justice, as well as the honor and dignity of every individual, have been transferred from the sphere of moral philosophy to that of practical politics. In other words, this is politics relying on a system of universally recognized general human values, with a solid value basis in the form of the Social Democratic ideals of freedom and solidarity, which can by no means be a dirty business. That is why, by championing these ideals, the United Social Democrats of Ukraine not only came out with the initiative to hold fair elections, but also remain consistent exponents of the principles of transparent politics. We have nothing to conceal from our electorate and our people.
Of course, politics is a means of winning, retaining, and exercising power for the Social Democrats as it is for people representing whatever other political trends; this implies use of political force and constraint of some for the benefit of others. The experience of Social Democrats in power in Western and Central European countries, however, graphically demonstrates how well justified their use of political force is, relying on democratic legislation and international law, being applied in order to assert the genuine equality of all community members and social justice.
Unfortunately, in our times political struggle often turns into a war of personally compromising materials, and Ukraine probably ranks first in this. Traditionally, we do not extend the presumption of innocence principle to professional politicians; assuming that politics is a dirty business, those directly involved are constantly suspected of foul play, be it financial machinations, illegal enrichment, abuse of office, or corruption.
It is no secret that very often such suspicions prove correct, and combating corruption is one of highest priorities and most difficult tasks. Suffice it to recall how actively some Verkhovna Rada deputies resisted the bill to monitor the incomes and spending of officials initiated by us. Still, the bill has been passed in the first reading, and I am sure that it will soon be adopted.
Together with this, we realize that the problem of combating corruption lies at the crossroads of law and morals. International experience in fighting this heinous phenomenon shows that even the best laws and use of a variety of law enforcement and economic techniques cannot guarantee the elimination of the causes and consequences of corruption in the realm of state politics.
As a result of my own political efforts, and as the leader of a political party, I have on more than one occasion received convincing proof that fair politics is the most effective means, that lofty political goals cannot be reached while ignoring public morality, and for this reason I always weigh the measure of what is permissible in politics on the basis of the ethical responsibility for specific actions and take into account their consequences.
Relying on my understanding of the importance of political struggle, and as a participant in the election campaign, I wish to clearly define the actions of political forces and their leaders which I cannot consider morally justified under any conditions.
First, I consider manipulating public consciousness totally impermissible. Political activities are so complicated and controversial that misleading the voters is not difficult. It is only the civil society, which is being built, that can erect a solid barrier to such political manipulations. Until a system of public control over political activities is established in Ukraine and public access to information is secured, until serious guarantees of the independence of the media are provided, on the one hand, and a corporate code of journalist ethics enacted on the other, the issue of protecting public opinion from such manipulation will remain open.
Improving the legal culture of the population is the most important prerequisite for the construction of a civil society in our country and an effective means of protection from political manipulations. Aware of this, the United Social Democrats are making every effort to implement the Legal Education program. Using central television and regional networks, as well as public reception desks organized at Verkhovna Rada on the initiative of, and jointly with, the SDPU(o) fraction, we are helping people learn and defend their legal rights.
Second, I regard as immoral testing the people’s patience with empty promises. Consider the poll asking people whom they trusted more — the president, premier, parliament, etc. — and the number that answered nobody. There are too many of them to continue to abuse the people’s confidence. Empty verbiage has become a real scourge of Ukrainian politics, so the SDPU(o) has adopted as its practical principle the motto, Promised — Done!
Third, I wholeheartedly detest the political renegade behavior that is gradually transforming politics into a business in Ukraine. I think it would be good for the electorate to take a closer look at the dynamics of the switching of certain people’s deputies from fraction to fraction and study their voting records to trace their principled and consistent approaches to the most acute issues. Lobbying for one’s own interests is not a domestic invention, yet the scope and consequences of this phenomenon in Ukraine has reached world record levels.
Fourth, I consider a politician’s professional incompetence a special social hazard. The effectiveness of a political system largely (if not crucially) depends on the professionalism of those who believe they assumed certain duties because they had a right to, thus of course assuming the responsibility for their decisions. This is very important for countries such as Ukraine. Look closely at the sort of nihilism that has formed in professional politics. It is probably the only sphere where everybody can do everything. In my opinion, political professionalism can be advanced by increasing professional competence, augmenting professional experience, mastering innovative decision-making techniques, along with developing new highly productive algorithms to carry out professional tasks and introduce social technologies. The times when a charwoman was considered capable of governing the state have long past.
Fifth and last, any abuse of office is immoral, and the scope of such abuse is quite extensive, ranging from personal enrichment by robbing the people to use of the notorious administrative resource.
It is not simple but very important to understand that a nation actually has the leaders it deserves. The sum total of the moral aspirations of individuals and the whole people creates the overall moral climate in a given society, forming a set of requirements to those vested with power. The status of public morality in Ukraine worries teachers and clergymen, but never politicians engrossed in power plays and all those busy with the primary accumulation of capital, which by definition means scorning moral norms. Regrettably, this division of functions in society results in irreversible processes. After a political system is established, some capital accumulated, and one wishes to live in a stable society where all would observe at least the most basic ethic norms, the status of public morality provokes a redistribution of both power and capital in a most uncivilized, savage manner. Can this vicious circle be broken? Is it society or its leaders that must be the first to become moral? I think that each should start with himself.
The concept that not every prosperous individual is a criminal and needy one righteous, that moving closer to a market economy will sharpen social differentiation, and that the Social Democratic orientation of the national policy can protect this society from property polarization (which is dangerous for it in the first place) is even more difficult to cultivate in public consciousness.
The Social Democrats do not attempt to subordinate public morality to their political objectives; our policy has been morally oriented and socially responsible from the outset. Thus, rallying round Social Democratic ideas will enable Ukrainian society to develop fitting conditions for prosperity in a historically short period.
