I recently drove along the Odessa-Kyiv highway. I can’t say I was surprised, but what definitely stuck with me was the countless number of billboards with election campaign ads. If you treat them as just background, then, it seems like nothing unusual, but if you take a closer look and actually read what’s written on these boards, questions arise. At least, for me.
For example, what exactly are the communists trying to “Return” to everyone? As far as I understand, in order to return something, you first have to have taken it from somewhere. If the communists promise to return the country, regulation, and something else to the people of Ukraine, it’s logical to assume that at some point they participated in taking all those things away, and now have decided to give back what they can no longer hold onto or what won’t fit anymore. On the other hand, promising to return what you don’t own or control at the moment is, at the very least, dishonest. What exactly the Communist Party is promising, and why I should vote for its candidates, I still don’t understand.
The Regionals promise a transition from stability to prosperity. But if we take as ‘stability’ the stable uncertainty about tomorrow, the stable depreciation of the national currency, the stable tightening of fiscal policy, consistently low international ratings by all significant measures, steadily deteriorating relations with our closest neighbors, one of the lowest life expectancies in Europe, consistently pervasive corruption… then I am even afraid to imagine what is meant by the upcoming Prosperity. A transition from one state to another suggests that the first state will end, and at some point, the other will begin. I’m even somewhat glad that such stability will end, but it’s hard to imagine that, while falling into an abyss and clearly seeing the sharp rocks below, you will suddenly find yourself on top of the world.
UDAR declares that it is time for a Strike. How should this be understood? A call for violence. Given the main characteristics of the leader, is it assumed that one should defend their point of view with fists? Which part of the electorate is this aimed at? Militant nationalists, criminals, aggressively minded youth? It should be noted that the colors of the campaign materials are kept in red, the color of aggression and violence. This only confirms what was said above. In some ways, I too support an active life stance, but it always seemed to me that the development of a civilized society moves from violence toward reason and spirituality. Maybe I am naively mistaken. But I really don’t want things to move toward a forceful scenario. We’ve been through this many times, and it has never brought anything good, only grief and misfortune.
Ukraine — forward, forward, a relative concept, everything depends on the current and previous positions. If the current state is worse than the previous one, then ‘forward’ means further deterioration. And should we vote for this? How do old and well-known members from other political parties and with bureaucratic experience become New Leaders? Or is all that’s new just the well-forgotten old? But it hasn’t been forgotten yet. Everything is still fresh.
In general, if you even think for a second about what is written on the billboards, it becomes sad. No one is talking about the fact that elected officials should represent the interests of the voters first and foremost. And the voters don’t actually need much:
– Stop paying bribes to officials at every step;
– Have the opportunity to calmly develop their businesses without financially supporting an inefficiently working state bureaucratic apparatus;
– See a future in their own country for their children. What are we supposed to teach them now? How to extort bribes or how to fight with fists?
– Access modern medical care.
– And so on.
It seems to me that the cause-and-effect relationships are mixed up. The situation will not change depending on which party we choose, but rather the party that should be chosen is the one whose objectives are closest to the aspirations of the electorate. And there is no such party. If we add to this an openly neuromarketing approach in the development of promotional materials, aimed at manipulating voters’ consciousness rather than influencing their choice… Manipulation cannot be a tool for positive impact; manipulation is always used only for negative purposes.
The conclusion is simple. Our political ‘leaders,’ when developing their electoral programs, did not aim to engage voters in support of truly necessary changes and improvements, but instead sought to exert manipulative influence on the segment of the electorate most susceptible to it. From the standpoint of increasing the likelihood of achieving a short-term result, this tactic may be justified. However, if we assume that the aim of the campaign is to engage voters, to attract supporters who, having given their trust, will later become the foundation for implementing strategic changes, then the tools chosen are clearly not the right ones.
Everyone has forgotten that the purpose of power in our country, just as in any other, is to ensure a happy life for the population. What does a happy life mean? “Happiness — is a state of being in which a person feels the greatest internal satisfaction with the conditions of their existence, the fullness and meaning of life, and the realization of their human purpose!” (Wikipedia). The list of definitions could be endless. However, I am sure that the following would make the top ten:
– Security
– Confidence in the future
– Good health
– Accessible education
– The opportunity to do what you love (your job)
– Comfortable housing
– Sufficient income
– Opportunities for self-development and self-fulfillment
– Understanding your own value
– Spiritual development and self-improvement
Of course, there can be different perspectives—there are as many opinions as there are people—but I think all definitions will be similar. There is a global ranking system that determines a country’s level of happiness according to multiple criteria. The factors mentioned above are assessed, as well as environmental conditions, economic development, crime rates, and much more. Below is a map showing the happiness index in different countries.
Countries where residents perceive their lives as the happiest are marked in green, and those where people see their lives as not particularly happy are marked in brown. Strangely enough, despite the fact that we seem to have already overcome the phase of devastation and have even grown tired of stability, plus now new leaders are about to build a new economy, Ukraine is among the countries with the lowest level of happiness.
One can argue about the methodology, but something suggests that the ranking is accurate. So, what do our political ‘leaders’ offer that could help us live happier lives? So far, I haven’t found anything. And that’s sad. Perhaps they don’t even think about it at all. After all, who needs a happy population—how would you then keep them scared, manipulate them, or profit at their expense? So far, all that’s clearly visible is the struggle for more seats and portfolios to increase their influence and to lobby for their own interests or those of their sponsors.
If someone proposed not just an abstract improvement in the future, but a specific implementation program based on the following principles:
– The main task of the government is to serve and provide for the population. Yes, exactly: delivering services and producing goods that are in demand by the people—and nothing else. Not protecting the interests of oligarchs, not creating exclusive conditions for the minority, but providing services and producing goods for the population. Those services and goods which cannot be supplied by commercial entities, or over which the state maintains its monopoly. As you understand, there won’t actually be that many such services and goods. The state should spend the money it has earned, not what it has taken from entrepreneurs. Any state enterprise, with proper modern management, has huge competitive advantages that allow it to be profitable.
– Deregulating the economy—only relieving fiscal and bureaucratic pressure—can set the economy on a growth pace that China never dreamed of even in its best years. An analogue of the NEP could now become the only truly effective remedy amid the ongoing general economic crisis. For now, unfortunately, everything is happening in reverse. The situation is worsening, the government needs more and more money, fiscal pressure is increasing, the corruption tax is rising, business opportunities are growing fewer, and as a consequence—the next turn of worsening conditions.
– Simplification of the tax system. Introduction of a turnover tax differentiated by industry. Imagine how much easier accounting would become, how many fewer tax inspectors taking bribes there would be, and how many fewer violations and errors. Reducing cash turnover by implementing payments through bank cards is not such an insurmountable task. Especially since much has already been done in this direction. Controlling turnover is much simpler and more transparent than controlling profits.
– Abolition or significant reduction of payroll taxes. Everything can be accounted for within the turnover tax. Why take money away first and then give it back through social programs and national projects? How much would the official incomes of the population increase? I think significantly.
– Implementation of the “Electronic Government” program, for which there are examples even in Ukraine. Hundreds of bottlenecks, where corrupt officials have settled and hinder normal people’s lives, would immediately disappear. These officials try to get not only their salary for their work, but also a corrupt payoff that is much larger than their official income. Estonia, Georgia, Sweden… have already implemented this system. All the necessary information is available, all formalities are algorithmized and built into the program. Obtaining certificates, permits, clarifications, any documents is done through simple interfaces from a home computer or a public terminal. Why, living in the 21st century, are we not using already developed and proven solutions that make life easier?
– The driver is solely responsible for driving safety. Fire 90% of the traffic police racketeers, who have become so attached to their positions that they’ve forgotten why they’re needed. Their main job is not to extort money from passing drivers, but to ensure and organize road traffic safety. Surely, no one doubts that the current system is aimed not at achieving maximum road safety, but at creating a cash flow that ends up in the pockets of the ‘valiant’ law enforcers and their superiors. If you remove the words ‘Control over’ from the task description, I believe those same 90% would no longer be needed. Just imagine how many fewer stops there would be along the way, how many nerve cells would be spared, and how many more working hands would be added to real sectors of the economy. For example, if you introduce truly strict punishment for a violation that results in some sort of loss (property or health) to the driver himself or third parties, then over time, everyone behind the wheel would become their own inspector. You could revoke driving privileges for 10 years, for example, for an accident caused by the driver that led to at least one participant receiving moderate injuries, or something along those lines. The driving exam, for instance, can be recorded on a dashcam and stored in an archive, with the possibility for random independent checks.
– And so on.
Every time I think about an existing problem, I find several possible solutions, but whenever I try to find someone interested in implementing them, I always end up realizing that the only interested party is the people of Ukraine—and it’s hard to perceive the ‘people’ as a client for change. The people is a grand term, but quite abstract. The government apparatus, naturally, isn’t interested in change; it’s satisfied with everything as it is. So who is the client? With whom should we coordinate the implementation roadmap, and from whom should we expect an evaluation?
I’ve long thought about how this abstract concept—the people—can be transformed into a real client for change. In order to change the system, we need to use what the system understands and what affects it. For example, if a new law on the police is proposed and supported by 5,000,000 residents of Ukraine (signed), would the “Verkhovna Rada” be able to ignore it? If not, then we need to create a model for preparing and negotiating such documents, which is already closer to a project that can be implemented. If yes, then the question arises: whose interests do our deputies really represent? And conversely, for instance, if 5,000,000 citizens of Ukraine oppose amendments to the tax code, who will have the right to insist on them anyway? Wouldn’t this prove that our ‘representatives’ don’t actually represent the interests of the people and should be replaced?
Today’s technologies make it possible to quickly gather the opinions of a vast number of respondents. Social networks, portals, forums—all these and much more can serve as platforms for discussion and expressing one’s views. A referendum—on all vital issues, not decisions made behind closed doors by biased deputies in the Rada.
To continue pretending that we are consciously choosing someone to whom we delegate the right to make decisions for us about everything is, at the very least, unwise. What more do our ‘representatives’ have to do to further prove that increasing our satisfaction (happiness) is the least of their concerns?
A question, however! Filianin S.N. 10.2012