- What social groups need a return of the 2004 Constitution of the year and why? Let's start with the oligarchs, who stand behind the backs of the parties.
“It doesn't matter to them.” Explain why. All these flurries about the Constitution, returns, defaults, what to do with it, etc., all this does not matter, because in the country informal norms have long been almost completely superseded by formal ones.
The formal rules by which Ukraine still lives, were created in the Soviet Union under a different social order. The social system in the USSR was characterized by "state-wide property" and strict hierarchical access to authority and administrative powers, and, as a result, the lack of "horizontal" algorithms, that is, "without superiors, between equals" - the division of a common resource.
When the USSR collapsed, the former national property went under the distribution according to informal rules, the most important of which is “the right of the strong”, and the only global algorithm, as noted above, is “The winner gets EVERYTHING”. In Ukraine, the only deterrent for strength is only greater strength — at all levels. So, the only real prohibition sign on the roads of Ukraine is not a “brick”, but only a concrete block.
Strict hierarchical access to power-regulatory powers after the collapse of the USSR and the independence of Ukraine began to be governed mainly by informal rules.
The formal rules for the last 23 years have been modified chaotically, unsystematically, without an understanding of the general directions of reform, solely in the short-term interests of the current owners of the administrative and administrative resource. As a result, formal rules became unsuitable for application, and informal rules practically displaced formal ones from many key spheres of public life.
That is what led eventually to the current confrontation in Ukraine, which threatens us with a civil war.
And since in fact all these formal norms do not have any value at all, so why should you fuss for the garden? Take the decision of the Constitutional Court 2010 of the year. In no way does the automatic return of the Constitution to the editorial board of 96 from the resolution part of this decision. It was just then that Lavrynovich pushed such an idea, and our “elites” quite calmly took it for granted. Imagine? Although the text of the decision does not say anything about the return of the “old” wording of the Constitution, but Lavrynovych just read the text as it was beneficial to him and his master, Yanukovych. The one who at the moment owned the real power-administrative powers, he won, and “bent” the decision of the COP under him.
- That is, the kittens were bred a long time ago?
- Of course. They simply really used this decision, moreover, exclusively with Lavrynovich’s personal interpretation, in order to give Yanukovych what is now called “dictatorial powers”. But they did not fulfill the third paragraph of the operative part of this decision of the Constitutional Court, which spelled out a requirement for the Verkhovna Rada to bring all legal acts into conformity with the Constitution. For example, with the observance of proper procedures, to adopt a law on amending the Constitution. And who will punish them for it? And no one.
- What will our politicians have from this return - opposition and power?
- Yanukovych himself assigned authority with the help of this decision. But in fact, the whole chain reaction of this mayhem began with the 2004 of the year, from the previous Maidan. At first they are unconstitutional, i.e. in violation of the procedure, amended the Constitution; then - the famous decision of the COP from 2010 of the year, allegedly to return the Constitution to the 96 edition, then they unconstitutionally continued the powers of the Verkhovna Rada until 2012 of the year, and now they have come to full Gulyai-field. Gordian knot chop scary. How now to return at least some legitimacy? How to “roll back” at least to some point, where else was it even shaky, but still still conditionally legal field?
There are very different opinions. In the 2010 year, of course, the Constitutional Court did not repeal the 2004 Constitution of the year. If someone does not believe - let him read the operative part of this decision. What to do now? If we absolutely adhere to the canons of legal purity of the process, then it remains only to say: “Lord, burn!” In the decision 2010 of the year, the COP absolutely correctly indicated that the constitutional procedure for the consideration and adoption of draft law No. XXUMX was grossly violated. That is, starting with the fact that, in violation of the norms of constitutional jurisprudence, amendments were made to draft No. XXNX already approved by the Constitutional Court. The deputies then considered and approved the amendments to the package along with the usual laws, and in the new edition he began to demand the re-conclusion of the Constitutional Court.
Therefore, now they can “roll back” quite painlessly to the bill No. XXUMX in the same version that existed prior to the introduction of changes to it through an illegal procedure. This is if we say that now at least quasi-limitingly can be done. But how? It turns out just a vicious circle: if they now again make some decision about the draft law, then it again demands the withdrawal of the Constitutional Court about its constitutionality, and so on to infinity.
But there is a tricky way of doing this. Rada accepts a bill with a preamble, which states: “In pursuance of the decision of the Constitutional Court of 30.09.2010 of the Year ...” - and repeal those amendments that, in violation of the procedure, made to Bill No. XXUMX. And the preamble does not require any conclusion of the LCP, because the preamble according to the canons of the legal technique does not contain any legal norms. Very good scheme, but requires 4180 votes. If suddenly, inadvertently, a consensus of our political quasi-elite happens for such a rollback, even if in a miserable semblance of a right margin, I highly recommend it.
- Doesn't this look like trying to scratch your right ear with your left foot?
- This is a normal scheme, if there were 300 votes. But the problem is that there is no consensus. All stories about returning somewhere, to some kind of “old” Constitution or something else — these are all pure water hanging the noodles on the ears of the public in the hope of gaining time while they are all bargaining with the Americans and Europe, who they will be appointed "beloved wife." Most of our politicians do nothing. America wants to bend Europe, Europe wants to bend America, Russia is waiting for the Olympics to end, and finally will be engaged in geopolitics again, that's all. Naive passionaries freeze on the Maidan, listening to the Tritushek and Poroshenko all the same nonsense already the tenth evening in a row, and are going to stand there until the end. And nothing, except for the resignation of Yanukovych, they do not agree. At the same time, there is absolutely no one with whom it would be possible to have a conversation not even about something in essence, but at least about the rules of the game. Because all bykateli long ago hypertrophied so much that they filled the entire volume of the skull, pushing the brain somewhere to the periphery. At the same time, a heap of bluffing people in general, strictly speaking, has no reason to be forked.
- Constitutional processes can be called an achievement of the Maidan?
- All this cheerful motley conglomerate of maydaners drove the country into collapse. I have already explained that, in fact, the Maidan has finished the remnants of our institutions, which in fact were the last institutional resource of the Ukrainian SSR that we donate. In fact, our institutional resource has not been created for all these years. Why? Because individual people in the country understood that all the existing institutions are simulacra, airplanes from straw and pork shit. This is a dummy that does not rely on grassroots self-organizing population structures.
Because these structures can be based solely on property, and our property is not formalized, property rights are not defined, and therefore we cannot have any lower level of self-organization because there can never be. Our population has no idea how to prescribe even the simplest rules of the game for holding a meeting of at least the residents of their own entrance. And the naive tales of maydaners, who are proud to have been able to set up cutting sandwiches and supplying firewood in a tent camp, that this is supposedly “embryonic institutions” are simply ridiculous.
Therefore, I advocate a thesis that is completely unpopular, except for me, nobody propagandizes it. And the thesis is very simple: what sense to swear about the Constitution, if it “hangs in the air” with us? I advocate the thesis that the constitution is the highest level of algorithms for the distribution of a public resource, because the Constitution defines the procedure for access to authority and administrative powers and the rules for the distribution of this resource and its appropriation. Thus, our constitution today is “hanging in the air” because we don’t have any algorithms at the grassroots level at all. Therefore, changes to the constitution, whatever they may be, by and large will not change anything, for informal rules will continue to operate anyway.
And until we bring our civil and economic legislation to God, and the people do not learn how to hold meetings, even neighbors, without scandals and massacre, then no matter how we change the Constitution, nothing will change from this showed our entire constitutional epic, starting with the 2004 year.
- Do we have any leaders who understand the need to restore order? -
Single There are people who understand me. But they say, "Tanya, this is you crazy and crazy, you can push such ideas. We cannot afford it for obvious reasons. ” These people already have some real power and regulatory powers, and they are well aware of the consequences of pushing such radical ideas. But people who understand this and acknowledge my rightness are there. Although they are minuscule compared to the crowd of brainless amateurs, populists and deribanschiki.
- All these constitutional games will continue in the future?
- They will continue, because this is not the goal for people, it is just a tactical device for delaying time, for negotiating within the framework of an informal legal system. I repeat: our informal norms have almost completely superseded the formal norms for a long time. Since it was impossible to introduce systemic changes in formal legislation, i.e. in the present, which in the codes and other laws, due to the absence of any plan of legislative work, only fragmentary changes were made there by those who wanted to have something from these changes here and now.
And if you build a house without a plan, without a rudder, without windshield, without any common project, shifting individual bricks here and now, because that's the way you want it, then it is clear what this will lead to. Now it finally led to the fact that the entire adjustment simply collapsed. In fact, we have now “finished” the institutional resource that has remained to us from the Soviet Union.
The Ukrainian SSR has ended institutionally just now. And the country lies in legal ruins, becoming a legal walking-field. We need to build everything completely from scratch. And all this was finished just Maidan, i.e. instead of evolution, it was thought to make a revolution to someone.
- Based on today's realities, how can this situation with the Maidan end?
- nothing. As a matter of fact, it is already clear to everyone that this Maidan is not needed by anyone, and the authorities and the opposition are indifferent. The opposition does not need it for nothing. On the Maidan, they are sent to such a mother on a quiet boat, in my opinion, the support of the opposition according to the latest polls there is three percent. And so - there are completely unorganized groups in huge numbers who all want one thing - the resignation of Yanukovych. Why they need it, it is impossible to understand. And with what a fright he should resign - also incomprehensible.
- Even in Europe they say - why not wait for the elections?
- And these comrades suffered from the most common white man syndrome. We are white Papuans for them, and they do not hide it. They have the full right to think so; it is a sin to have complaints about it for them. They behave with us as we allow ourselves to behave. They do not penetrate deeply into local specifics, they quite seriously believed that we have opposition. It is difficult to understand how people who have such budgets for exploration, for studying the situation on the ground, may not understand such elementary things at all.
When I say to all these diplomats: "Are you guys in your mind? We have neither registries nor cadastres, we have a legal Gulyai-field here; we have no opposition, that’s all - branches of power ”- they look at me like a ram at a new gate. We have no popular support neither in power nor the opposition, we have an amorphous mass of voters who can vote for the “lesser evil”, but will no longer do anything. Every oppositionist has a close circle of hangers-on and that’s all, they have nothing more. No institutional organization, just nothing. They look at me and do not believe. Perhaps now, having beat their heads against the wall a little bit, having communicated with our deceitful cattle-elite, our registry opposition, they will finally understand that this is a completely incompetent rabble, which was spat out of power precisely because of its stupidity, greed, ugliness and the absence of which -or organizational and management skills. And let after that the West chukhaet turnips, what to do with the institutional Guliay-field with a population of 45,5 millions and an area of 603 thousand square kilometers.
But the West should have thought about it before, when it did everything so that we never-never-never had normal, imputed civil legislation. When they shoved us for many years the most terrible projects through pocket grantoedskie offices. After all, I only did that I fought with them for the last few years. The West deliberately harmed us in order to maintain the state of "controlled chaos" in Ukraine, but in the end pests were also covered with debris. This is who you need to be in order for 23 to observe the legal and institutional agony of such a huge country that is right next to you, Real White People, and now suddenly wake up! “The burden of the white man,” aha! Why should the West delve into how some white Papuans live in the center of Europe? All the same, our elites take the money stolen from their own people to the West — a profit, both financial and political, because the assets of thieving elites are a tool to make them compliant. And the simplest Ukrainian little people should in no case be allowed to break out of poverty and lawlessness, otherwise they will become competitive ...