Читать книгу State and Human Development in the Context of the Ideological Conflict between Capitalism and Communism - О. С. Зибров - Страница 3

Today, despite the capitalism comeback, all the state improvement ideas are reduced to the conflict between capitalist and communist systems. The complete opponent’s suppression continues to be the only criteria for such improvement. In the same way as before, it prevents:

– the state from acquiring the features of a truly social state;

– the private (individual) from changing and finding a new place in the state system;

– from the realization that what the new fights against is not the private (individual) but against its form, capitalism;

– from the realization that a social state cannot exist without its opposite, private (individual) manifestation;

– from the realization that just like one step forward requires both legs, the development of one thing requires the development of others.

The only way to break out of the vicious circle of the two system endless interchange is to determine what place the private and the public hold in the new political power system of the state. In order to do this, we have to determine how different they are.

The difference between capitalism and communism allows these two systems to find their real places without merging and destroying states.

Considering that the basis of a state is formed by law (statutory acts that determine the procedure of the occurrence, change, or termination of legal relations), the difference between capitalism and communism appears in the shape of the difference between the relations initiated by people for the sake of themselves (capitalism) and the relations initiated for the sake of others (communism). It would enable to put legal relations in order in all the spheres of the state structure.

2.1. Given that today the power is represented only by the capitalist system, its change requires:

2.1.1. To add Councils (state and local) to the legislative branch of power. Such Councils should be formed by appointing deputies, elected by industrial workers for each industrial district. To authorize them to enact the statutory acts that control the relations initiated for the sake of others, as well as the relations into which subjects are forced to enter against their will: Public relations (power system, protection of citizens, state property) or external circumstances driven relations (labor, consumer relations, monopolies).

To leave under the jurisdiction of other, presently acting authorities the enactment of statutory acts that control the relations initiated for the sake of self, into which subject enter voluntarily: Civil relations (contractual relations between individuals, legal entities, individuals and legal entities, associations of legal entities, commercial activity (market), art…).

The Councils and presently acting authorities should be granted the right to the joint legislative initiative through the adoption of draft statutory acts and their submission to the respective authority or through adding such drafts to the candidates’ policies in respective elections with the obligatory covering of the drafts and entitling the President to control the respective relations by decrees until the law is enacted.

2.1.2. To turn deputies into true spokesmen of their electorate.

Pursuant to Part 2 of Art. 1 of Federal Law No. 3-ФЗ dated 8/5/1994 “On the Status of a Member of the Federation Council and a Deputy of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation”, a deputy of the State Duma is a representative of the people elected in accordance with the federal law who is authorized to exercise legislative and other powers envisaged by the Constitution of the Russian Federation in the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the State Duma).

As this definition indicates, a deputy is a representative of the PEOPLE. Therefore, when representing not his, but people’s interests, they must express not their own will, but the will of the people. It raises a simple but important question: How can we say whose interests a deputy represents at the moment of decision-making? Their own? Or the people’s? No answer is provided to this question by the law. But we can find the answer if we look into the theory.

From the theoretical perspective, the representee’s will can be unraveled in the instruction’s contents (what should be done and how; what will happen if it is not done) and enshrined in the form of a document that makes it clear what the representative is authorized to do on behalf of the representee. With that in mind, representation suggests that the representee shall refer to the representative, not vice versa. A deputy does not have any of the above-mentioned, therefore, in theory, a deputy only represents their own interests. Moreover, the very addressing of a deputy to their electorate is an offer that expresses the deputy’s will, while the electorate can either accept or reject it. Basically, the electorate only estimates in this case whether the deputy’s offer meets their interests, which is not a choice but an estimation.

Furthermore, the law ends abruptly with the phrase “a representative of the people.” Nothing is said about the instruction, its form, or responsibility, and therefore, even according to the law, a deputy is not really a representative of the people. They are rather an ordinary, albeit elected, public officer, a bureaucrat. And they shall be treated like one.

Being a bureaucrat, a deputy fits perfectly well with the vicious cycle of iniquity, and that is why the people’s problems are not solved and considered to be of little value. Such fair words as “a representative of the people” began to ring hollow and are used to mislead the common people.

You may argue that a deputy’s freedom shall not be abridged, since he was elected by the people. No offense meant, but it is the electorate a deputy represents, not themselves. It is the electorate whose will they express, not themselves. It is the electorate before whom they shall be held responsible, not themselves. Don’t get the free elections and representation of the electorate’s interests confused. Don’t substitute the concept of people’s representation with the election process. If a deputy’s freedom amounts to their freedom from the electorate’s will and if they rely upon their own will, then they are not representative of their electorate. To live like this, to agree with it, to claim it to be freedom is ridiculous!