Ukraine’s freedom must be defended
Elections show the importance of victory in the conflict between despotism and democracy
Democracy makes rulers accountable to the ruled. The process through which it achieves this historically rare miracle is elections. These are imperfect instruments, since no perfect electoral system exists. Moreover, voters are, at best, rationally ignorant and, at worst, swayed by dangerous emotions. Nevertheless, even imperfect electoral systems may achieve something historically rare: a peaceful transfer of power, other than by inheritance. We have now seen that in Hungary, with the defeat of Viktor Orbán last April, in Serbia, with the defeat of Aleksandar Vučić in October, and most recently in the case of the US, with the defeat of the Republicans in the midterm congressional elections.
What is interesting about all three results is that they occurred despite varying attempts by incumbents to rig the electoral system and the media in their favour. If the people are sufficiently angry and the margin of victory for the political opposition big enough, even highly manipulative leaders can be swept aside. Needless to say, this does not always work. If the system is sufficiently rigged in favour of the tyrant, elections can become meaningless in virtually all circumstances. Vladimir Putin’s Russia is a perfect example. But what we have learnt is that, short of this, the people’s votes still matter.
The difference between a full autocracy, in which only incapacity, an elite coup, or violence is likely to overthrow the ruler, and even an illiberal democracy turns out to matter enormously. This in turn changes the nature of the state itself. In an autocracy, sooner or later one will see the absolute corruption of absolute power — a corruption that is as much of knowledge as of motive. In a full autocracy, pleasing the tyrant comes to be the dominant motivation. This corrodes everything. It is why, in the long run, for all their faults, democratic societies are not just more enjoyable to inhabit but also far more efficient than any tyranny. Democracy guards against the follies of despots by making them accountable. This is, of course, why the latter rig elections.
If we look at the world of today, the place where the conflict between despotism and democracy is being waged most desperately is Ukraine. Russia’s tyrant, Putin, believes that Ukraine belongs to Russia because of its history. But the fact that a people and a territory were, in the past, part of an empire does not render the possession just. He also asserts that Ukraine is not a real country. Ukrainians have refuted that claim decisively since Russia’s invasion on February 24 2022. By fighting so effectively, they have proved that Ukraine is indeed a real country. Remember, too, that in Budapest in December 1994, Ukraine gave up its nuclear arsenal in return for security guarantees from the US, the UK, France, China and Russia.
So, Putin is also repudiating his own country’s word.
Furthermore, Ukrainians will continue to fight, because Russia threatens to dismember their country. As the strategic expert Lawrence Freedman argued in “Ukraine: With or Without Trump” on his Substack last month: “Trump continued to imply that the main obstacle [to a ceasefire] was Zelenskyy’s intransigence, as if he had a stake in a continuing war. All this was the opposite of the truth. Zelenskyy’s position on a ceasefire is far more aligned with Trump’s proposals than Putin’s.” Unfortunately, as recent events have shown, Donald Trump’s treachery matters. US resources remain essential for Ukraine, notably the provision of intelligence. Furthermore, Washington is also the principal interlocutor between Ukraine and Russia.
Ukrainians continue to show determination. As Freedman notes, “the latest KIIS poll, published on 19 October, showed that around 64% of respondents blamed Russia for stalling peace negotiations and rejected the idea that Ukraine’s government should be more willing to compromise. Around 62% of Ukrainians are prepared to endure the war for as long as necessary. This includes the residents of Kyiv.” But they need much support. (See charts.)
So, what is to be done? Rachel Reeves, former British chancellor of the exchequer, Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer, former German minister for defence, Nathalie Loiseau, former French minister for Europe, and Chrystia Freeland, former Canadian deputy prime minister, have argued recently in The Times that “Ukraine faces a desperate winter as Russia pummels its almost defenceless people from the air. It also faces a €70bn financial hole next year. Without new funding, Kyiv’s capacity to sustain its defence will be gravely impaired. This will undermine Europe’s security because Ukraine is our first line of defence against Russian aggression.” The answer, they write, is “for the EU to take custody of the €210bn of sovereign Russian assets it immobilised in 2022 so it can use them to help Kyiv in its defence”. Moreover, these “assets are large enough to provide a funding bridge for Ukraine into 2029”.
This is morally and practically a wise course. Might it still be possible to persuade Trump to give Ukraine the help the US alone can provide to enable this beleaguered country to escape the Carthaginian peace Putin seeks? Might the Democrats use their new leverage, especially over fiscal policy, to help ensure this outcome? I have no idea. But Europeans have to recognise what is at stake. To his credit, Friedrich Merz, Germany’s chancellor, has shown, in the EU budget debate, that he understands the need. The others have to follow him. Europe has to rise to this occasion or risk disintegration. If it fails, it might be picked to pieces by the world’s great powers. Europeans must act to save Ukraine from Putin’s tyranny, instead.
Comments
Post a Comment