The voluminous notion of shadow implies something ephemeral, enigmatic, pointing to something secreted. Shadow also implies the absence of total darkness as well as lack of light. Darkness means evil and light means good. These notions originate from pagan times when people worshipped the sun. Things in the shadow are suspicious and fraught with danger. Such things are even more scary than any evil one can see in broad daylight. Such things are vaguely outlined, ephemeral, deceptive. We speak of things kept in the shadow with a negative, even criminal implication. I think this implication is programmed by the powers that be. The eye of the state wants everything brightly lit. Vladimir Lenin once shouted light! More light! The tax authorities also want more light; they want everything in the limelight. Why? We will come to that later. Suffice it to say that those in power want more light. Taxes are not the only important thing. Information is. Those in power know little about the society they are supposed to run.
These vague ideas about light and power were inspired by Harold Lasky’s outwardly paradoxical statement in his introduction to Alexis de Toqueville’s book Democracy in America. He writes that the best proof of the viability of the US social order is the fact that Americans can easily do without the government’s help, and that their society evolves contrary to the administration’s efforts. Note that he refers to the social order, not political system, and to an evolving society, not the state. He refers to Americans at a time they were embarking on their national history, starting from scratch. Is a similar process underway in Ukraine?
Generally speaking, a normal political system does not strive to have exhaustive knowledge about society. Ralph Waldo Emerson said, “The less government we have the better.” A totalitarian system, on the contrary, wants to know everything, because it wants to keep everything under control. Society then drifts into a shadow in hopes of preserving itself. There is more life in the shadow under totalitarianism, but mostly in terms of shadow ideas and emotions, rather than deeds. It is like giving the finger, keeping your hand in a pocket.
Those in power and the rest of society play hide and seek, every player striving to keep himself covered as best he can. Well-informed and freedom- loving community members demand openness and transparency. At the same time, people want their privacy and secrets protected by law. Those in power strive to expand information falling under the category of state secrets, and simultaneously keep information accessible to society under control. The Internet has of late become a real pain in the neck of the powers that be. It is a virtual world without frontiers, a light in the dark. Here the notions of space and place make no sense. Here everyone is secured a foolproof alibi.
I am inclined to assume that those in high office are now and then surprised to learn that there is some progress, changes for the better in the Ukrainian economy. How come, they ask themselves, being unaware that favorable conditions are the reason, not their directives and instructions. Such favorable conditions tend to emerge no thanks to those empowered to bring them about. There is a folk saying to the effect that with rain in May no agronomy is required. We are, however, accustomed to the idea that all positive changes are thanks to our beloved government. Where does this assumption come from? Such is the essence of politics in any given country. In Ukraine, it also originates from big-time science. We were taught once that there are objective laws of social evolution; that there are powerful brains capable of discovering these laws. That theory held that such powerful brains were supposed to take the throne. The earliest such brains were not destined to live long enough to take over state power. But those others that did were automatically proclaimed the most powerful. Thus, every general secretary of the Soviet Communist Party was presented as [the greatest] thinker and his “works” (composed by ghost writers) were to be studied as the “latest word” in the social sciences. It was generally believed that those upstairs knew what was best for the people, which path that people had to embark upon, what to build, and what all those down below were supposed to do. Liberals like Hayek did not tire even then of repeating that those down below actually knew everything. Not in the sense that they knew in which direction oil should be pumped through the pipeline, forward or backward, but in the sense of being able to cope with local private affairs making up the canvas of life.
Shadows, penumbras — here it is difficult distinguish between a transparent government and a society that remains in the shadow. There are also shadows in high offices, all the way down the line, law enforcement included, so it is necessary to form inner structures operating separately from those legally in charge of protecting the law. Then what? Building more structures? Philosophers know this phenomenon as bad infinity.
That those deciding to walk out of the shadow will have their status instantly improved remains to be proved. Khodorkovsky did, so what happened afterward? He wanted to enter politics as an enlightened individual, aiming for the year 2008. And he began to act to that end. I believe it all started with his taking the floor at that business community meeting with the Russian president in February 2003. There were three reports scheduled to be delivered by the business side. One of the reporters had taken ill, another one had refused, so last minute adjustments had to be made. Khodorkovsky took the floor and said, “Mr. President, your bureaucrats are taking bribes.” As if no one knew that practically all the bureaucrats did! Another thing is, who would have had the guts to make that statement addressing the head of state? Mr. Khodorkovsky gave an example, saying the admission rate at the Gubkin Institute was two matriculants per vacancy, although the starting pay, when getting a job after graduation, was $500 a month; that rate at the Tax Academy was five matriculants per vacancy, with the starting employment wage of $150. (Does this require taking any polls to prove rampant corruption?) One must give the [Russian] president all credit for responding by offering another hypothesis, saying that some oligarchs of the YuKOS caliber had problems paying taxes, which explained the Tax Academy enrolment contest rate. In other words, young people applying there were governed by patriotic considerations, willing to have the Russian budget adequately replenished. Some exchange of ideas! Of course, it was not the only reason for what Mr. Khodorkovsky had to experience subsequently. It all began with expressing certain ideas, including those concerning the social responsibility and political role of capital. Some of those ideas were excellent, but Russian realities show that all such ideas were somewhat premature.
It remains to be proved that all those stepping out of the shadow will fare well in every respect. Money collected via such taxation is sure to be misused by the authorities. There is another popular saying to the effect that the elephant is a custom-made mouse, commissioned by the government. So there is little doubt that all this money will be misappropriated and that people in the shadow would put this money, uncollected as tax payments, to a much better use. People remain silent, no one walks out into the street. In my opinion, this is a sure sign that all those operating in the shadow are busy making good deals, and that we should perhaps leave them alone. After all, a shadow economy is also an economy. And we have many other things in the shadow, including something that looks innocently shadowed. Marriage, for example — I mean common law marriage, referred to as marriage de facto by the authorities. The state does not recognize it as legitimate. The main thing is that it is recognized by the parents concerned. If and when such a de facto marriage produces offspring, there automatically appears a solitary mother, with all the privileges she would not have when legitimately married. I have repeatedly dealt with this philosophic subject when an individual finds legal realities more substantial than the objective ones.
It obviously follows that everything the state refuses to recognize remains in the shadow. For many, being unrecognized that way is not only fraught with danger, but is also hard to bear morally. Thus, getting recognized is a vitally important task for any given individual, as well as for all institutions. Evidence of this is found, for example, in the status of our private education. It was originally private in the true sense of the word, created by people quitting the state system and wishing to have nothing to do with it any further. Those [college and university teachers] dismissed for reasons of redundancy wished to teach the younger generation disciplines they considered necessary, and in a manner they considered best. The state promptly responded by accreditation (from the Latin accredere... In other words, the state agreed to entrust private individuals with educating communal members and training specialists — but only on conditions dictated by the state, in keeping with governmental standards. After that graduates with diplomas issued by such privately owned institutions of higher learning would be officially recognized. My response to this would be something like why do we need your official recognition, after all? We can well do without it, as your official standards include countless disciplines whose need and relevance are highly questionable. If we want recognition, it should be from society and all those rival institutions, so we could find our own true image, not something enforced on us. I suppose no one has responded like that; everybody has dutifully complied with the official accreditation procedures. Sad but true.
Even the state may turn out in the shadow, unless recognized by other influential countries. Economic and trade issues appear predominant in all discussions addressing globalization, leaving out politics, globalizing at a noticeably higher rate. Problem rulers are becoming aware that, while they can bully or charm their subjects, this approach can no longer secure their own well-being today. There is also the international community to be taken into account and all those international organizations where they should seek membership. Muammar al-Qaddafi is a recent vivid example of such understanding, just as Aliaksandr Lukashenka is one of utter lack of understanding, considering that he is barred entry. Colonel Qaddafi gave up struggle and refused to use weapons of mass destruction, allowing IAEA experts to examine his nuclear facilities and authorizing $2.7 billion worth of payments as compensation due the relatives of the victims of the terrorist-engineered Pan Am 103 crash at Lockerbie in Scotland, then allowing two terrorists to face justice. What happened was the direct result of US-UK cooperation in getting the better of Iraq. Incidentally, considering that the outcome of the elections is to be recognized by the international community, there is no way to fix the campaign.
Some might argue that shadows are precisely what they are. Vague outlines, imagination rather than reality, the need to curry favor, bow and scrape, wheel and deal, resolve urgent matters on short notice, seek effective protection. Is the situation that bad? I think not. My Utopian theory reads that people allowed to act in broad daylight, a community that can disregard the powers that be are in a position to profess a variety of free lifestyles, devoid of selfish interests, remaining unpretentious, trustful, never going back on any promises, and generally unswerving in the understanding that there is nothing more important to man than being free to work, earn his living, and share ideas with friends [without fearing retributions from authorities]. Fortunately, there are people actually inhabiting my Utopia, making up a community that still remains invisible, scattered all over the planet. Let me recite two vivid examples: (a) Robert Craychan, US theoretical physicist, Einstein’s latest pupil, recent winner of a major international prize. He is freelancing, according to media reports, unaffiliated with any university, giving consultations and winning grants. And (b) Mstislav Rostropovich. Sometimes his pupils scattered across the world gather to hold a festival named for the distinguished Russian musician. During this festival in Riga, Maestro Rostropovich told a Russian journalist, “... not belonging to anyone feels great, if you know what I mean.” The Russian newspaper carried the interview under the heading “Not Belonging to Anyone Feels Great.” What was it? A mistake here was missed by the duty editor, subsequently to cause caustic comments? Or a well-planed and placed stratagem? Current philosophers find the issue of individual identity a very fertile ground, as it implies freedom, something generally believed easier said than done.
