Infantile Politicians And Power
Immaturity, that is, political infantilism, as a derivative of ignorance and personal mediocrity, threatens not only clueless politicians but the country's future as well.
History shows that innumerable disasters befall states headed by minor rulers who did not have competent and responsible guardians. But the countries endowed by unfavorable fortune with an infantile political elite suffer even more. I'm afraid the symptoms of Ukrainian politics in this context are very unfortunate.
Firstly, the ability to adequately manage the state is determined by the relevant knowledge of world history and the laws of social, economic, and political development. Secondly, personal potential – strong-willed and moral qualities. Thirdly, political maturity: the ability to adequately set SMART goals, correctly assess opportunities, risks, and the alignment of forces, think in terms of long-term time horizons, choose practical tools for achieving goals and accomplishing tasks, and so on.
Ignorance is no excuse. A cook can govern the state only if they learn a little. Otherwise, they will remain food for stronger political competitors. Cowardice and meanness strengthen well-being but do not contribute to political longevity. Immaturity, that is, political infantilism, as a derivative of ignorance and personal mediocrity, threatens not only clueless politicians but the future of the country as well. Puer aeternus in politics is always enfant terrible.
According to their psychotype, a political infantile is a person who has a mythological picture of the world, is unable to wait, is unwilling to consider the interests of other participants in the process, and is accustomed to using the gifts received but not the benefits of life earned. Most often, they are a populist, but there are also individuals with pragmatic rhetoric, which remains rhetoric and is never implemented in the material world.
That said, quite often, a quite pragmatic and healthy/unhealthy cynical figure pretends to be a political kidult (now we are not talking about them; we will not find anything new while dissecting the “ordinary populists”).
There are also symptoms that make it easy to identify them by eye in addition to the above-mentioned profound differences between infantile politicians and those who are rarely found in our political “elite”:
- childish ignorance in the paradigm "The world began with me" – Ignorance or unwillingness to remember historical precedents, economic patterns, etc.;
- peremptory judgments and egocentric worldview – “The world revolves around me and my beliefs”;
- tendency to unreasoned or manipulatively reasoned labeling – a claim to the right to single-handedly and autocratically name things in the world;
- Karlson-on-the-Roof's syndrome (translator’s note: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karlsson-on-the-Roof) “That's not the game” – resentment taken out on voters, journalists, activists, political associates, and rivals;
- failure to recognize dissidents' rights to dissent – “How dare anyone think differently if I think like THIS”;
- missionary ambitions – “My mission is to save the world.”
A kind of infantile politicians who have directly or indirectly encountered the corporate environment loves to flaunt the idiotic phrases inherent in semi-education a-la "dialogue between government, business, and investors” (hey, friends, is the investor, not a businessman?).
And, of course, political infantiles are happy to indulge the base instincts of the crowd. Also, it's infantile by default! Because the Ukrainian political elite is the flesh of the flesh of a people contaminated – with an inertial backlog for several generations – by Soviet paternalism. What could be sweeter for the crowd and the infantile than to drive a trembling creature – a filthy, corrupted official – under the table, even if they violate the law in the heat of legal nihilism...? The new mythology – political and social – has anesthetizing properties. Though, the remnants of common sense often drown in these illusions.
After all, Ukrainian mass infantilism has recently had a slightly different accentuation both in comparison with the past and in other countries. Of course, there remains a part of the fundamentally apolitical population or those who went into internal quasi-autistic emigration to protect themselves from heartache. But “new infantiles” appeared, who, like the Komsomol members of the 20s of the last century, uncritically and sacredly believe in a bright future coming, the machinations of “enemies of the people”, absolute truth, icon leaders, and so on. In a sense, this is also a reaction to the painful shock experienced by the nation (not in the sense of the “titular nation”, but in the sense of the “nation-state”). Unfortunately, such infantile public activism is by no means always constructive in many of its forms, even to the point of destroying trust in certain institutions of civil society.
That is, we can see a vicious circle: the infantilism of politicians who often suffer/enjoy their leaderism is a communicating vessel with popular infantilism at the same time. As a result, unpleasant prospects emerge for the final de-intellectualization and marginalization of the state administration system, which is already not high-browed and pragmatic.
To indulge their secret desires while amusing the crowd and enjoying their reaction is a great temptation. But a responsible politician is a responsible politician to stop the chain reaction of destruction. Even martial laws do not cancel the value of knowledge, the skills of conducting a civilized political dialogue, and the importance of public consent. And the unwillingness to admit it is the first sign of political infantilism. The healthy, pragmatic, and critically thinking part of civil society is obliged to stop the epidemic of political infantilism before it's too late.