Crowd power, referendums and legitimacy in Ukraine

It is odd this talk by the EU and the US of 'legitimacy' or its absence in relation to the referendum in Crimea. As I write the result of the poll is being announced. An overwhelming majority in favour of the proposition that the Crimea be once again part of Russia. William Hague says the referendum is illegitimate. But is it any the less legitimate than crowds of protesters in Ukraine leading to the overthrow of a democratically elected President?

What it demonstrates more than an argument about legitimacy is an interest. The Russian interest in the Crimea and the outcome of the changes in Ukraine are palpable. The interests of the USA and the EU are opportunistic and full of bluster.

They talk of 'consequences' and 'costs' that will flow if the referendum goes ahead. The referendum has gone ahead. The one thing Putin knows is that the 'consequences' and 'costs' are a lot of hot air - minor restrictions aimed at certain individuals in Russia.

Comments

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'. The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

The unethical language of 'welfare dependency'

It is unethical to stigmatise people without foundation. Creating a stereotype, a generalised brand, in order to demonize a group regardless of the individual and without regard for the potential harm it may do is unfair and prejudicial. It is one reason, and a major one, why racism is unethical; it fails to give a fair consideration of interest to a group of people simply because they are branded in this way. They are not worthy of equal consideration because they are different. It seeks also to influence the attitudes of others to those stereotyped. If I said 'the Irish are lazy'; you would rightly respond that this is a ridiculous and unfounded stereotype. It brands all Irish on the basis of a prejudice. It is harmful certainly; but it is worse if I intend it to be harmful. If I intend to influence the attitude of others. And so it is with 'the unemployed'. All I need do is substitute 'work-shy' and use it in an injudicious way; to imply that it applies to

The Thin End

Search This Blog