Peter Hitchens on the Ukraine

Fascinating to note Peter Hitchens in the Mail speaking up for the Ukrainian ex-President Viktor Yanukovitch. His argument is that Yanukovitch was democratically elected, and should therefore be allowed to stay in place until the next election.

This is in spite of the democratically elected President being accused of

• Corruption
• Nepotism
• Cronyism
• Excessively luxurious self-indulgence
• voter intimidation, and, last but not least
• Killing about 100 unarmed protesters.

For Hitchens, these misdeeds count for nothing. The President is elected, the President stays in office no matter what.

For normal human beings, it is pretty clear that the role of the elected person, be they MPs or Presidents, is to serve the people. If they do not, they should be subject to constitutional recall, which means that once a set threshold is passed in an official petition, they relinquish office and their case is heard in a judicial process. In the absence of such constitutional instruments, people have to risk the hazards of public assembly.

Once a Government has ordered the killing of unarmed civilians, it has automatically lost legitimacy.

All this means nothing to Hitchens. He could equally have been railing against the Putin-puppet Yanukovitch, the murderous crypto-Communist Mafia &c &c. 

Maybe he tosses a coin: Heads he's an angel, tails he's the Devil. That's how Hitchens thinks, in binary terms. Black and white. Good and bad.

There's one coin toss he makes that is not binary: Heads, I'm right. Tails, I'm right.