Ukraine has just completed the first round of voting in a historic election for President. The old conservative Soviet era clique is back, after seeming to have been rejected by the people in the previous 2004 election. The people back then took to the streets in peaceful protest against a corrupt and authoritarian President – sadly the very one who has come out in front in this election – and forced a new election in which he was trounced.

What a difference a few years can make. Five years ago, Ukraine was alive with the promise of this Orange Revolution, which saw the democratic overthrow of the old, corrupt, Russian aligned Party of the Regions headed by the despotic Vicktor Yanukovych. Young people gained prominence as activists and democrats became the toast of the media. One of the highest profile supporters of his Orange Revolution was George Soros, who previously played a large role in the success of the pro-democracy movement in Poland with considerable success. He reached out to and provided support for the people who yearned for change.

After weeks of protests, Orange revolution leader Vicktor Yushchenko handily beat Yanukovych in the heavily monitored second election after the first was struck down by the courts because of widespread corrupt voting practices. The latter in his previous term as President was widely despised for his close ties with rich oligarchs who had become wealthy through the hand over of state assets to them and their cronies. Most of these oligarchs come from the eastern regions of the country in which people of Russian descent make up the majority. Their control over the Government of Ukraine was sustained through a system of intimidation, government favours and state power over institutions that owed much to the tactics of the Soviet system that prevailed prior to 1989.

While Yushchenko’s 2004 win was seen in the West as a victory by democratic forces. That view was not shared in Russia. There it was seen as part of a western effort to extend the zone of western influence into the previous zone of influence and over previous allies of Moscow.

Yushchenko failed to live up to the promise that people believed he offered five years ago. The majority of citizens of the Ukraine, particularly in the western parts of the country dominated by ethnic Ukranians, believed that he would break the old reliance on Russia, the tight association with the Russian speaking oligarchs, and the corruption of elections to thwart the expression of the people’s will. All of these were part of the promise of the historic 2004 elections. Instead, his presidency was marked by a worsening of economic conditions, continued corruption, stand offs with Russia over gas supplies and trade, and a failure to achieve unity with the European Community and NATO.

Sadly, the simple fact is that Yushchenko governed badly. He lost the support of the people. He fought with this key potential allies, including Yulia Tymoshenko.

This election, Yanukovych received over 35 per cent, current Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko 25 per cent, and Yushchenko a mere 5 per cent in Mondays’s election. The main factors were Yushchenko’s inability to sustain a coalition with Tymoshenko, the third dominate Ukraine personality of this decade and the charismatic leader of a faction that has managed to be agile enough to avoid entrapment by either of the other parties, his constant conflicts with Russia that appear to always leave Ukraine the loser, and his own abrasive personality.

Tymoshenko took most of the votes of the supporters of the Orange Revolution. She has given the appearance of favouring many of the democratic instincts of Yushchenko while avoiding the appearance of opposition to Russian influence. Today, while having many policy and personal conflicts, Tymoshenko and Yanukovych share similar positions on relations with Russia. Both argue that Ukraine can’t get along without good relations with Russian and blame Yushchenko for undermining Ukraine’s prospects by constant conflicts with Russia. Yanukovych promises that Ukraine’s will not pursue a NATO bid and will make Russian a second official language alongside Ukrainian. With great fanfare and much popular support, Tymoshenko made a deal last year with Russia to accept the shipment of Russian gas through Ukraine for European markets, something Yushchenko was never able to do.

The big loser is the Ukraine people. Democracy has a lot of respect after the failures of the last five years, and the resistance to corruption and autocratic government is much weakened as a political force. The young, so motivated the last time, are disillusioned and feel disenfranchised. The west has also been rebuked.

Regardless of who of the leading candidates from this round win the next round, Ukraine will once again be a Russian satellite, heavily influenced by Russian approaches to policy and interests. None of that is good. Part of the blame lies with the West which failed to pay nearly enough attention to Ukraine after the 2004 election. The US in particular became obsessed with Iraq, with unfortunate results for Ukraine.

The promise of the Orange Revolution can never be restored. That is a shame. The question now is whether Ukraine will ever find the democratic, western, progressive politics of Poland and other former Soviet nations.

Ideologues have their place. Mostly it is in irrelevant and out of the way places like think tanks and obscure academic departments. There they are largely harmless as they spin us with their imaginary worlds and irrelevant schemes. However, they can become a problem if they are able to occupy important places of public power and influence.

One of the interesting aspects of the last quarter of century is that a certain kind of ideologue has been successful in getting into select positions where they have a tremendous impact. The primary homes of note are departments of finance in central governments, central banks, and the media. Not surprisingly in these locations they are isolated and insulated from public accountability, and thus free to work away in splendid isolation as they create their castles in the sky free of the scepticism and checks on excesses that good scientists both accept and embrace.

The ministry financial gurus and central bankers do suffer from one vulnerability. While generally their errors are legitimized by compliant academics and experts, and economies are generally resilient enough to withstand such errors without their affects generating popular discontent, they do have at their disposal the most powerful tools known in human history if their errors truly threaten the system. Thus, when the economy hit the skids in 2008, their evident fear verging on panic drove them to accept that their orthodoxy is wrong and that common sense solutions by government are essential. Giving the dramatic magnitude of the crisis, the cost to taxpayers and society were immense. But they were necessary, and as time has shown, required. The fact that they were totally at odds with their long cherished ideological beliefs in the end became irrelevant.

In the media, there is no such reality check that forces a correction. A careful monitoring of the mainstream media show that it has remained largely immune to the pressures to accept the failure of the old ways of thinking. The Vancouver Sun continues to employ a neo-conservative adherent of the Fraser Institute as its editor in control of opinions that can find expression in the paper. Certain contrary views are allowed on the pages provided they fit the non-threatening stereotype of ‘progressive critics’, but the bulk of serious analysis and opinion remains committed to the orthodoxy. The Globe and Mail steadfastly refuses to acknowledge, in a serious way, the importance of government in correcting what when wrong, and continues to promote opinions that question whether the correctives that were essential to the rescue were really a good thing. None of the major media have devoted serious attention to investigating and explaining what really caused the crisis.

One of the best examples of this kind of continued blindness is contained in the January 4, edition of the Globe and Mail. There regular columnist Gwyn Morgan claims that the rescue effort will cause a repeat of the “stagflation” of the 1970’s, even though that was caused by entirely different factors. He argues that the measures undertaken this time will result in necessary cuts in social programs, higher interest rates for business and another contraction. He attacks medicare, whatever that has to do with the monumental failures of private markets. He predictably goes on to demonize unions, and political “inertia”.

He in fact falls back on a reliance the same old ideologically driven views that got us to where we are. He wants government to be the gift that keeps on giving to the private sector, while acknowledging nothing about the failures of that sector. Social spending apparently caused recent problems, a suggestion so preposterous as to make it laughable if it wasn’t so often repeated in the mainstream media. Of course according to this view of the world, social spending will cause the next set of problems as well. Not a word is offered about the correctives needed to avoid a repeat of the real problems that got us into this mess. Government must be ever ready to coddle a severely failing market system, while striking hard against the very measures that have worked to make our world a livable place. But of course the latter don’t fit the ideological world view of Morgan, the Globe and Mail, and the Canadian mainstream media generally. So whatever the problems, they must be blamed.

Before completely trashing ideology, let me recognize that it does have one positive role in certain situations. Ideologues have been important in keeping alive a necessary social conscience, and to remind of us of our duty to protect and assist the powerless and the marginalized. However, when it does so to protect and support the powerful and the privileged, it is sad bordering on the pathetic.

There is something puzzlingly about some of the more extreme reactions to the prorogation of Parliament by Prime Minister Harper. Not surprisingly, those who have a stake in the political dogfights in Ottawa have been highly critical. The leaders of the opposition parties have understandably objected to the removal of the Parliamentary stage, upon which they mount some of their best performances before the public eye. They have correctly claimed that this reduces their ability to obtain press attention and to use committees to pursue matters potentially embarrassing to the government. If they had their way, they would preserve their opportunity to do these things by keeping Parliament sitting as long and as often as possible. It is a well known adage of politics that only the opposition benefits politically during Parliamentary sessions. The government is on the defensive and media attention tends to report on matters that involve controversy.

However the claims made by many of the critics of Harper go far beyond this. Many suggest that the opposition parties have a right to continuous sittings of Parliament, irrespective of the decisions made by the Government respecting the management of the Parliamentary calendar. Others claim that prorogation undermines the very principles of democracy. And some suggest that the Prime Minister exceeded his constitutional powers by asking the Governor General to prorogue, and go on to claim that the Governor General should have refused the request.

All of these latter claims are preposterous. The really surprising thing is how many respectable commentators have nevertheless bought into them.

Peter Russell, the supposed objective commentator from the University of Toronto stated: “What this is is a continuation of a very authoritarian approach to government by the current prime minister … this particular prime minister does not want to govern in an accountable democratic manner. It is extremely dangerous”.

Heather Mallick late of the CBC goes even further in the UK Guardian, stating “Canada will not have a House of Commons until March 3. Instantly, we are a part-time democracy, a shabby diminished place packed with angry voiceless citizens whose votes have been rendered meaningless. Harper, that strange vengeful man you will see in February clapping awkwardly as Olympians leap off mountains and shoot past in the luge, has been on a mission since his youth to turn Canada into a pale, watery version of the United States of America…….Harper, frustrated by his repeated failure to achieve more than minority rule, nurses a venom not before seen in Canadian politics.”

And on and on it goes. There is no end to the venom and outrage on editorial pages, blogs and columns by Canada’s self proclaimed elites. Academics who should know better have piled on. Harper, one would think, has mounted a coup in our perfect little democracy.

The reality is much more prosaic and a lot less exciting. Prorogation after a period of Parliamentary sittings is exclusively the right of the Prime Minister to decide upon. Our Parliament is structured to facilitate the execution of government business in accordance with government preferences. This has always been the case. The Governor General is compelled to accept the wishes of the Prime Minister on such matters. That is a fundamental principle. Prorogation now means that there will be a few short weeks delay in the date Parliament will meet. That is hardly the end of democracy or the beginning of a dictatorship. The work of committees will be delayed by a bit, but nothing stops the committees from picking up where they left off on such things as the look into Afghani detainees. Meanwhile MP’s will continue to be free to make their claims and advance their criticism. Yes, the delay in that committee’s work may provide the government with some short term relief, but it is hard to see it as an escape from accountability. And yes, the government will be able to restructure the committees of the Senate consistent with the change in party balance arising from new Senate appointments, but that is what should happen. It would be silly to continue Senate committees that fail to reflect the balance of party membership in the Senate.

All in all, the whole matter is a tempest in a teapot. If the Prime Minister wants to prorogue, he can. He may or may not make that work to his advantage, but to try is just part of the normal game played out in politics. The exaggerated claims and criticisms have done nothing to advance public understanding, and have undermined the credibility of the so-called experts who have made so many of them. Let the system work. Sometimes it will work marginally to the advantage of government and it is hard to fault a government for trying to attain that. But it is not a fundamental breach of democracy, it is not unconstitutional, and it is not that unusual. The really surprising thing is that so many experts seem to find it so upsetting. One wonders whether their objectivity and balance is as sound as one might expect given their positions.