Max Weber’s Paradox of Consequences in the Context of Ukrainian Constitutionalism

Abstract

The article considers the phenomenon of Max Weber’s “paradox of consequences” in the context of the issue of Ukrainian constitutionalism. According to the author, Ukraine has only recently begun the process of mental liberation from totalitarianism, which significantly influenced the design of the 1996 Constitution of Ukraine. The main shortcomings of Ukrainian constitutionalism, the author considers its non-market, post-socialist nature. This affects boththe form and the in-depth content of a number of key constitutional norms.
 The author shows that modern Ukrainian constitutionalism continues to be a distant successor to the utopian socialist project, which has a negative impact on the economy, politics and culture of modern Ukraine, the vector of its progress. The article contains arguments in favor of a broad constitutional renewal of Ukraine, up to the development of a new Basic Law.The author’s argument is based on a wide range of illustrative material. The author turns to sources of historical, political and aesthetic nature, which allows him to reveal the topic in a non-standard, original style. Despite the appeal to scientific arguments, the author of the article also appeals to themoral and aesthetic feelings of his audience. He argues that organic constitutionalism is associated not only with rational, but also irrational, sensual beginnings. In his view, the content of modern constitutionalism is freedom of choice and private property in their very broad sense. He insists that the stars of modern business and trade must have a separate political representation in Ukraine.The Senate as the upper house of the renewed parliament of Ukraine can become such a representation. The article is part of a number of the author’s publications on informal constitutionalism. It reflects only one aspect of his views on European and American constitutionalism. In general, the article embodies a strongly critical view of the rule of law in Ukraine. On the other hand, it demonstrates the author’s desire to honestly understand ata professional level the shortcomings and achievements of modern legal policy of Ukraine.Stylistically, the article promises to be interesting not only for lawyers. It may be of equal interest to specialists in political science, philosophy and theory of law.