Discussing morality and politics, it is said, is like discussing vegetarianism with cannibals. Much of the public, it seems, thinks this way--for good reason. Moral principles and moral obligations in today's political/economical realm have undoubtedly gone astray, unashamedly displaced by the interests of profit and power.

The implications are clear. In today's world, "order" reflects a balance of interests that is maintained mainly by force--be it military or financial. But something other than this "order of the barracks" is possible. Think of it as the order of the church choir, where individual members cooperate on the basis of a shared culture and values.

One reason for the complete absence of values in "power politics" nowadays is that leaders get away with speaking words whose true meaning they leave out of their policies. Moreover, secular spiritual leaders like Gandhi, Schweitzer, and King have vanished, annihilated it seems by our new fetishes--success, expediency, gain, and special interests.

Of course, the so-called civilized world never managed to create a living utopia. Efforts to do so usually ended disastrously. As someone born in the old Soviet Union, I know firsthand the despair and brutality of such attempts.

This does not mean that all efforts to build a more moral world are doomed. Having survived an age of extreme ideologies, such as capitalism, communism, and, recently, market fundamentalism, most people no longer seek answers in ideological clichés and the driving, purifying force of political certainty. Forced harmonization is dead, which opens the door to making new voluntary forms of social harmony possible.

Let me suggest five steps necessary to begin to bring this about. The first calls for the world to deem as utterly unacceptable state violence that seeks to impose conformity and discipline. Such violence is unjust on its face because it suppresses and intimidates both body and spirit. To achieve this end, however, the state must be stripped of its ability to impose divisive dogmas, traditions, and stereotypes.

That can happen only if a carefully crafted system of "checks and balances" is established, in which powerful organized interests--states, above all--are restrained in their efforts at dominance. Not only political forces need to be checked. In the rush to concentrate wealth, for example, majority owners of corporations must not be allowed to harm the interests of minority shareholders, who as a rule are honest common citizens.

This leads me to my second reform priority: a systemic separation of state power and capital. Even in long-established democracies, candidates for elective office are not evaluated according to their wisdom and leadership, but according to the size of their campaign war chests. Acquiring government power through possession of capital--and converting it into unjust economic rents--must be curtailed.

Can such a boundary between power and capital be set? Yes. I say this as someone who created significant capital and, having done so, changed her occupation in order to cultivate morality in politics. Laws can make the separation of capital and political power transparent for all to see. But the will to achieve this division is, sadly, absent among most people in power.

Related to this, it is necessary to separate mass media from both power and the interests of capital. In Europe, America, and Japan, media ownership is increasingly concentrated, which rightly worries citizens in these countries, particularly when media owners move from forming opinion to forming governments. How much more worrying, then, is such concentrated ownership in new democracies and developing countries, where the check of civil society is mostly absent?

All these reforms presuppose an independent judiciary. The autonomy of judges must be assured, which requires that their character is such that people trust their decisions. In states where justice is bought by the rich and powerful, this may impossible, but individual judges can and do stand up to power. All citizens should support such judicial stalwarts, for their example can refashion an entire justice system.

In essence, creating a more moral political order requires the removal of money as the decisive factor in politics. Where money rules, some citizens become depressed and apathetic, others become cruel and heartless, and children learn aggressive behavior. Money should not divide people into political haves and have-nots, or states into successes and failures. Gradually and persistently, the fundamentalism of money must be eliminated.

Of course my proposed "transformations" may sound too good to be possible. In defense I wish to cite the great Harvard philosopher John Rawls, who died recently. Theory, no matter how elegant, Rawls argued, should be dismissed or revised when proven untrue. The corollary to this is that institutions and even world orders--no matter how efficient and successful--must be reformed if they are unjust.

Perhaps only someone who comes from one of the post-Soviet states can conceive of politics in terms of original principles in the manner of Rawls. Our newborn states were given the opportunity to create moral political systems on the ruins of a "god that failed." The struggle to do so has been mighty, but despite our travails--and our poverty--I believe that my country has the strength to contribute creatively to this endeavour.