She died, she died like that

We must pay tribute to the ruling regime - it brings all its undertakings to completion. To the point of final and complete absurdity. This also applies to the construction of a system of party paddocks decorated for different ideologies.

The next, but not the last, event in such party building was the project of uniting the parties SPS, “Civil Force” and the Democratic Party of Russia into a new party fold. As for the “Civil Force” and the DPR, their purpose was obvious in advance. These props fulfilled their tasks in the past parliamentary and presidential elections. Well, don't throw them away. A thrifty owner does not act this way, and a lot of money was spent. The situation is different with the ATP.

“Under the current structure, the Union of Right Forces as a party has no future,” said the founding fathers of the Union of Right Forces, A. Chubais and E. Gaidar, and L. Gozman, who joined them. To be honest, gentlemen, since its creation in May 2001, the SPS party has had no future. S. Yushenkov, V. Golovlev, B. Zolotukhin and other members of the Democratic Choice of Russia party, who did not join the Union of Rightist Forces, spoke openly about this.

It is obvious that in the inglorious history and no less inglorious end of the Union of Right Forces, the main role belongs to A. Chubais. In the process of negotiations on the creation of the Union of Right Forces, he defined his attitude towards the liberals from the Far Eastern Republic in a Leninist way and, without hesitation , gave the leadership of the Union of Right Forces to B. Nemtsov, who “knows how to negotiate with the authorities and the oligarchs.” B. Nemtsov and his worthy partner I. Khakamada during the four years of the Union of Right Forces in the State Duma worked not so much to strengthen the position of the party as for their loved ones and naturally led the Union of Right Forces to defeat in the 2003 elections. According to B. Nemtsov’s opinion expressed in a private conversation, the main skill of a politician is to come to an agreement today and cheat tomorrow to his advantage. This is worth thinking about for those who plan to negotiate with this “political scammer.” It was also known that I. Khakamada is distinguished by an equally “worthy” quality - in any negotiations he proceeds, first of all, from his personal interests. So, due to the fact that in 2002 she refused to change the post of vice-speaker of the State Duma to the post of chairman of the committee, negotiations were disrupted, which could have significantly changed not only the balance of political forces in the State Duma, but also the fate of the Union of Right Forces in general. But the main thing was that both of these characters never knew how and did not want to work in a team and for a team, and did not create a single real political structure with their own hands. And those that were received ready-made always fell apart successfully, leaving behind a scorched clearing. I really want to ask A. Chubais a question - where is the Union of Right Forces now and where are B. Nemtsov and I. Khakamada now?

In the fate of the Union of Right Forces, not only the personnel decisions of A. Chubais were decisive. But, above all, his essentially Marxist-Leninist view of politics “as a superstructure over the economic base.” Ever since the days of the Far Eastern Republic, A. Chubais considered the party only as an auxiliary instrument, as a possible bargaining chip in a more important, in his understanding, struggle for positions in power structures. About 10 years ago, a heated debate took place in the Far Eastern Republic on the issue of the possibility and advisability of party members working in government, whose actions contradict the principles of democracy and liberalism. Then A. Chubais and E. Gaidar defended the position that “the main thing is to ensure the transition to a market economy, which will create conditions for democracy” and that “one must remain in power as long as one can influence something in the right direction "

Today, unfortunately, the answer to the question of democracy in Russia is well known. And even the founding fathers admitted this in their statement: “The fact that a democratic regime does not function in Russia is obvious.” However, the answer to the question about the market economy in Russia is also known. It was formulated by economist V. Naishul: “We still live in an administrative market situation. What Gaidar did was to “clothe” him. Money didn't play a very big role. They began to play a very important role. Power and other components have played a big role and continue to play it.” Indeed, Gaidar’s reforms launched one of the two main mechanisms of a market economy - the supply-demand mechanism, thanks to which the country got rid of the shortage of goods. However, the second mechanism—the replacement of ineffective owners and managers as a result of market competition—did not work. This mechanism was supposed to ensure “natural” selection, personnel reorganization of the economy. Therefore, G. Kasparov quite rightly asserts that today in Russia there are only “appointed owners.” Note that with the exception of some small and medium-sized businesses. So the Marxist approach to the relationship between politics and economics failed in Russia individually.

Unfortunately, the great Russian historian V. Klyuchevsky was right when he wrote that “history teaches only that it teaches nothing.” But let's hope not everyone. Moreover, let us hope that the motto of the Jesuit Order, “the end justifies the means,” is unacceptable to many. How else can we evaluate the passages from the statement of the founding fathers that “such a party must be created, and will be created” and “since it is impossible without interaction with the authorities, there will be interaction.”

There is one more fundamentally important circumstance that can cause significant harm to democracy and liberalism in Russia. The new party fold claims to be called democratic and liberal, which is not true and, at least, indecent. Professional political scientists, political analysts, commentators and journalists are kindly asked to remember this. This request does not apply to the builders of the pen, political agitators and propagandists of the regime due to its uselessness for this special contingent.

Democracy is when the people are truly the bearer of sovereignty, the only source of power and have a real opportunity for free choice with a predetermined result. When the bearer of sovereignty is a group of comrades who have usurped power and force the rest to approve any decisions they make behind the scenes, then this is definitely not democracy. Perhaps this is the mysterious “sovereign democracy”.

On the issue of liberalism and parties, let us turn to the opinion of the classic of liberalism L. Mises, who wrote about this: “For parties of special interests, all political issues are presented exclusively as problems of political tactics. ... All anti-liberal parties strive exclusively to achieve privileges for their members, completely ignoring the disintegration of the entire structure of society that occurs. … Liberalism has nothing to do with any of these parties.” Obviously, the new political corral has nothing to do with liberalism.

In the modern Russian interpretation, this corral can be defined as conservative. Conservative in the sense that it is intended to preserve the ruling regime. The regime already has a main and central sovereign conservative party - United Russia. At the last parliamentary elections, canning lids with the emblem of this party, framed by the inscription “Seriously and for a long time!”, were even distributed. There is also a left-wing sovereign-conservative party - A Just Russia. Consequently, the new party fold is clearly destined for a right-wing sovereign-conservative party, some kind of “Powerful Russia”.

SPS died, that’s how it died. And it will no longer harm the environment. At the same time, no one really should be denied the right to an independent strategy. However, it is impossible to agree with D. Oreshkin that a party project created under the supervision of the regime can become an opposition.