Raskoryachka

The prospects for Russia's exit from the authoritarian impasse presuppose, among other things, a solution to the sensitive problem of personal guarantees for regime leaders. Sometimes in history the outcome of the confrontation between civil society and an authoritarian state depends on such decisions. This is all the more interesting because it is linked to some events of Obama’s last visit to Moscow.

V.V. himself described his own and collective position of the ruling group as accurately as possible. Putin, parrying Obama’s passage about “two legs.” Freely interpreting the words of the national leader, we will try to reconstruct the choice of possible scenarios for Putin and his inner circle. Considering that our heroes have to look for the most significant guarantees exclusively in the West (capital - there, property - there, children - there), then the Latin title of the article is more than explained by this.

The experience of the collapse of authoritarian regimes - both in Europe and in Latin America - convinces, in addition to all other arguments, of a certain pattern and irreversibility of the course of historical events leading to the inevitable end of any usurpation power. The crisis of recent months has become a dire omen of the impending end of the current regime. There is no point in guessing about the timing, but the authorities should think about an “exit plan.” Moreover, the final result will depend on the choice of tools of this kind. Or further “squeezing”, which, of course, will somewhat delay the inevitable denouement (and, we add, will greatly cloud the prospects for a successful “withdrawal”). Or still “relaxation” and a smooth descent into democratic procedures. The last option is risky due to its unpredictability, but, in general, is not tragic.

Of the many examples of authoritarian rule, the following seem to be the most suitable for the Russian government.

Generalissimo Francisco Franco, for all his merits in preventing the leftist threat in the Iberian Peninsula, was a very tough dictator throughout his reign. He refused all proposals for a significant easing of the regime. However, Franco enjoyed considerable support from America and Britain, having some carte blanche as Spain remained neutral during World War II and even ensured Gibraltar was inaccessible. After the war, despite the boycott of most European countries, Franco worked closely with NATO and allowed American military bases into the country. The markets of Spain under Franco were open, which allowed the country, after the death of the dictator in 1975, to quickly return to democracy and quickly integrate into the European political, economic and military infrastructure.

Thus, Franco is an example of an intractable dictator, and in general his experience can be considered successful on a personal level - he died in peace and honor. True, there is no need to talk about Franco’s corruption, and Spain itself did not influence world politics, so the fate of the dictator and his regime, by and large, was of little interest to the West. It’s not like Russia - our rulers have ambitions in world affairs and, as they say, there is nowhere to make tests.

Voluntarily giving up authoritarian power to society is sometimes not only difficult, but even dangerous. General Pinochet is a clear example of this. Saving Chile from communism, Pinochet, becoming the head of a conspiracy among the highest ranks of the army, seized power in the country (no doubt with the support of the CIA). It must be said that it was General Pinochet that the Soviet security officers had a special dislike for, and not only for the reason stated above. During the operation to seize power in Santiago, on his orders, a large number of not only Cuban military advisers were killed, but also several representatives of the Soviet intelligence services who were under the Allende government.

However, President Pinochet managed, through difficult and controversial reforms, to restore the economic prosperity of Chile, lost after the socialist experiments of the left.

Subsequently, having voluntarily returned democracy to the country, General Pinochet was “rewarded” with prosecutions - both in Chile itself and abroad.

We should, of course, look at the extensive practice of African dictators from Idi Amin (Uganda) to Mengistu Haile Mariam (Ethiopia), but we will have to face such unique continental characteristics of these monsters (even cannibalism) that conscience will not allow us to look for commonality in their fate with the fate of the national leader and his entourage. They are, however, not bloodthirsty people.

Whether it is Milosevic or Hussein, Peron or Salazar, their experience only testifies to the inevitability of the end. A delay is fraught with both a popular revolt (God forbid!) and a military coup. In the latter case, these will be our home-grown worker-peasant co-workers, prone to completely uncivilized manifestations (“stall and ration”). Pinochet nobly offered Salvador Allende to leave the country, but he chose to shoot himself. The military in Honduras removed President Zelaya from power a couple of weeks ago and sent him to Costa Rica. Well, it’s not hard to guess what the Russian military, angry at the so-called reform, will do to “our tsars.”

Even Lukashenko, choosing between further “tightening the screws” and a gradual easing of the regime, chose the latter. Apparently, not only for reasons of the economic crisis in Belarus, but also for reasons of reasonable sufficiency of pressure on the forced population (after all, only mass executions), Alexander Grigorievich decided to come to an agreement with the West. The participation in this transformation of English political consultants (the same Lord Bell) and, according to rumors, Berezovsky seems to be only a partial prerequisite in the general movement of Eastern European countries towards inevitable democracy and European integration.

Of course, the analysis of the options is given in the most general strokes - without significant details and serious comparisons. However, this is not so important. Dozens of authoritarian regimes have arisen and disappeared around the world, often disappearing into oblivion along with the people and phenomena that gave birth to them. From the point of view of the current authoritarian government, all options are unsuitable—definitely a “boomer.” And yet, sooner or later the political establishment will have to negotiate with the West about its security and the preservation of the appropriated capital, the return of power to society and monopolies to the market. From the events of the last summit in Moscow, the very first impression was that the Russian leaders managed to charm (at least Medvedev) the overseas guest. In a variety of internal political scenarios, individuals from the powerful nobility can count on the favor of “Uncle Tom.”