Protest and opposition

On May 6, 2013, the protest movement marked the anniversary of provocation, lawlessness and the battle, committed by power in Moscow the day before the deserted inauguration of Putin after a falsified victory in the presidential election. The action clearly showed that the protest for a year did not subside, although for this there were all the conditions, starting with power terror and intimidation.

I used the term “protest movement”, bearing in mind that it is heterogeneous and that first of all it needs to be divided into two unequal parts - opposition and “protest”. The last term I mean that part of citizens from which not only rallies are constantly recruited, but also those who sympathize with the protesters, but do not go to the square. He does not walk, but is involved in other forms of expression of discontent. It is not involved, but is located in increasing, as sociological studies show, the border zone, from which half a step to protest activity. Now clear distinctions between the opposition and protest have become visible. These differences affect their combination - protest movement. The opposition almost does not see a new quality of protest, and the latter is not able to articulate its opposition requirements. Political proposal and political demand are often not joined, and this reduces the effectiveness and dynamics of protest. I do not claim the role of a mentor; I will only try to explain what I see, and I hope that what I said can be corrected and supplemented by other experts.

There is one misconception, which is expressed in different forms. For example, they say that revolutions are performed on top. This fact, often experimentally confirmed, entails a popular generalization of the theoretical plan: the power elites are more dynamic than the mass. Therefore, they, the elites, and make the above over the mass, in the “top” position. The scheme is too primitive to be true. Especially if we are talking about European civilization, and Russia belongs to it, a peculiarly belongs, but the originality is not our prerogative. Spain or Finland is also peculiar.

The fact that everything new appears in society was written by Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky one hundred and fifty years ago. Now such a statement has become common, at least - in serious theoretical work in the social sciences. Revolutions are committed from above not because the individual representatives of the authorities first come to mind by bright revolutionary ideas, but because these representatives of the authorities are involved in the control of the instruments of legitimate violence. The stories of all revolutions are dull monotonous and in chorus indicate the same thing: first, the demand for revolutionary changes ripen in society, and only then representatives of the elite respond, some earlier, some later, some are carefully, some resolutely. And the last argument, especially for the participants in rallies. When you first came to a rally, not out of leisurely curiosity, of course, and responded warmly to the slogan abandoned by the speaker from the rostrum, this happened only because you were waiting for this particularly before coming to the square.

I needed this “petty philosophy in deep places” so that the above was not rejected immediately. If you try to describe the mutual movement of the power elite, opposition and protest (as a rather small part of society), then it will turn out to be approximately the following. The authorities are rapidly rolling back, in the past, trying to drag a significant part of the population along. The opposition stands still. The protest moves forward. I'm talking about the changes that have occurred over the past fifteen years. I will try to devote a separate narrative into the distant past committed by the Putin authorities. Then I will only talk about protest and opposition.

Let's think about how the protest of the late 80s was different-the beginning of the 90s from the current one? The answer is straightforward. A society with paternalistic psychology could only give rise to a paternalist mass protest. Such a protest is looking for a new leader, leader, leader. It can be supported, hoping that he will lead the mass along a new right path, not very worried about his role on the traffic highway. And the most pleasant thing: in case of disappointment, everything can be dumped on the leader.

The current protest is different. In his considerable part, he has a new nature - civilian. In order for such a protest to arise, a change of generations was needed, which ensured the emergence of people who grew up in conditions of relative freedom and infinite openness to the world, educated, successful, obligated to this success, and therefore not devoid of self -esteem. Such people often have civil activity before the appearance of political indignation, which brought them into protest. These people make up the nucleus of the square, and it is from them that a new political activism is formed, which now forms a buffer between protest and traditional opposition.

Of course, among the protesters there are many representatives of the old paternalist protest. A complete replacement will never happen. Moreover, as the mass of protest increases, the proportion of paternalism will grow in it. And only then rallies will become no less massive than twenty -odd years ago. Just citizens in the full sense of the word are always not enough. And for them, leaders are less significant. They are capable of independent self -organization without external calls and the leader of the leader. And they do it. They do not go to rallies because they are called there, but because they consider it their duty. They can condescendingly play with the speaker in the "Christmas tree - light up!". But this is rather out of delicacy than from enthusiasm. And so far they see little from the leaders of what they need.

The opposition stands still, and its leaders, and its parties, and its consultants are preparing by tradition for the old war, for the conquest of the future paternalist electorate.

A sample among parties is an apple. The naive combination of future elections in Moscow is amazing. Everything is read in large print: they do not expect to go through the party barrier, they have no chance in confrontation with the real opposition in the districts. Therefore, they proposed cooperation on the basis of the dominant quota for themselves, hoping the voices given to the opposition involved, to provide places in the Moscow City Duma to their functionaries.

To varying degrees, this outdated strategy is characteristic of various opposition leaders and parties. The essence of the strategy: the struggle for the most profitable positions to attract votes for yourself and your own. Such a strategy was acceptable from 1993 to 1999, when the competition in the elections was even more or less alive. But then this strategy became a pillar road to the defeat, which clearly and convincingly demonstrated all opposition democratic parties. And now everything is repeated. Despite the fact that its grin has already shown its grin. Despite the fact that it is clear completely: they will fight for life, and not for their stomach, and they will not stand on ceremony. Despite the fact that in such conditions only a collective, cooperative strategy has chances.

They continue the struggle for the crowd, although a civil protest expects another from them. This is not a matter of defects in vision or lack of intelligence among the leaders of the political opposition. There is a clean effect of the ruts along which everything is going on (stomp). And the obvious inability to break out of her alone. The one who does it alone will lose. And if everyone remains in the rut, then everyone will lose, with a bang and forever.

I already had to write about the historical importance of the upcoming Moscow elections. This is extremely clear. But the parties continue to consider them in the old way: as a rehearsal to the federal elections, and therefore remain within the framework of the old strategy.

Please note: people of protest behave completely differently. They easily enter a variety of coalitions, without disdain and ties with parties. They work not for their position in the coalition, but for the final joint result. And so they are effective. They expect the same from the opposition, but do not see. They may not wait, if everything goes on, as it is now. Then the opposition will lose the Moscow elections, and they will be swept away by those who are now forming a buffer of new political activism. And then the current parties will not survive before the federal elections. However, there will be problems with the country.