The era of compromise

We have joy. Dadina may be released. Although not immediately, not soon, but in the best case, in six months, when they conduct the next process, so he will still sit his own. However, the battle of the pigeons of liberalism and black ravens of the reaction, which I wrote about in the article “ Dadin's verification. The panorama of the phenomenon ”, in general ended with the relative victory of the pigeons. It was said about Dadin that "the judicial acts issued in relation to Ildar Dadin are subject to revision." And about the norm of the law, in which the wrong constitutional and legal meaning that the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation can be concluded, but which the police, judges and prosecutors had previously invested, that it was recognized as quite constitutional has previously invested. That is, if in need of something, then in no case in cancellation, but only in cosmetic "refinement", so that this constitutionality and everyone else is also visible.

Undoubtedly, this is a compromise.

Or even palliative. There was no revolution against the debtor's degradants, but the system nevertheless retreated, although without losing face. If we don’t give up, but to continue to beat at the same point, then we could also ask in the future: how did it happen that the law was issued by the Duma, and signed by the president, in which the judges and prosecutors managed to invest at all that the priests of the constitution put into it? Is it possible to consider such a law legal and is there any need in advance in advance an examination of the legislative initiatives of our pseudo-parliament on constitutionality in order to exclude tragic consequences?

In other words, everyone will wish to be smarter, kinder and more competent, that is, Putin, including ...

And is it worth it so much after all this that the coordinates of the retreating system are still in front of the line of the front of liberalism, and the front of liberalism runs deeply in the rear of the occupation army? The rubber constitution, about which Vladimir Pastukhov said three years before the current events that she was a Bifstex from the Holy Cow, allowed (as it was now confirmed) from several separate disagreements with the regime to slap a separate large crime against the state, logically tearing it away from the original disagreement. As for the respected judges of the KS, they hypocritically stipulated:

“If a violation of the established procedure for the organization or a public event by a person who had previously been brought to administrative liability at least three times, did not entail causing harm or the real threat to harm, but, in fact, unlawful, purely formally, such a violation cannot be considered as a criminal public danger and to entail criminal liability.”

So figure out now that you are dealing with - with an “illegal” protest or “illegally purely formally”? And if he “entailed”, then what ... a threat? Obviously, it is also hidden here in the future to write in the protocols of the detention of political activists: they “created a threat of harm” - at least walking Muscovites and guests of the capital! After all, could an activist, when detained, for example, dismiss his poster like that to please someone in the eye, put an enamel of a tooth to a teether’s children or to cause unbearable moral suffering? Of course, I could! For a piece of Watman rolled into a tube is a weapon of terrible insurmountable strength to all mucous membranes and all enamels of teeth. Naturally, the Constitutional Court did not make any other intelligible prohibitions of the police system of the Russian Federation to express the dissident to express his protest peacefully.

But here is the task: why did the Russian political regime in the person of the judges of the KS not surrendered to the liberal argument, backed up to the same decisions of the International Court in Strasbourg, but still a little retreated?

Oddly enough, the answer (why he retreated, and not why did not give up) is easier to look not from us, but far beyond the borders of our country - in America. Indeed, in principle, the same conflict is happening there. The executive branch represented by the US president exercises unheard of pressure on civil society - and how it ends is still incomprehensible - however, the legal system has already exerted significant joint resistance, despite the fact that it was fraught with a broken several quarries. It turns out that the whole point is that for American society this situation is transparent and invariant. Since there professional lawyers are aware that the effectiveness of the business of their corporation directly depends on the possibilities to confront the executive branch. In contrast, say, from the effectiveness of the business of the Russian legal system, which, on the contrary, draws the potential of its influence not so much in independence as in a demonstrative alliance with the executive branch.

Historically, this has happened from Lenin. Our dear leader, continuing to lie on Red Square, directly and unequivocally gave instructions to the young Russian courts, how to judge and what sentences to make, which was not considered to be no then and later in some particularly reprehensible. But this is not too different from our time, when the presidential administration tells its pocket Duma to adopt certain laws, and then it visits them with the signature of the president, and if this does not help “resolve the issue”, it also includes the notorious political expediency, as happened in the case of shareholders of the Yukos or in the same swamp process, which - such an impression will last until the end of the centuries, while the Moscow The old -timers will not forget that it happened in Bolotnaya Square in old times.

All this, of course, is a little crooked in comparison with the Leninist-Stalinist period, but the essence remains the same as under Lenin. Moreover, the constitutional majority has been achieved by the current executive branch - just like that, just in case. Which, however, does not exclude at all that the formally sovereign legal system will sometimes still try to get out of the role of a “boy on the run” in power and demand for himself the status of at least her equal partner. Hence, by the way, not too obvious valency to compromise with the same liberals, which was shown by Zorkinsky CS.

The public benefit of such a compromise, of course, is still minimal. But this is not scary, not ashamed and a draw is not a defeat. Rather, the necessary stage in the evolution of our "hybrid". Stopping the battle on the way. Moreover, not only with us, but throughout the world today the forces of anti -globalism and compromise won, ready to combine the requirement of progress with elements of old national orders. It seems that instead of the “end of history”, hypothetically related to the failure of authoritarian regimes, the era of great conformism really came. However, personally, I do not leave the feeling that its ninth shaft seems to begin to subside, without bringing the world any new truth, but sowing only chaos. Indeed, it often happens that when there are too many such intermediate compromises, a new breakdown occurs. And when the “large national” steps on a small separate cosmopolitan person with which the society, however, is ready to associate itself, the number goes into the quality and head of the next king of the nation - the leader of the conformism of the compromise - rolls, cut down with a blade of grown liberal globalistic guillotine ...

P.​ S.​ The other day, with an unexpected interest (thinking about Dadin and the verdict of the Constitutional Court), the old French film “The Murderers in the Name of Order” (Les Assassins de L'ORDRA) with Jacques Brelaym in the title role watched. The topic is the same as now: is it worth the legal system to expose its allies - the criminal police - with which it seems to be on the same side, on the side of the regime, or look for formal justice, consecrated by the spirit of the liberal constitution? The investigator, who ultimately lost this case, prophesies: “Think about the fact that in this world that you build in this way, your children will live and someday they will become its victims.” The film ends with student unrest of youth, who does not want to live on a big compromise.

An important point: but this one was shot already in 1971! For half a century has passed, and the problems are now there. That youth obviously grew up, aged, said their word and left the political arena, the time has come for another youth. Which is unknown. The film, by the way, was nominated for the first prize not somewhere, but at the Moscow International Film Festival. How strange everything turned out ultimately.


Photo: Russia. Saint Petersburg. November 3, 2016. Picturers of the picket in defense of activist Ildar Dadin, who reported torture in IK-7 in Karelia, on Nevsky Prospekt. Igor Akimov/Interpress/TASS