How will all this end?

One of my rules of a publicist: to ask only those questions that you yourself want to know the answer. Now the question is: how will it all end?

In general, it is clear that we want to ideally. In order for the historical necessity to throw off the being of our meaningless leader (recently plunged into the abyss of the sea, when it would be worth going to work for a variety), his meaningless government and an equally meaningless Duma, inventing prohibitions from morning till night. And the main thing is that this will certainly happen. Not as a result of some planned Maidan, or because the enemies will repent, and fools will grow wiser, but purely due to utilitarian circumstances. They eat the future of generations, against which the environment itself will rise.

How this will appear - so far no one knows, but it will appear. And the calls went. In the description, “half the country burned out, the other half drowned, and in Moscow,“ Cosmonauts ”beat peaceful people” a lot of bitter truth. And modern youth really does not understand why it should ask someone to ask for honest elections ( Sobyanin , TVC, 07/30/19: “They did not ask us and did not even try.”) The normal authority must say “thank you” that people want to honestly choose, and our power sends hordes of the forces of a corrupt law enforcement. This archaic is trying to stop the onset of Art Nouveau. However, no one succeeded for a long time, and in the future it is generally impossible.

Moreover, the corruption of the Russian law enforcement is not a metaphor or pedaling expression, but the objectivity given to us in the sensations and reports of the news. The Russian rule of law is corrupt, where ordinary law enforcement officers have work and salaries when the country has twenty percent absolute poverty (maybe more) and a large tension with jobs, and the tops, generals, dragging billions of money into the houses, as if it were Rotband, which. I would like to understand one thing here: the pressure of these two spheres - poverty and security, their friction about each other - will remove an ethical ban on shooting in which case or not? It looks like it will take off ...

And here is another aspect of this problem - a delay.

We are late with an understanding of historical needs. We are like a planet of people where the ruling classes do not seem to suffer from intellectualism. And specifically we are like a country living on a 1/9 planet. And it turns out that everything is already burning, sunken or all are already running somewhere, someone “tonon-makuts” (“We are not winterbabweed”, as Sobyanin aptly remarked) break the leg right on the run away from any political shares, as happened with K. Konovalov , who once painted the logo of the Moscow metro, and we are all trying to exhort them, to find “peaceful” Explanations, we enter into negotiations , demand that our opponents come to their senses ....

This has already happened. In perestroika. Strong people to whom I attribute to myself did not find intellectual energy to think about the prospect. Obviously, we were all sure then that in the moments of a deep socio-political crisis, a collective common general, like water, would find a hole. And as a result, it turned out that we again ended up in the antisystem of 2000. This antisystem will also someday break-there is no doubt. But what will happen next? Again to wait for the collective common will find the hole by virtue of its polyphonic? But what if these holes are no longer left?

How not to repeat the mistake of 1985-1991?

I wrote about this in the article "How to get out of Pata." Igor Yakovenko also said about the same thing in the video “Anatomy of Protest” . A common idea is this: a country agenda is needed, an adequate praise of the task - to dismantle the anti -system and build a democratic society. And by the way, in some aspects I do not quite agree with Yakovenko here.

For example, he has some personal vendetta in relation to Venediktov and Sobchak. He criticizes them (fairly, I do not argue) right every time. Venediktov really allows very strange conclusions, and Ksenia Sobchak often connects to the Kremlin PR developments. But the revolution manages only when the elite in the person of such public figures realizes that the new regime does not threaten them and they will pour into it almost on the previous conditions.

So it was in perestroika, which ended in August 1991. The communist elite realized that the new democratic regime opens the way for her to legalize states, social statuses and limitless further enrichment. On these conditions, she agreed with democratization, freedom of speech and ajar of borders for the democratic majority. On the other hand, the sharp criticism of Venediktov and Sobchak, these professional intermediaries between the “those” and “these”, allows Venediktov to preserve the latter, in general, so far a good official radio station, and the girl Sobchak is not fidgeting on the knees of the leader.

So you can continue to criticize them and thereby save from repression. The sharper the better.

Until now, the most anticipated reaction to the message about the country agenda is this: “So write it to us! And without this, you get one manin. ” To this, I would answer: “What will you do at that time? Connect! " We are not gladiators in the arena and not clowns in the circus. No, even the best agenda cannot be presented to society before the moment when it will ripen before it. But you can offer some ideas for its compilation.

It seems to me that here again you need to take advantage of the experience of perestroika or even the French revolution. Obviously, you need to start with some not legal, but ethical documents, which will subsequently give the direction of legal work. I would suggest writing the so-called democratic order to deputies, parties and independent politicians (there was a democratic order to Yeltsin), as well as something like a declaration of the rights of a post-Soviet man and a Russian citizen.

They may object to me: why, because there is already one, and Russia is a signator of all relevant international documents? It didn't help her something.

But the fact is that the Russians never felt all this, considering it some kind of excessive financiality in architecture. Or a frock coat from someone else's shoulder. Or a showcase decoration for the outside world. They need their own from their people. And still, after all, you will have to write a new national constitution. So this declaration would be in its basis as an educational, ethical and historical document. In addition, it will be more difficult for satraps to fight with a society that carrys such clear and beautiful banners.

Photo: Natalya Demina