In the opposition

We straighten a three-tank bird

November 6, 2012 Alexander Ryklin

The conversation was in high colors. However, many years of acquaintance, reinforced by periodic meetings and conversations, allowed this circumstance to ignore. My interlocutor is a person, as they say, "from the other side." With all the appropriate epithets - built -in, informed, authorized, etc. It was about my last note in the “hedgehog”, where, among the priority measures of the new (transitional) authorities, I mentioned “hard, multi -tiered lustration”.

“This thesis of yours simply works for all hawks in the Kremlin,” my dignity interlocutor clicked through his teeth. “He is the most welcome gift for them.” You called the "split of the elites" an important task in the fight against the regime. So? You argued that the transition of part of the establishment to the side of the “good” increases the chances of a peaceful, not power, that is, a bloodless script. So? And the requirement of lustration, and even multi -tier, does not split the Putin elite! It cement it! Because what is a normal person to dig a hole for himself?! Or do you expect that the repentant officials will rush shirts sewn in Italy and their “Lexus” will strengthen your barricades?! So forget about it! Even the issuance of the requirements of lustration in the discussion public field immediately makes the prospect of dialogue with part of the elite - an unrealizable fantasy. Because when people will think about their own prospects, they will begin to calculate the risks ... And what prospects are you drawing to them? That is, you do not leave a choice! It's like announcing an expropriation! "

“So it would be nice to think about the prospects constantly, and not at the moment when the hot coals were already laid under the ass,” I objected. “As for the expropriation, the stolen, of course, will have to part ... no matter how sorry ...” I spoke for about an hour ... I could not convince my interlocutor of anything. And, nevertheless, it seems to me that the conversation turned out to be important ...

I, perhaps, is ready to agree that the rejection of the requirement of lustration would simplify the dialogue with that part of the Russian official fraternity, which at some point vibrates and decides to change the orientation. But I still continue to insist on the need for these restrictive measures. However, the matter, of course, is not in lustration. Rather, not only in it.

During one of the conversations on the sidelines of the first congress of "Solidarity", Vladimir Bukovsky said the following: "The revolution is a revolution ... But we must immediately think about how not to get it ..."

Fatigue from lies and the desire of truth ... These are the main motives on which in December last year people took to the streets of Moscow. The struggle "for honest elections" is just about this. The return of self -esteem, awareness of himself as a responsible citizen of the country in which he was born is impossible without a clear understanding of those processes, the reasons that led Russia to the state in which it is now abiding. That is, in fact to the edge. The general place was talking about the rejection of the trial of communism, which predetermined the current situation - we were never explained the value of democracy, and did not teach to cherish freedom. Well, here we are so easily parted!

I argue that without a full, detailed and meticulous revision of the Putin’s reign, no movement is forward. The society should get an exhaustive answer to the most important question-what are the stages of destruction of the socio-political system of Russia? For example, we understand that a blow to freedom of speech was inflicted in the previous reign when the “media-ministry” was destroyed. It was destroyed in order to calmly, without the pressure of independent television, conduct an operation "successor". And then it suddenly turned out that it was so convenient, so calm - to have only manual media ... It doesn’t matter today to understand who stood, so to speak, at the source of the trend, to find out all the details, to refresh in memory forgotten names. Say, Voloshin, Lisina, Surkov ... Does anyone remember what the phrase “sixth protocol” means? And we must remember!

And how was our party system destroyed? And what is United Russia? And how is its financing all these years? And how is its competitive advantage on the electoral field ensured? What is the role of cycs and specific people in solving these problems? And how did the Kremlin build their relations with other parliamentary parties, with the opposition? And who for the first time formulated the principles of the new state of the Putin type for the first time? But these are all quite general questions. And there are more specific ones. Who gave the order to storm the school in Beslan? On the execution of terrorists at Nord-Ost, about the beginning of the Russian-Georgian war?

And it is worth talking about money ... That is, it would be nice to understand at what point it widespread in the Yukos case - a political background and a direct selfish motive? And no less important questions: who stole the shares of Gazprom during the additional ministry, is Putin really the beneficiary of Surgutneftegaz, whose oil actually drives Gennady Timchenko to Europe, how much did Abramovich and Friedman left money after the sale of the main assets and who got the rest of the billions?

That is, I repeat, lustration is the last thing! We first need to find out what happened to the country!

And for this, at the very beginning of the transition period, revision commissions should begin to work with broad powers that will call witnesses, bring them to the oath, receive any documents, transfer cases to the courts. Moreover, these investigations should be conducted absolutely openly, publicly. Perhaps on a direct television broadcast. I assure you - the whole country will watch!

And only after the months of serious investigations, when we have a more or less clear picture of what happened, it will be possible to talk about lustration procedures that society considers possible to apply to some citizens of our country. (However, it is possible that certain restrictive measures should be taken immediately. In provision, so to speak, future lawsuits.)

I am firmly sure that changes are possible only with the awareness of what happened, with finding an understanding of where, in which place we made these terrible mistakes. I'm talking about reliable changes. About those with which society will agree. And which will become irreversible. It is precisely by virtue of acquired hard experience. Otherwise, you should not take this work.

Photo by the hedgehog/ project of Anton Litvin "Hands-Free"