In society

Your own game

June 27, 2011 Alexander Podrabinek

As for political intrigues, hardware games and a subcover struggle, there are no equal representatives of today's Russian political “elite”. These skills compensate for the lack of general political culture, helplessness in matters of the economy and the lack of a meaningful look - both on the history of Russia and its future. Therefore, the "elite" is written exclusively in quotation marks.

One of the characteristic features of the current Russian government is obsession. The roots of this skill are in Soviet totalitarianism, which, under the threat of repression, imposed communist “values” and norms of life to society. Totalitarianism collapsed, but the skill remains. Today it manifests itself not so much in direct political dictatorship as in the agenda imposed by the society and strictly outlined framework of discussion of certain topics.

The ability to fool people and mislead a little informed Russian electorate was shown the other day by the first deputy secretary of the Presidium of the General Council of United Russia Andrei Isaev, who is either by misunderstanding, or in the Bezrybie is considered the main ideologist in EP. He announced that in connection with the Elections of the United Russia, who was upcoming this year, the United Russia decided to change the traditional opponent - instead of the Communist Party, the main object for their criticism will be the right business, headed by Mikhail Prokhorov. The pocket opposition will meekly substitute the Mordasus under a flurry of United Russia and, smearing the snot on the cheeks, publicly demonstrate the weakness of the “liberal” positions. The federal television channels rigidly controlled by the Kremlin will spread the news of the defeat of the liberal idea to the darkest corners of Russia. The jesters from the “right business” may receive several places in the State Duma for this and they will be comforted. Well, so that the “right business” was created to play the Kholois role in the upcoming autumn performance according to the script of the Kremlin.

Touring the threads of your own puppets is not a tricky thing. Another skill is necessary for the game live. But here the Kremlin did not hit his face in the mud. Skillful and persistent propaganda in a couple of years imposed on society the idea that there was no other alternative in the country than the choice in 2012 between Medvedev and Putin. There simply cannot be other options! Connoisseurs of real politics will object to me that there really is no other choice, to which I will answer them, that it is not precisely because society agreed with this.

And it did not agree least because even the most liberal publicists in the most liberal publications accepted the framework of serious discussion of possible candidates in the 2012 elections imposed on the company. Unfortunately, many are sincerely passionate about digging in those differences that the president and prime minister put up with exhibitionist zeal with exhibitionist zeal. Participation in an imposed discussion, limited by the framework established by the authorities, narrows the field of social capabilities. The gambling discussion in the press of the two Candidates clones practically displaces from the information space even the idea of ​​the possibility of the existence of other presidential candidates. This should seem funny, unrealistic, spotlights and fantastic.

There is no doubt that such a pre -election scheme is launched by the authorities itself, and the periodic mutual “collisions” of one candidate for another are designed to warm up the public interest in these two persons, lonely shining in the Russian political sky. Their election programs can even vary very much, and they themselves are not in earnest, but they are one in one and the main thing - in unwillingness to live in a competitive political environment and give way to power as a result of losing in the elections. And this is the main thing, and Putin’s pseudoliberal attempts or pro -Soviet convulsions against this background are secondary. The central question is the change of power, and not the political course of the new usurper from the old clip. However, they consider honest elections to be the most terrible poison, and agree to prepare new dishes under any sauce, look arbitrarily contradicting each other, just to be considered legitimate in the eyes of compatriots and abroad. It is a pity that the Russian media that have preserved the remnants of freedom and independence do not understand how humiliating to tasting the propaganda cook, prepared by culinary specialists with the Krasnopresnenskaya embankment and Old Square.

Even worse, when the opposition is in power. Not the one who runs to consult in the Kremlin for every reason and is easily bought for the governor's chair or the position of a statist in the presidential election. We are talking about a real opposition, not corrupt and not intimidated.

One of the instruments of political influence on society is to create the desired agenda. Here the authorities have great opportunities. To force society to discuss the “right” topic and to obliterate “unnecessary” - skill, honed for decades. So far, the Internet is not subject to them, but here they make various efforts in order to limit the freedom of information. This, however, is not about the mechanisms of manipulation, but that the opposition is sometimes inclined to accept the opposition proposed by the authorities. Thus, the Putin Popular Front was barely showed, a discussion of the need to create an anti -Putin front began in the opposition environment. In response to the pre -election propaganda campaign of United Russia, on the initiative of human rights activists, a rally campaign began against Osra. In response to the annual Sabbath of the “Nashists” on Seliger, an opposition “Antiseliger” is created. The authorities, for sure, have many such stagnacons, but does this mean that each of them should contrast their anti-namedness? By this occasion there is a good Russian proverb "You can’t get a good old for every sneeze."

Meanwhile, the authorities are objectively beneficial to the opposition, which is not so much aimed at creating an idea of ​​a possible alternative to the existing regime, but at confrontation with the current government, and even better with specific politicians. If this confrontation becomes the main content of opposition activity, and God forbid and the only one, then oppositionists can always be represented as people who are fighting for power for the sake of power itself.

Unfortunately, this is not excluded. The collaboration of "Solidarity" with the pro-Soviet "Rot Front" and the National Bolshevik "other Russia" on the triumphal, on the "Day of anger" or at other general events is based on the general rejection of the current regime. Since the “solidarity” and “red” ideological motifs of the denial of power are not only different, but directly opposite, any outside observer will make the natural conclusion that all these opposition groups simply want to crush power, and for which the tenth issue is. If the fundamental radiators of freedom are easily solidized with its fundamental persecutors, then political ideas are fading into the background. So, at least, it is seen from the side.

Probably, this is the reason that the “solidarity” has froze in its development, its popularity is not growing, and the ranks do not worship, as I would like. Most people who are ready to vote for the opposition or join it want to know not so much “against what” she is, but “for what”. A normal person wants to know what the opposition will offer him after a hypothetical coming to power. Stalinism Udaltsov? Limonov socialism?

Understanding political prospects is an indispensable condition for the wide support of the opposition. However, positive goals are not sufficiently articulated, they are not in the information space, they are not the main thing that “solidarity” is associated with.

And how can it be not to notice that following the ideas of freedom and democracy is incompatible with collaboration, at least if the opposition seeks to become popular. Politicanism in the style of “the end justifies the means” will be understandable to its own, but will not find wide support among liberal -thinking people. This would already have to be understood over 20 years of unsuccessful attempts in some dexterous way to make a liberal idea of ​​popular in Russian society. In fact, there is only one way for this - not to fake, but this is not very fashionable among Russian politicians.

The protest movement is an essential component of opposition activity. However, if this is the only thing that the opposition has, then the final effect can be weak, or even opposite.

So at the beginning of the 20th century, the whole Russian intelligentsia passionately wished the death of the monarchy, for which it sympathized with all the revolutionaries, and especially those who suffered the most from the monarchy. They came to power, plunging the country for seven decades into communist chaos.

In the late 80s and early 90s, our society was consolidated on the ideas of canceling the 6th article of the Soviet Constitution and dismantling the communist system. The powerful social movement is bold at first communism, and then Soviet power. However, as a positive program, the society was innocently accepted by the fact that it was prepared by fragments of the Soviet and party nomenclature under the leadership of the former secret of the Arya Sverdlovsk regional committee of the CPSU. The results are evident.

The public movement, based on a negative platform, can be successful, but happiness is short -lived. Recently, Solidarity has had independent and promising projects. The authorities, quite likely, are interested in the fact that the opposition always takes only a response step and never - the first. The power strategy is to deprive the opponent of the initiative and impose their game. The resistance strategy is like a chess task - the opposition begins and wins.

The author is a member of the Federal Political Council of the Solidarity movement.

Photos of RIA Novosti