In the opposition

The logic of progressive movement

June 3, 2008 Alexander Osovtsov

The thoughts that I want to share have prompted me by my friend (I, in the vast case, I think he) A. Podrabinek with his expression “strange logic, political”. I want to note that a strange or, simply put, irrelevant, inappropriate, incorrect political logic becomes when it is applied to fundamentally non -political problems, i.e. Outside of its logical and subject area. When solving political problems itself, the use of political logic is absolutely reasonable, and it itself is not at all strange in these circumstances.

From my point of view, Naginovk is not a politician, but a human rights activist. Accordingly, its logic is human rights, i.e. The only true thing in solving a certain kind of problems, but by no means universal. Human rights and politics are not the same thing.

According to popular aphorism, politics is an art of possible. By analogy, I would define human rights as an ideal art. Unfortunately, the ideal and possible almost never coincides. Accordingly, the logic of reasoning and actions in these two areas, areas of human life does not exist and should not be the same.

Therefore, I agree with Porobinek that the choice “either with the Kremlin or with the Reds” really does not exist. But for me, I will allow myself to risk bringing the additional anger of colleagues and like -minded people, this choice does not exist not because the correct answer is with either one or others. And because with those and others, and in general - with any political forces. I believe that you can talk and negotiate with anyone, it is important - about what and how.

A. Kara-Murza has repeatedly said that the ancient Greek word “politicians” entered into European use in France during the confrontation between Catholics and Protestants in Europe. Thus, intellectuals and public figures called themselves, among whom were Catholics and Gugenot Protestants who sought to organize a dialogue between the warring parties. Largely thanks to their efforts, a number of bloody excesses, including Bartholomew’s night, have not grown out in France into such a full -scale religious war, as in many neighboring countries.

Of course, the meaning of the word over the past centuries has changed a lot. And I, of course, are not an intermediary, but a participant in the conflict. But still, for example, I was a participant in negotiations with terrorists in Budennovsk, and personally - with Sh. Basayev. They were, of course, by criminals, which, by the way, was directly said to them - S. Kovalev, in particular. None of us received pleasure from this communication, but we did not count on this. We had a pragmatic, utilitarian task - to free the hostages. The chance to achieve this was given only by negotiations with those who captured them. Then the criminals left mainly alive and unpunished. The alternative was demonstrated in Nord-Ost and Beslan. She arranged someone. I am not. And I allow myself to remind me that not only S. Kovalev and other human rights defenders, but also V. Chernomyrdin agreed with Basayev. I think that it was the peak of his political career and will always be grateful to him for what and how he did. I hope that I'm not alone.

Therefore, I am ready for negotiations even with the Kremlin, even with the “EP” - in vowel and open mode - about everything that, for example, is recorded in the documents of the National Assembly - from honest, fair and equal elections to the release of political prisoners. If so, about it, I am ready. But only so about this. And then I will be forced to talk with those who will represent the opposite, or, as they sometimes say, the opposite side, regardless of who it will be. Yes, it will be more pleasant to me if it is a deputy of the State Duma from the YP faction B. Reznik and the minister, one of the leaders of the "EP" S. Shoigu. But I can’t help but understand that in some ways it will even be more reliable to agree with the Gubists N. Patrushev, V. Putin and, as they say, by the anti-Semite of V.P. Ivanov. And, most importantly, whom they will send, and I will talk to those. Even with anti -Semites. Because their anti -Semitism in these circumstances is nothing more than their personal, albeit unpleasant for me. At least until, if you have in mind these hypothetical and, of course, fantastic negotiations, I or our other representatives will not depart from my own principles recorded, including in the documents of the National Assembly, and do not agree to discuss the permissibility of discrimination of citizens on national, racial and religious characteristics. I will never do this.

Of course, no agreements guarantee us from possible deception. But you can increase the chances. Firstly, it is necessary to draw up the text of the contract is reasonable-both in the subject and on guarantees, and, secondly, to make the subject of agreements and their conditions as well-known and understandable citizens, so that in which case everyone could realize who the deceiver is here. If it turns out that society and violence are indifferent to society, then fighting for the political and moral future of such a society is simply stupid. So these guarantees are both necessary and sufficient. Although, I emphasize once again, there are no a priori guarantees of compliance with contracts. Nowhere. Neither in politics, nor in commerce, nor in marriage. There is no such marriage contract that would guarantee from marital treason. It is known, as you know, even a belt of fidelity does not guarantee it. So now, do not marry, or what?

And within the framework of the National Assembly, no one will marry anyone now or in the future. And does not even create blocks and coalitions. The task is to agree on the rules of the political game. In such a way, to agree on such rules that it suits all parties, all forces - those that already exist, and those that, I hope, will still fit. There is nothing bad or lightweight in the word “game”, and this is understandable not only to G. Kasparov - the great player in chess, but to any, at least a little familiar with the theory of games. The main quality of the elections is the rules that are the same and fair for all that are known in advance, and the result is unknown in advance. This is also suitable for any sports game. In general, it is good when politics resembles a sport rather than a war. Then not only there are no victims, but the loser always has a chance to win in the future.

And, by the way, my joy from the recent victory of Zenit was no less because A. Miller, V. Zubkov and even D. Medvedev were also rooting for him. And how many among the fans of the club, to whom I have been sympathetic for 45 years, racists and anti -Semites, I never thought at all. Although there are probably many of them, like supporters of the regime. I did not hit anyone that I am rooting for Zenit with all these reptiles?

So I don’t know how many anti -Semites are in the national assembly. Surely they are there. So, as far as I know, there are a lot of them in Russia, among a hundred with something with something. Like other people whose views are either not close to me, or at all for me are unacceptable. For me, free elections are also an opportunity to find out how many citizens of Russia is really supported by V. Putin and EP, and how many those for whom the main idea is the fight against the Jewish threat. Both those and others are everywhere, even on the Hedgehog forum. But there are others, very different. I want to know what kind of country we really have, for me and my children it is important. I am almost sure that the results of free elections for homegrown Nazis will be disappointing. But only people, citizens, voters have the right to deprive them of their chances to power.

And at a meeting of the National Assembly, by the way, there were no manifestations of national or other intolerance. Including because the atmosphere did not have. This is a very important thing - the atmosphere. It is enough to pay attention to how, for example, the atmosphere of “Echo of Moscow” acts on very complex people. M. Shevchenko on Echo and on Channel One are two different people. In Open Russia, there was a project “School of Public Policy”, in which I directly participated. Thousands of young politicians passed through it, among them hundreds of United Russia. The excess was. One. It was within the framework of this project that I first interacted with Limonovtsy and Akaemovites in a working environment. Everything was fine. And the same Limonovites on the primaries in "other Russia"? Yes, they fought first of all, and sometimes exclusively, for their own, and not for ours (I mean candidates from the OGF). But this is normal. And they also fought normally and correctly - they campaigned, agreed, created coalitions. It was any way to watch.

Modern politics knows a lot of this kind of examples. In May 1968, the leader of the Parisian leftists in May 1968 became one of the leaders of the Green faction in the European Parliament. The “Yanukovych’s incident” has already been remembered many times. D. Ortega first lost, and then won free elections in Nicaragua. It is unlikely that he today will agree that the rifle gives rise to power.

But is it not for us to know in Russia what power sometimes gives rise to a rifle? But the desire for the purity of ideology sometimes leads to very sad results. Therefore, I am ready for negotiations - with anyone, and to cooperate with everyone who appreciates, first of all, freedom and wants to live in an atmosphere of freedom. Including freedom to be disagreeable. Not necessarily with Putin. With anyone. With me. With Kasparov. With a suburbinec. Even from Novodvorskaya. Therefore, I believe that how and about what began, no more, to negotiate the national assembly is a step forward. Important, but completely, not the last. And at the same time - very logical.

PS All the coincidences with the column of V. Shenderovich are an accident, and maybe a pattern, but not plagiarism: I wrote my text before I read “Once again about the benefits of the rules” ...