In the opposition

Worde

June 4, 2008 Harry Kasparov

The first meeting of the National Assembly was already more than two weeks ago, the formation of committees and commissions is actively underway, but the disputes around its creation have not yet subsided. A lively discussion unfolded on the pages of Internet sites, including www.ej.ru , www.grani.ru , www.kasparov.ru . And although a lot has already been said, the point is clearly not set in the conversation. The reason not only in the interest in the Assembly itself, but also in the fact that the flared controversy in itself began to realize one of the goals facing the organizers of the alternative opposition forum - the contradictions that were driven into the “subconscious” of the opposition, began to go out.

Here, first of all, I mean the internal split that goes throughout the ideological spectrum of opposition parties and movements: those who are ready to accept the power, no matter what it does, and those who are ready to take a tough position in relation to the Putin team. A tough position (or as it is now customary to call it in a loyal wing - radical), by the way, is not based at all on the personal rejection of Putin or Medvedev, it is based on rejection of the crimes of the regime. Loyalists hiding behind pseudo-polar rhetoric are ready to forgive Putin and Beslan, Nord-Ost, and the destruction of the political, legal system, and much more.

At the same time, readers of the above -mentioned sites do not notice the active controversy on the liberal flank that similar processes occur among left -wing and nationalists. Grigory Yavlinsky declares the Stalinists with whom Yashin and Reznik yaks; The member of the SCM Dmitry Black Okrug Komsomol makes official divination for participating in the assembly, and the editor of the Duel newspaper Yuri Mukhin is accused of sold to the orange for American dollars. In general, if you mechanically make criticism of the National Assembly, which sounds from all sides, you will get a very exotic structure like: “The orange coalition of anti -Semites and Jews that restore Stalinism in the form of new capitalism for the money of the CIA and Mossad.”

Behind all this verbal tinsel, flying towards the Assembly from all sides, is hidden in common for many politicians who managed to adapt to a vegetative existence in Putin’s era - unwillingness and inability to enter into real confrontation with the authorities. It is preserved at all costs at the current, albeit wretched, but the official political system in the hope of a thaw, in which, knowing, they will find a place - this is the main motive of the critics of the National Assembly.

Those who support the idea of ​​the Assembly, signing that the existing form of political life categorically does not suit them, come out of the matrix into reality. Let there be no budgets in this reality on the apparatus of assistants, receptions in the Kremlin and high, financial positions, but there is a real policy: the struggle of ideas, opinions, interests; This policy requires attention, mind, organizational abilities. In general, this is a challenge not only to the authorities, it is a challenge to the participants of the Assembly. And not everyone is ready to accept it.

Obviously, the conflict, for example, in Yabloko is associated with this. The entire ideological component of the polemic with fucked quotes from Mukhin is only an artillery preparation for the main goal - to cleanse the party from “radical elements”, striving to engage in real opposition policy, and not its imitation. Well, at any quote from Mukhin or Smirnov, Putin’s quotes can be brought, for example, about Beslan and Nord-Ost, as well as photographs of the dead children. So you should not compare people who express even outrageous ones for someone's ear, but just words, and people on whose conscience the real death of hundreds of Russian citizens.

The argumentation of opponents is largely built on the substitution of facts. In particular, critics constantly use the word "coalition" in relation to the design, which is on. But this is absolutely not true, which was repeatedly emphasized by all the organizers of the Assembly. The coalition is a democratic movement that began to form from the April Conference in St. Petersburg. Even “other Russia” - albeit extra -demological, but coalition. And the national assembly is a forum, a discussion platform, a meeting place for carriers of different worldviews, ideologies, and representatives of different “political ghetto”.

The ideological and political demarcation of society that occurred in the early 90s, the reluctance of politicians of all directions to conduct an open discussion with each other, argued by the expressions “what to talk to him, he was in the GKChP, the Gaidar government, in the White House (and further on the list) ...” led to the isolation of representatives of different political ideologies, and built Berlinsky between them The walls, through which not only people did not penetrate, but also ideas, thoughts, words. The phrase is a kind of ailment that struck most of the Russian opposition.

We all hear Zyuganov’s indignant cries about Medvedev’s refusal to participate in the debate. And Gennady Andreevich himself at least once entered into an open discussion with his opponents - for example, with Anatoly Baranov? Or did he prefer to act with administrative methods, simply excluding the last of the ranks of the Communist Party? And where is the public polemic Grigory Yavlinsky, for example, with Maxim Reznik or Anatoly Chubais with Andrei Illarionov? In all cases, we hear the same argument - it is not serious, there is nothing to discuss with marginals and upstarts. Those. Before us is the same feudal logic that the authorities adhere to, refusing to enter into polemic even with a close, pocket opposition. Suzeren, of course, is not from a hand in a discussion with vassals. But as soon as the gateways that overlap access to normal politics will be open, the flow of a real political struggle, the ability to which many of the current “opposition” has been atrophied in recent years, simply demolish both Yavlinsky and Zyuganov. And the gateways, largely thanks to the national assembly, began to slowly open: the forum. MSK publish Piontkovsky, in the Duel newspaper - Shenderovich and Latinin, an interview with Krasnov and Zagarin in Kasparov.ru.

Yes, with open gateways, political life is unpredictable. In this, if anyone forgot, the essence of democracy. And if left or nationalists come to power, it means that this is the choice of the people of our country, this is the decision of who, according to the Constitution, is a source of power. Naturally, the actions of political movements affect this choice. But this influence is not as straightforward as it seems to some opponents of the ideas of right-legged cooperation. The destruction of ideological boundaries between various political trends will not enhance the influence on the society of real radicals, adhering ideas to “take everything away and divide” or “beating the Jews, save Russia,” but on the contrary, it will reduce. Ignorance gives rise to myths, conspiracy theories, phobias and superstitions; The choice based on knowledge and argumentation is much less radical. On the contrary, the farther the political landscape turns into a semantic desert, the fewer the verbal discourse will be in it, the more supporters of the non -verbal political struggle will intensify. Supporting the status of the CVO, the “liberal” Kamarily only strengthens the left-nationalist and radical sentiments in society.

And these moods were also born not from scratch. The thesis, which, to my deep regret, is adhere to many representatives of the intelligentsia, including liberals: people are cattle, and therefore votes not in the way they want intelligentsia and liberals, does not withstand any criticism. Is this not this people in 1991 made a choice in favor of democracy, did he vote for Yeltsin in the April referendum 93 years? And the victory of Zhirinovsky in December of the same year - is it not connected with the fact that the liberal government did not justify the credit of trust issued by the people? And the elections of the 95th won by the Communist Party and farmers-is it a consequence of collateral auctions and the Chechen war?

If you do not appeal to the centuries -old history of the mother of Rus', but to look at the events of recent years, it will become obvious that left -wing and nationalist sentiments in society are caused by representatives of liberal ideology objectively unsatisfactory management, and not the “cattle” of the people themselves. However, to write off the choice of people on their low IQ liberals is much more convenient. This removes the responsibility for the beggarly existence of the people in the 90s, and for the surrender of the country into the hands of the authoritarian regime of the Chekists, and, ultimately, for the death of Beslan children, spectators of Nord-Ost, Uda Kursk, thousands of federal soldiers and peaceful citizens of Chechnya. “Our people are not ready for democracy,” and this explains a lot - so the “liberal” argues. From this, however, different liberals draw different conclusions regarding their further practical actions.

There are two types of reasoning that, in essence, is exhausted by the logic of adherents of the thesis “people - cattle”. According to Chubais, since the people in the case of honest elections will lead to power not those, it means that democratic elections cannot be allowed, it is necessary to maintain their experience, knowledge, and authority existing regime. The other pole of reasoning is demonstrated by Leonid Radzikhovsky: both the people are bad and the power is bad, eh Rus'-three, where you rush, no matter how you get under the wheels. And he makes the suggestive conclusion: the intellectual place in the intelligent cuisine (she is also a liberal forum on the Internet). Both positions, obviously, demonstrate an intellectual impasse, into which the authors of the above concepts drove themselves.

The National Assembly, in contrast to them, offers a realistic and humiliating program for Russians to revive political space and political competition in Russia. It will avoid the appearance of despair among people, will help Russia make another historical turn not with an ax, but with a pen with which it will put a checkmark in the balloon.