The myth of the tribune

The debate of candidates-2018 help to say goodbye to the myth of the election as a unique opportunity to contact society from the television screen

Stop-frame of the program "Elections-2018. Debat with Vladimir Solovyov ”, channel“ Russia 1 ”, February 28, 2018 Photo: YouTube.com

Will the masses hear?

The authorities methodically clash any windows of opportunities that the opposition can use in one way or another. One of the most tenacious myths, which most often justified the need for participation in the elections, can be considered the myth of the stands: they say, the opposition is deprived of access to the federal media, but with the help of elections it will receive it legally. And then - as in films about the triumph of good: people will hear the word of truth, a veil will fall from their eyes, they will massively go out onto the streets of cities and sat down and demolish a false and vile regime, the kingdom of freedom and truth will come - well, or simply in a single impulse will vote for the good, and the bad will lose and give power.

Is there even a drop of truth in this theory - taking into account the real state of affairs in 2018? The facts are talking about the opposite.

It is necessary to start with the fact that in order to maintain a campaign to constantly inform citizens about the situation in the country, errors and crimes of the authorities, it is not at all necessary to be a registered candidate. Alexei Navalny created a wide network of headquarters and carried out huge organizational work, without becoming a registered candidate. The successes of his work are especially obvious against the backdrop of the almost inconspicuous activity of other candidates.

Moreover, an officially registered candidate must act within the framework of many restrictions described by law. It turns out that formally located outside the elected campaign, a private person can afford much more than a registered candidate - and above all, in matters of criticism of power and informing the population.

But the massive information and mobilization campaign throughout the country is still a know-how Navalny and his team. The doctrine of elections as a unique rostrum to turn to society - about another, first of all, of the fundamental and self -worth of access to federal channels. It is assumed that the audience of federal channels is so huge that one appeal to it directly outweighs the effect of painstaking explanatory work on the streets, which means that the bet should be made precisely to access to television, and not on constant political activity.

Last week, the debate began on federal channels - and what did we see?

The difference between the current debate and many past is the participation in them of a person who is boldly performing with very radical views in today's times, Ksenia Sobchak. In addition to her, there is also Grigory Yavlinsky, who now also looks like a radical oppositionist. Did you justify access to the federal broadcast in the elections with the famous finale?

How did it all begin

The very idea that several bright speeches on central television are able to solve all problems-from the beginning of the 1990s. It can even be assumed that in its current form it directly grows from an amazing result, obtained in 1993 by the Party of Vladimir Zhirinovsky. This episode is now thoroughly forgotten, and new generations do not remember it at all.

So, at the end of 1993, after the dissolution and liquidation of the Supreme Council of the RSFSR, elections were announced to the First State Duma. For the first time since pre -revolutionary times, political parties participated in the elections. Among those who declared participation in those elections was the LDPR, which then did not seem to anyone particularly serious, promising and even more long -playing project. Zhirinovsky then had neither supporters in the regions, nor striking financial capabilities, nor even some special recognition-he clung to any opportunity to recall himself after participating in the 1991 presidential election.

The then television in Russia was different and still looked like a measured Soviet broadcast, where people, if they set out some ideas and facts from the screen, it was assumed that there was some evidence and logical base under them. Of course, the therapeutic sessions of Kashpirovsky and Chumak made a fair hole in the rational picture of the world of the average viewer, but still the general tonality of the then television remained quite intelligent. Zhirinovsky was at the right time in the right place: before the expressive manner of speaking and outrageous content of the speeches, the audience was defenseless, and the organizers of the information lighting of the elections either did not understand what was happening, or simply did not know what to do with it. Following the results of their bright preaching to the shocking, having neither a real structure in the regions or the program, Zhirinovsky received fabulous 23% votes, a faction in parliament and a ticket to the life of a prominent statesman, which he still leads.

A great misconception to think that opposition ideas from the television screen do not sound at all: all channels periodically call special people who portray the opposition there - on a par with the depicting Ukrainian, Polish, American and other experts and journalists

So there was a myth that if you get to the federal broadcast and there to say that the rest are afraid or simply cannot, then you can “hack” the system.

Does this theory work in 2018?

Firstly, there is a great misconception to think that opposition ideas from the television screen do not sound at all: on all federal channels, they periodically call special people who portray the opposition there-on a par with the depicting Ukrainian, Polish, American and other experts and journalists. The average spectator of federal television has a certain idea of ​​the ideas for which the opposition acts - but they were presented to him in such a way that he cannot agree with them. Thus, Ksenia Sobchak, who is surrounded by screaming and twitching satellites, is trying to say something, simply finds himself in the position of Leonid Goman, who also for some reason goes to a talk show, trying to prove something to someone. She does not manage to say anything new, and attempts to draw attention to the investigations of the FBK are strictly stopped by the leading, authoritatively assuring the audience that all this is inaccurate. And they will believe, of course, to him - because in this chaos and madness it is the presenter who personifies the logic and order, these are the rules of the world of Russian television policy.

It is time to admit that participation in elections in modern conditions does not create any new opportunities for communication with society. The speeches of candidates on the air of federal channels are organized in such a way as to obviously understand them, to equate them to the ordinary political booth show that goes there endlessly

Secondly, the environment is important, which is already partially said above. It was Zhirinovsky in 1993 that allowed them to simply sit in the frame and scream in the camera everything that he considered necessary. In 2018, such tricks do not pass. Now any candidate is always in the society of several colleagues, the minimum of them (Zhirinovsky and Suraykin) consider it their duty to raise the noise level in the studio every time that something unpleasant for the authorities sounds. At especially important points, Baburin and even Titov add their muttering. In addition, the candidate is not in any unique space of the “Presidential Candidate”, as it was once. In fact, the performances of presidential candidates look and are held as an ordinary political show on federal channels: a bright studio, an authoritarian host, a couple of “charged” freaks against the background of the Loyalist majority. There is no doubt that this has been done intentionally and with an understandable purpose: there is Putin, but there are characters in the television show, so choose the future.

Long -naked conclusions

It is time to admit that participation in elections in modern conditions does not create any new opportunities for communication with society. The speeches of candidates on the air of federal channels are organized in such a way as to obviously declarify them, to equate to the ordinary political booth-show, which has been giving there infinitely for the last years. In the current situation, no one will enable an opposition candidate for prime time to speak with monologues, which the authorities can consider inconvenient for himself.

The only genre that is offered in a wide range is a bike with the presenter and other participants, in especially responsible moments - with platform abuse and petty hooliganism. Needless to say, participation in such an event discredits the candidate, emphasizes the entire gap between him and the current president, who has the opportunity to speak with monologues on any topic, not interrupted and not limited by anyone.

Those blockages of lies, demagogy and conspiracyology, which have been created for years in the heads of the audience of federal channels, cannot be destroyed with one spectacular speech, we need painstaking work for many years

A separate question is the quality of the audience. Devoted spectators of federal channels with all their political shows and series are a well -defined part of society, which is most affected by state propaganda. Is it possible to turn these people to your opposition faith through an ardent sermon from the screen?

In a practical sense, this is hardly possible. Those blockages of lies, demagogy and conspiracyology, which have been created for years in the heads of the audience of federal channels, cannot be destroyed with one spectacular speech, we need painstaking work for many years.

The development of information technology creates more and more opportunities for conveying its ideas to society. Absolute access to federal channels, which have a limited and very specific audience, makes no sense. Work with other segments of society through new media is much more effective than trying to leak into federal channels at any cost.

The only meaning of participation in the elections is to apply for victory or at least a serious result that creates a background for the future. For this, you should fight and take risks. But for the sake of which you should definitely not participate in the elections is for the sake of a dubious opportunity to sing in the same choir with Suraikin and Baburin under the direction of an experienced director with the “first” or “Russia”.

* Political scientist, permanent Columnist NT

The author’s opinion may not coincide with the opinion of the editorial office