In the opposition

Technical question

July 26, 2011 Alexander Osovtsov

I read the letter to Marietta Chudakova, Dmitry Oreshkin and others with an appeal to support Medvedev in his struggle with Putin for the presidency. I read several texts opposing this letter. The authors of the letter prove that Medvedev is much better than Putin. Their opponents believe that no better. The authors of the letter are sure that "there is a choice." Opponents, as I understood them, believe that this is an absolutely false choice.

When reading the letter, I have a question of a slightly different property, namely: how, being me, as a voter, can I support Medvedev against Putin? What specifically do the respected Chudakova, Oreshkin and their co -authors want me personally?

Indeed, suppose I agreed that Medvedev was better than Putin, and decided to support him. And what to do? Where to run? There is no answer to this simple and purely technical question in the letter.

Further, some opponents reproach the signatories for that they are inaccurate. The authors of the appeal write that they first support the current president. Not at all, they resemble the arguing, individual authors of the letter in 1996 called to vote for Yeltsin, just as proved that he was better than Zyuganov, and the third, they say, was not given. Such an episode really was. But the similarity of the situation is exhausted. After all, there were really elections 15 years ago, and at one moment there was no doubt that the surnames of both Yeltsin and Zyuganov would be printed not only in the works of the epistolary genre, but also in voting ballots, which both candidates, and, by the way, not only they, very unequivocally declared.

What do we have now? Signals, hints, intrigues, promises to report something in the near future, promises that everyone will be satisfied with everyone, and periodic statements that both alleged candidates belong to the same political team, somewhat different from each other, replaced by confidents that if they differ, then just a little bit.

Finally, no matter how you related to Yeltsin a 1996 model, it was impossible to imagine Zyuganov as a prime minister during his presidency in a feverish nonsense. And even in cases where Medvedev allows himself in some issues, no, not to object to Putin, but not quite agree with him, he does not agree with his own prime minister. And the maximum that his disagreement is enough for is a signal that they are with Putin, of course, brothers, and, most likely, twins, but perhaps still not the same one.

If the authors of the letter know something hidden from the general public, then, of course, the situation can be evaluated differently. For example, they know that both, both Medvedev and Putin, firmly decided to advance. Or they were somehow informed that their letter could affect the Cloarrix decision to be nominated from the ruling group of Medvedev, and Putin could not be put forward. Or there is some other, perhaps even more realistic scenario. Then, of course, they are obtained by participants in the Kremlin-Beleodom Games, which are allowed to the highest state secrets and who, following the established rules, send signals to us, ordinary townsfolk, that is, voters.

Well, and in the end, you can agree. But in this case, I would like to get some additional signals. For example, in recent years, the years of Medvedev’s presidency, many have the impression that the position of the Prime Minister in Russia, if not the first, then, in any case, not the second. At least, it may be, and it depends on who personally takes the place of the president and who is the prime minister. So, if the dull of the authors of the letter is destined to come true and Medvedev again becomes the president, then who will be the prime minister? Putin again? And then what will change? Composition of the Council for Human Rights and Civil Society Institutes? So he is already good.

In general, the call to support Medvedev also gives rise to the question “why?”. Although for me the main question "how?" And not only because he is clearly the first in order. After all, he seems to be the technical to the voter who should explain in more detail how to vote for someone who does not say that he will run, but hints that he will not do this at the same time who should not vote for. But in relation to a policy ending the presidential cadence, this is not a technical, but a very substantial issue. In particular, its content includes an inevitable item about why, if Medvedev has so better than Putin, he still has not fired him and did not head the government? Why, if he is so better than Putin, he did not correct anything that the authors of the letter rightly put Putin guilty? And finally, why, if we have such a guarantor of the constitution that it just needs to be supported for a second term, the authors of the letter have to convince the audience that “there is a choice”? With the guaranteed constitution, no one doubts this.

Photo by RIA Novosti