New agenda

The conference of the democratic opposition “New Agenda”, scheduled for April 6 in St. Petersburg, is approaching. Can we today do everything in our power to restore the substantive and political unity of democratic forces? Precisely “restoration”; Such unity existed in 1989-91, when democratic forces jointly pushed the CPSU from power and put an end to communist totalitarianism. Or will it all end in mundane chatter about the most important personal and programmatic contradictions?
One of the organizers of the conference, the head of the St. Petersburg Yabloko, Maxim Reznik, spent almost three weeks behind bars on absurd charges of attacking police officers. Low-grade provocations that end in actual imprisonment have already been tested on activists of the banned NBP, and are now being used against liberals. Since the beginning of the year, fascist thugs, with the connivance of the authorities, have killed 34 people, hundreds have been beaten - these are the signs of the “thaw”.
Our supporters are very tired of the many failed attempts to “unite the Democrats” in recent years. Over the past 10 years, democrats managed to truly unite only once - in the elections to the Moscow City Duma in 2005; and it was this experience, very successful politically, that was subsequently criticized by both Yabloko and the Union of Right Forces! And therefore the phrase “union of democrats” takes on an openly farcical connotation.
If we do not want to once again be disgraced and disgraced, completely discrediting ourselves in the eyes of supporters of democracy and freedom in Russia, I think we need to immediately clearly define the goals and desired results of the democratic forum on April 6.
I believe that the conference can be considered successful only if the following results are achieved.
At the conference, a full-fledged political movement is created, an analogue of the “Democratic Russia” of the late 1980s. There can be no talk of any formless “negotiation platforms”. Enough, we've eaten.
This movement, at the discretion of the conference participants, can be created either in the form of a public organization, the founders of which are legal entities and individuals, or a political party. In the second case, it would be most reasonable to create a new party on the basis of the Union of Right Forces, by transforming it - if, of course, its leadership gives unequivocal consent.

The political movement (I will call it “Democratic Russia”, DR, we haven’t come up with a better name in the last 20 years) must directly declare its goal - taking power in Russia. And declare yourself as a subject of the struggle for power. No “compromise with power” can be the goal of such a movement.

I believe that the leader of the Democratic Republic should be a responsible and courageous politician with an impeccable reputation, who is not responsible for the sins of the official democratic leaders of the last 15 years. There is such a person next to us. This is Vladimir Bukovsky.

The leader should have from 7 to 12 deputies in specific areas. Deputy leaders of the Democratic Republic can become those democratic activists who:

a) are able to bring maximum benefit to AR;

b) are ready to consider the Democratic Republic as the main place of their political work.

As during perestroika, the Democratic Republic must unite all democratically minded, convinced and consistent opponents of the Kremlin regime. Regardless of ideological nuances and past history of relations with certain conference organizers. Let's remember that “Demrossia” of 1989 included liberals, socialists, “communists for democracy”, and nationalists. It was this “Demrossia” that won the elections in 1990 and 1991.

All political forces, leaders and activists who took part in the “Marches of Dissent” in 2006-2008 will be part of the new “Democratic Russia”. No one should be offended or forgotten.

I believe that if all these conditions are met, we will be able to achieve success and restore public confidence in the idea of ​​uniting democratic forces, and only this can truly be the “New Agenda” for the democratic opposition.