In the opposition

The country is postponed

July 8, 2009 Oleg Kozyrev

The conference "Russia after Putin" has collected a lot of interesting speakers and scared even more potential participants with its name. The refusing, apparently, did not want to offend the omnipotent prime minister with their presence on unreliable action. It never occurred to them that it would be much more offensive to assume that after Putin Russia would not be. Thus, the conference divided the political end into two groups. The first believes that after Putin Russia will still remain and it is time to think - which one. The second group does not believe that after Vladimir Vladimirovich can at least stay from Russia-they have not arrived at the conference at all.

Everyone tried to look into the distant (or close) postpage and understand how it should be. Each of the authors painted something of his own, thinking about both today's day and about future days:

Stanislav Belkovsky:

“From my point of view, there is an answer to what a new regime should be. This regime should be a constitutional monarchy, since this is the only regime in which democracy is possible in Russia. ”

Boris Vinogradov:

“Russia 2030. The presidential elections are underway. Sobchak and Turchak are running. Heads of the election process Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin. Here is about my forecast for the next twenty -two years. ”

Heydar Jemal:

“We must not talk about how to divide power in this corporate elite, but about how to ensure the independence of the people from power.”

Harry Kasparov:

“It would be good if this conference was prolonged in time, because the process of comparing positions is long - and we need to find those points of consensus that would allow us to formulate the principles of the new state project for Russia.”

Vladimir Milov:

“It seems to me that what we need to do today is to reduce the gap between us, oppositionists, and wide layers of the population. Moreover, the gap exists not only between us and the population, but even between us and those who sympathize with us. The main thing to do today to do the opposition is to concentrate forces on the development of a constructive agenda. ”

Boris Nemtsov:

“I would like us to clearly and clearly say that instead of serfdom we need to emancipate, instead of“ Basmanny Justice ”we need an independent court, instead of the appointments of miserable, the popular elections are needed, together the unitary state - federal, and instead of unhappy mayors, who are often behind bars, we need a worthy local government. In addition, the main credo that the opposition should have is freedom and competition. ”

Dmitry Oreshkin:

“Joyfully expecting that Putin will ever leave, and this time will definitely come, it is necessary to offer something in return. Because when in the eighties it seemed to us that it was worth removing the sixth article of the Constitution, and we would immediately become like America, these were dreams, it turned out, everything was not at all ... We will have a serious problem of ensuring the country's unity in the absence of real levers of ensuring this unity. Because now it is provided precisely what a powerful center. ”

Alexander Ryklin:

“There are three issues that will be resolved by the transition government. To bring the country to a free, democratic elections to a certain legislative body, apparently, we must talk about the Constituent Assembly. Maintain economic stability in the country, and without sharp radical solutions, for example, such as nationalization - given the limited legitimacy of transitional power. And thirdly, to conduct a thorough and vowel revision of the previous reign. ”

Olga Kurnosova:

“In my opinion, you need to look for what unites us. And we are united by the understanding that we need political democracy, at least. We need competition, at least. And we are united by a desire to look for ways to get out of today's situation. ”

The speakers considered the current problems of the opposition, its tasks for the future. We searched for options for arranging the state in the post -Putin period. We discussed whether it is necessary to change the constitution or, as some suggested, you can do without it at all.

The country was not the same in the post. Each she turned out to be her own. But in one all converged: whatever the today's PU, the poster will invariably come. And we live in this new Russia. How to live - you should think about it today.

Conference video materials can be viewed here