"No!" So grandfather

What can the opposition can say about the editors of the Constitution

In April, a “nationwide vote on changes to the Constitution” may take place - a procedure that has no legal status and actually planned as a very expensive hundred -quality. Most likely, she will fix the Kremlin amendments to the basic law of the post -fact when they are adopted by the Federal Assembly. Nevertheless, in the Kremlin they swear that nothing will happen without popular approval.

In such a context, the poll on the issue of preserving the constitution becomes the closest opportunity for political mobilization.

Opposition politicians (at least part of them) will try to take advantage of the chance and present the pseudo -referendum as the vote of the no confidence of the current policy of the Kremlin and the extension of the powers of Vladimir Putin. Julia Galyamina and her like -minded people have already launched the campaign “No!”. She calls to vote against amendments, and those who saw the film of the same name refers, in particular, to the events of Chilean history: in 1988, most citizens of the country spoke out against Augusto Pinochet during the campaign of the same name. In our context, the decisive "No!" Most likely, it will not work out to say, but even in this situation, oppositionists can have specific and realistic goals.

Firstly, the failure of voting in large Russian cities (Moscow, St. Petersburg, Yekaterinburg) can demonstrate the weakness of the Kremlin policy at the federal level. Secondly, the preservation of the current constitution (or at least the refusal to support the Kremlin versions of the amendments to it) can become a common opposition agenda and the second point of consolidation-along with the struggle against political repression.

On the way of implementation "No!" Nevertheless, there are several significant obstacles. There is an obvious position that suggests that participating in a pseudo -referendum conducted according to the Kremlin rules means legitimizing this procedure. Much depends on Alexei Navalny, who first made a statement in the spirit that the current “super -presidential” constitution is not a pity, and then did not speak out on the problem.

Obviously, the opposition is now conducting a consultation about this, and Navalny can still support “no!”, If he considers that this will allow him to strengthen his position.

Unlike elections that take place according to a strict procedure and (at least in theory) in the presence of independent observers, the course of “popular voting” will be very difficult to control, therefore, if something does not go according to the Kremlin plan, the necessary numbers can be drawn. Political scientist Alexander Morozov, for example, warns that the opposition’s exit to the gray zone of “popular voting” and an attempt to impose a serious struggle in it, is doomed to failure: the rates will be made to a pre -lost general battle.

In addition, the potential is no! It is limited by the fact that not all opposition politicians consider it necessary to defend the 1993 Constitution. "Yabloko" offers to ignore the Kremlin amendments, but puts forward its own and makes them through all the legislative meetings in which the party has a representative office. However, some representatives of Yabloko do not exclude that in the event that their amendments are not supported, they will join “no!”.

Finally, there are questions lying outside the framework of the current political struggle. A number of new employees wrote a petition demanding to guarantee treatment for seriously ill children in the Constitution. The Kremlin amendments will still be sold through a “popular vote”, but if it is possible to save someone’s life, then you need to act.