In the Kremlin

Crossroads

April 17, 2012 Valery Zavorotny

Once, in his youth, we sat, technician students, in the audience, pretending to listen to a lecture. Our specialty was called “Technical Cybernetics”, and the subject that we read to us that day was called “system analysis”. The professor was a person who was fascinated, unlike most of us, fair lobotyasyas. And so, in order to at least stir up unreasonable youths, he told us about things, very distant system analysis. At that lecture, he tried to attract our attention in stories about the "time machine." And about why attempts to create it do not make sense. Of course, I did not remember all of what was said, but two phrases in my memory were preserved.

“The future,” he said, “is just a set of probabilities. Neither get into it, nor even to predict him. ” Then, I remember, he looked out the window with longing and sighed sadly ...

Many years have passed since then, over the years I had a chance to work in different “analytical” groups (and in and without quotes), who tried to model the future. This lesson seemed very worthy until he was convinced of his own experience, which really exists only a set of probabilities - what seems obvious today, tomorrow turns into a soap bubble ...

Today, thoughts about the future - mainly about the nearby - again occupy the minds of analysts. Most, however, are not too optimistic, except for those who are charged with the duty of the service.

All scenarios offered to the attention of the venerable public are essentially reduced to two options. Either the “vertical stabilization” will continue, or everything will go racing. Such is the crossroads of roads.

Let's try, to the best of strength, to figure out what is happening.

An unexpected surge in the activity of the “electorate”, caused by the usual, seemingly pranks with some kind of ballots there, forced the power to be pretty nervous. So much so that this poor power dared to act in the style of it inherent. Well, it’s not that to replace the “sovereign democracy” with something without adjectives (not for that, Comrade Surkov tried), but I still had to slightly correct the face with makeup. The elections of the governors had to be returned, albeit with the “filter” (and who will filter, not a moronic people?). The threshold of the number for parties rolled up to five hundred people, instead of the previous forty thousand. And the parties themselves can now breed like rabbits. Undervisible liberalism, I will tell you.

However, if you look more attentive, then doubt may become fragile souls.

I admit that at the end of his career “temporarily acting” Dmitry Anatolyevich really decided to at least make something from that set of good promises that were so generous. Do not leave at all without clothes. In addition, he somehow undressed somehow to elegant-looking at the “Rocky”, many grimaced slightly.

But if, again, to look more closely at the liberalism that is apparent to the people, it may seem painfully looking like ... well, if not for wiring, then, how would it be said? .. To something similar.

It is clear that the opposition that received a freestyle, at least in terms of part -time, will begin to generate “parties” by dozens, if not hundreds. Fans of beer, I heard, have already begun. The point is for lovers of other drinks, as well as for lovers of everything and everything. For lovers of democracy - no doubt. Whoever and however interpreted this term.

In principle, there is nothing terrible - the process can be considered as natural. In any case, more natural than a trampled field with an infinished “unr in a sown on it”. But it is worth imagining a ballot box, the size of a roll of toilet paper, as optimism disappears.

Perhaps the bet is done on two simple things. Firstly, there is a hope that among dozens of unknown “parties”, a stray voter will prefer something at least more or less familiar. If you have to suck and use the administrative resource (well, maybe not so clumsy, but more vague), then, you see, it will succeed again, at least with a creak, to pull your favorite “EDRO”, with all its oversight.

Secondly, even if Osro continues to lose their voices, these voices will be fragmented and smeared between different groups. And their appearance is easy to predict: among the new parties, quarrels and “budding” are inevitable. Leaders - a dime a dozen.

In order to avoid such a scenario, the opposition would be nice, in my opinion, in addition to discussing about the “dialogue with the authorities”, which was said so much, to think about dialogue in their own rows. So far, these ranks are only the general tactics of the struggle against the common enemy. But tactics are not a strategy. The difference in strategic goals will appear sooner or later. It is possible that earlier than expected. Therefore, it would be nice to understand now without omissions and silence: what are the principles and goals of those who are still in common columns. The task is difficult, but without solving it, it will be difficult to move on.

In the current conditions, the tactics “let's leave disagreements for the time being, we will gain numbers, we’ll shove the regime, and we will look there,” perhaps true. But this is today. And tomorrow? ..

If the goal is to “shove the mode”, then it would be nice, it seems to me, to think in advance about what is proposed in return - when and if this very regime falls. And about how different participants in protest promotions see this future.

Close for a second of our eyes, sit in the “Time Machine” and transfer to that glorious day when the current government, as a result of the elections, under the pressure of “streets” or simply ashamed of our deeds (we fantasize), sprinkle the head of ash and, collecting suitcases, will go to rest. Who is “for the hill” and who is on Rublevka.

So, freedom! .. Ahead of a new life! .. What? ..

The probability set is wide. But for some reason it seems that the calculation, as if the opposition’s disagreement hidden until the time will disappear somewhere, may turn out to be a slightly illusory. The spectrum of preferences of different groups is known. Here are “pure democrats”, and “moderate democrats”, and “liberals”, and “national patriots”, coupled with “sovereigns” (also moderate and immoderate), and “Westerners”, and “Eurasians” with their “third path” and “third Rome” (do they want to repeat the fate of the two previous ones?), In one way, walk, guys. The picture, in general, is standard for the “transition period”. Only now to delay this period and expose problems by receiving power (for example that this will happen) will be too dangerous. Such issues are resolved before, not after. Otherwise, the one who will better master demagogy will win. All this has already passed more than once. And not only here.

One way or another, it will inevitably have to determine the position. The section line can and, most likely, should pass not only between democrats and radical nationalists. What path for Great Russia is prepared by the latter is well known. But it would be nice to understand how people who call themselves democrats imagine this path. How ready are they not to repeat the past mistakes.

I already had to see how inspired slogans about the “unity of democratic forces” ended in endless disputes - who is more democrat and who should join for whom for this reason.

It is not worthwhile to nourish illusions, no “single batch” will not work out - both due to objective and for subjective reasons. Yes, one is not needed. One “one” already has its own century. But to agree, say, about a certain, albeit informal, block of parties, sharing a clear set of general principles and priority tasks, I would believe, not superfluous. The song “We’ll take hands, friends” has been sounding for twenty years - it seems tired of singing himself. However, the trouble is not that the singers are tired. The trouble that the listeners were tired. And if once again the matter ends with clarifications, who is the first and who is the second, who is the main one, and who is not very and who has a slogan who has a slogan, then you can forget about any changes in the system for a long time.

The events of December-Marot are sometimes compared with the rally activity of the late 1980s. However, there are some differences. The perestroika of the eighties was, in fact, a continuation of a series of attempts to start reforms from above. Here is the Khrushchevskaya “thaw” and Kosyginsky “self -recording”. In all these cases, the initiator of the changes was power. Even in August 1991, people on barricades defended one power group from another. But in December 2011, they went out not to “cover” someone, but to defend their right to choose and declare: you can bite each other under the carpet, but my voice belongs only to me, and only I decide how to dispose of it. (“I did not vote for these bastards, I voted for other bastards.”) This position is more dangerous for the authorities in the long run, since it is more difficult for such people to manipulate. The only question is whether it will be possible to maintain this energy and structure the protest movement.

No one knows which of the options for the future is being implemented today, which road at the intersection will be chosen. Perhaps people who awakened from sleep will be awaiting a new disappointment and years of “stability” in the former swamp. Or maybe the country will finally have a real chance to break out of the bad circle, where glimpses of freedom are constantly replaced by a new stagnation and "sensiture of blockbite satisfaction."

The choice of path depends on many factors. But in one, perhaps, everyone converges-the movement vector will be determined in the coming months or, at least in the next year and a half. Therefore, everyone who wants and is able to influence this choice will not be able to swing for a long time. Time has gone ...