Russia after the Messiah

The conversation about “Russia after Putin”, started by Alexander Osovtsov, is extremely important - but not as a scenario, but as a symptom. Unfortunately, the opposition's attention is overly focused on the figure of the prime minister; he is seen not just as the personification of the regime, but also as its guarantor and support, as the main and only character. Like the regime itself. The state is him. Let us congratulate the Kremlin administration on its convincing victory. The opposition has become a simple-minded mirror of official propaganda. Some say that only Putin saves Russia, others say that only he destroys it. Honestly, there is something monarchical about this. "Life for the Tsar!" “Let’s pick the king and live!” The slogans are absolutely symmetrical.

The possible resignation of Putin, in its expected historical significance, is likened to the overthrow of the Romanov dynasty (ninety-two years ago it was not possible to hold fair elections; maybe this time it will work).

But, as you can see, the overthrow of the Romanovs did not benefit Russia, and this is not only due to the failure of the Constituent Assembly. The point is deep paternalism, which continues to be the core of political thinking and political practice. This unfortunate limitation is not realized, not processed by our educated class. The deification/demonization of the figure of Putin clearly demonstrates this.

Some design inconveniences follow from such naive monarchism.

Judge for yourself.

At the end of the First World War, all of Russia spoke, shouted, whispered, and dreamed of one thing: down with autocracy. This simple and understandable slogan united almost everyone - from professor to peasant, from minister to shopkeeper. Apparently, it's baked. But total hatred of tsarism distorted the perspective. It was thought that there was nothing worse than the tsar and, most importantly, could not be. That autocracy has absorbed all the evil of the world, and that after the overthrow of the tsar this evil will disappear and evaporate. He will drown at the Dno station, where, according to legend, the last Russian Tsar abdicated the throne.

We grabbed at the Dno station -

One place lost.

In Marshak’s poem about a lady who checked in a sofa, a suitcase, and a travel bag as luggage, this light little rhyme contains some important truth:

However, during the journey

The dog could grow up.

Lenin came instead of the Tsar.

Let's assume that the Constituent Assembly took place. But there is no certainty that a constitutional-democratic paradise would come. Well, or at least the calm gradual development of political, economic and civil institutions. Power could be taken by socialists, militarists, nationalists, imperialists or some other cruel and reckless people.

The above does not mean that I am a supporter of the Romanov restoration. Or, speaking about the current situation, a supporter of maintaining the status quo for reasons “it wouldn’t be worse.”

But you need to clearly understand the following things.

If V.V. If Putin suddenly leaves his post and becomes a private person, then absolutely nothing will change in the structure and functioning of the regime. Unless we observe a redistribution of charisma, as well as some redistribution of powers in the leadership. This is hardly the promised “Russia after Putin.”

Therefore, the best trick that Putin could show to his opponents is to resign. No political statements. Due to personal circumstances. So, they say, and so, I decided to devote the coming years to my family. Ivanov becomes prime minister, Gryzlov becomes leader of United Russia; other public positions that Putin probably occupies include Khusainov, Shvartsman and Badmaev (surnames are conditional). What will happen? Will jubilant crowds wearing tricolor bows pour out into the streets and run to elect a Constituent Assembly? On the move, sweeping away Oligarchy and Corruption? Why should the departure of one person mean some radical, and certainly positive, changes? Moreover, hundreds, if not thousands, of people from his team will remain in power, occupying key positions in the center and in the regions, in politics and business. Connected to each other by a dense network of mutual obligations and sympathies. Classmates, colleagues, fellow countrymen, business partners and relatives.

Of course, even in the most developed democracies, the personality of the leader is quite often perceived as the personification of the regime or, more precisely, as the personification of a given political line. Nothing surprising. Let’s remember what they said about Bush, how they ridiculed him, hated him, and couldn’t wait for him to leave. But in developed democracies, a change of president means quite significant changes in the administration. The president is replaced through elections. "Down with Bush!" means: let's wait for the elections and vote for a nicer person.

Here we have “down with Putin!” means something fundamentally different. Let's dismiss the prime minister and then hold truly free elections.

And then we will carry out a reform of the entire state administration, the entire economy, politics and culture. And we will live.

At the same time, it is tacitly implied that there is someone very big, incredibly strong and extremely noble, who, according to Alexander Osovtsov’s plan, will do the following: a) send Putin and his government to resign; b) form a technical government; c) convene a round table of political parties; d) based on the results of the agreements reached at this round table, amend the electoral legislation and hold new elections; e) will appoint a new government based on the election results. Let’s not forget about one more point: this mighty good knight (f) will ensure peace and quiet for the entire duration of the round table, preparation and holding of new elections. This will ensure that hundreds, or even thousands of people from the team of the retired prime minister will quietly wait until the participants of the round table decide their fate.

It is unlikely that such a person can become a president. If only because the announcement of new (that is, early, as well as fair, honest, democratic) elections weakens its own legitimacy. Because he was elected without any round table. Unless, of course, we consider as such the solemn visit of the leaders of political parties to the then President V.V. Putin with a proposal to nominate D.A. Medvedev as new president.

And in general, it is not clear why the president went to all this crazy trouble.

Obviously, only the Lord God can become the guarantor of these transformations. He will humble the violent, soften the cruel, shame the proud, comfort the mourners and ensure a fair redistribution of oligarchic capital. And whoever tries to bring special forces into the streets or money offshore - He will stretch His right hand against them. Some will be scattered, others will repent.

Political messianism is turning into ordinary before our eyes. Meanwhile, the democratic opposition will continue to improve the institution of co-chairmanship.

But there is a task much more difficult than the unity of democratic forces (although, it would seem, much more difficult). We must learn to think about Russia separately and about the government separately. Let the Russia of the future be imagined as anything you want - imperial or national, federal or unitary, post-industrial or information, and even nanotechnological. But not the prime minister's or the president's.

It’s time to finally separate the authorities from the fatherland.

Then the question of a change of power will come out of the realm of messianic fantasies, from the stupor of “fatherly rule” in which we have been for the last ten, or a hundred and ten, or five hundred years. It's time, it's time, it's time.