In the opposition

Chance

December 18, 2008 Alexander Podrabinek

The history of the Russian "solidarity" is just beginning. No one knows how much this story will last - three months, three hundred days or 30 years. No one knows what history it will be - heroic, trivial or shameful. No one knows if there will be references to “solidarity” in the headings of today's news or they will enter school textbooks. While her fate is in her own hands. The creators of this movement, speaking on December 13 at the Constituent Congress, talked about the rainbow future of the movement and their confidence in victory. And this, probably, is right - it is better to start a matter with confidence in success than on an old dissident habit of drinking "for the success of our hopeless work." However, times are changing - toasts are changing.
"Solidarity" really does not look like everything that has been in a public democratic policy in recent years. And a combination of currents that have competed so far and their leaders, and the absence of party leaders, and the representative office of the regions, and - most importantly - a different approach to their political tasks. The other approach is that the software documents are focused not so much on the exposure of the existing regime as on the need to build a political structure based on the principles of freedom and democracy in the country. At least this was heard at the congress, this is declared in the program “300 steps to freedom” and this was manifested even as part of the congress participants.

Under the slogan “to be friends against Putin” it was possible to collect anyone-communists, National Bolsheviks, Komsomol members, nationalists, powers-all dissatisfied with the current authorities. Under the clearly expressed intention to build democracy in Russia, you can no longer collect such an audience. Having lost the inherent “other Russia” red-brown element, “solidarity” can be clarified by democratic guidelines, a pure reputation and a chance to become attractive to those who would have been voting for the Democrats for the last years and have not seen for whom.

The point, of course, is not in the elections, which in reality have long been gone and which are not soon expected, but in the possibility of acquiring public support, without which it is unthinkable to put pressure on the regime, or even more peacefully to dismantle it. The problem of public support was devoted to many performances. Even when it was not said directly about this, it was felt that this was the number one problem. This is really so, however, many traps have been placed on the enchanting path to popular love and a lot of temptations have been prepared. As a matter of fact, the question is simply formulated: should the “solidarity” movement, like a stroke, be like, like everyone? Is it necessary to give out tempting, but difficult promises to collect more supporters? Do I need to play on the strings of hatred for today's disgrace in order to strengthen, as is commonly said by political scientists, a social base? For example, at the expense of the Communists or at worst of the Social Democrats.

One of the speakers at the congress considered it quite acceptable. Someone advocated cooperation with the authorities for the sake of solving human rights problems. Someone rested on supporting social requirements to win the location of the masses. However, the opposite voices sounded. And the hall applauded them.

The contradiction between the need to make the right choice and the desire to become popular was clearly manifested on the first day of the congress during the discussion, which took place on one of the sections, about the attitude to NATO. The program “300 steps to freedom” records that “Russia has no reason at this stage strives to join NATO.” This phrase was proposed to be replaced by the opposite: "Russia should strive for accession to NATO." The objections of the opponents of this amendments came down to the fact that most people in our country are opposed to NATO. There were practically no substantive arguments - everyone understands that NATO membership guarantees an acceptable level of democracy in the country, a balanced foreign policy, reasonable military construction, and the collective security of the countries of the democratic club. Almost no one argued with this, but ... "The people will not understand us." The congress did not have time to discuss this amendment, like about a thousand others. The "300 Steps" program could not be accepted.

Over the next few months, the editorial commission will process all proposals and offer a new version of the program. It must be assumed that such unsuccessful provisions as an article on the special protection of Russian -speaking rights in the Baltic countries and Central Asia or giving a bad Eugenic will disappear from it on the need to properly stimulate the birth rate “primarily among prosperous citizens”.

While the program has not been adopted, it remains only a project that can still be brought to condition. The Russian “solidarity” today has a chance to become a center for crystallization of the democratic forces of Russia. For this, 39 members of the political council elected at the congress need to think a lot and move quickly. Thinking is better than it can be in the Kremlin, and move faster than they can do it on Lubyanka. In the meantime, no one even knows how to set in motion, how it can be supported, how to take part in it. If the “solidarity” in the very first weeks of its existence will freeze, enjoying the effect made and glancing at herself from the side, she will very easily lose her chance to win. And maybe not only your own.