In society

Day of Russia

June 12, 2013 Maxim Blan

On June 12, the main state holiday of modern Russia is celebrated, which has been renamed several times, but has not yet become a real holiday. The majority of the population still does not understand that it is the country that celebrates on this day, rejoicing only on an additional summer weekend and the opportunity to spend the day at the cottage, at the table or, in the worst case, on the sofa. The biggest confusion arose when the holiday was called Russia's Independence Day - without clarifying what and when it stopped dependent. And after the words of the second (one fourth) president of Russia that the collapse of the USSR became one of the largest geopolitical disasters of the twentieth century, many were convinced of their doubts about the reason for the celebration.

Nevertheless, we can assume that the Declaration on State Sovereignty of the RSFSR adopted on June 12, 1990 laid the foundation for the construction of a new Russian state, delivered from the leading and guiding role of the CPSU and not aimed at the transition from developed socialism to communism.

And now, 23 years later, there is an occasion to talk not so much about the state of the state that as a result turned out (this is already mentioned almost daily) as about the sources of this state. It is necessary to look back and understand where the Secretary General Putin came from, on what ground the United Russia grew up, which actually represents a more cynical and not burdened by the ideology analogue of the CPSU, why the state Duma from the parliament has degenerated into a “furious printer”, as little meaning, as the once supreme Soviet of the USSR. At least in order not to repeat the mistakes that have already discarded the young Russian state to the times of the Soviet stagnation.

In the mid-90s, the thesis was repeated in every way that the restoration of the authoritarian regime, the nationalization of privatized property and the return to the times of shock five-year-olds are impossible, but the Putin regime brilliantly refutes these thesis after another. But Putin did not appear out of nowhere, like a devil from a snuffbox. His parish (more precisely, “drive”) to power and all that followed, is a logical result of those deformations that accompanied the fall of the Soviet regime and the creation of a new Russian state.

I will express the thesis with which many may disagree, but I am convinced that the sunset of parliamentary democracy in the country began with the execution of parliament in 1993. Yes, the parliament was reactionary and populist, yes, it interfered with the conduct of vital social, political and economic reforms, yes, this parliament wanted to remove from the power of the first popularly chosen president of Russia. But it was a parliament that was really chosen. No worse than that congress of people's deputies, which in 1990 adopted a declaration of the sovereignty of the RSFSR. And certainly more legitimate and representative than the current Duma. What would happen if Yeltsin then agreed to resign, or what would happen later, in 1996, come to power Zyuganov, it is pointless to guess: history does not know the subjunctive mood. Although the return to the power of pro -communist regimes in many countries of Eastern Europe did not lead to any particularly tragic consequences, only strengthening the democratic principles and making the institution of replacement of power more important than the prevailing ideology.

With all the undeniable advantages of Boris Yeltsin, the state system built by him was not yet a full -fledged democracy. Decisions were often made based on the momentary political expediency to the detriment of democratic principles. To carry out reforms, he needed all the fullness of power, but during these reforms, during the construction of a new state machine, one most important detail was missed. A fuse that protects the country from scum, power lover, or even simple idiots. The first president of Russia itself was a guarantor of democracy in Russia, becoming the first (and so far, unfortunately, the last) the leader of the country who voluntarily resigned. Unfortunately, he could not resist the temptation to name the “successor”, with whom the country was much less fortunate.

All these reasoning are most directly related to what is happening in Russia in recent years. When, in response to the question of who the “unsystematic” opposition can offer instead of Putin, you answer that this is not so important, the interlocutor, as a rule, does not understand that the opportunity to peacefully change the loss of trust, or even a criminal regime, is much more important than who will be at the top for the next four years.

Photos of Olga Pashkova