Andrey Levkin. Frame Ivanovs

Frame Ivanovs
Political Science Week: August 26 - September 1

Andrey Levkin

Date of publication: September 1, 2004

Regarding the political science of terrorism, only the saying of Mr. Ivanov, the Minister of Defense, will be mentioned. “The explosion at the Rizhskaya station is, unfortunately, not the first and, I’m afraid, not the last terrorist attack. In essence, a war has been declared on us, where the enemy is not visible and there is no front line,” said Sergei Ivanov... According to him, One of the effective forms of combating terrorism is the vigilance of the population, “the cessation of general prosperity and tranquility.”

Since we have had terrorist attacks for a long time, and the war has only just been declared, this means that prosperity and tranquility will soon be officially ended.

Outside of this topic, the main thing was election matters. On Tuesday, the CEC adopted as the basis for further progress the analytical note “On the practice of holding federal elections, elections to state authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation in 2002-2004 and proposals for amending and supplementing certain provisions of the legislation of the Russian Federation on elections and referendums.” Now there should be two months of discussion ("national"), parliamentary hearings and legislation by the end of the year. What is most interesting here is the frame in which the discussion will take place. Accordingly, it is organized both by the document itself and by responses to it.

The details of the note were compiled by Gazeta.ru (Maria Tsvetkova, “ Soviet-style Elections ,” August 31).

"Here are the key proposals of the CEC:

1. Elections to the Duma must be held entirely according to party lists, that is, on a proportional basis. At the same time, in elections to the legislative assemblies of the constituent entities of the federation, the current mixed majoritarian-proportional system should be preserved.

2. The 7% threshold for parties to enter the Duma should remain unchanged, provided that at least four political parties and electoral blocs must be represented in the lower house of the Federal Assembly.

3. It is proposed to cancel the participation of party blocs in the Duma elections.

4. Independent candidates will be able to take part in Duma elections in the regions (how this point is combined with their exclusive partisanship - no one has yet understood. - Gazeta.Ru).

5. A single date is being introduced for all elections in the country, except for the Duma, - this is the first Sunday of March...

6. When forming party lists of candidates for State Duma deputies, party lists must include a quota of 30% for women.

7. It is proposed to leave only three candidates instead of 8 on the federal party list."

The frame in which this topic is placed still looks more emotional than sane.

“The Central Election Commission in some places suggested complete nonsense,” this is how Boris Nadezhdin, a professional lawyer and secretary for legislative work of the SPS party, responded to the analytical note of the Central Election Commission in an interview with Gazeta.Ru” (Elena Rudneva, “ The Central Election Commission in some places suggested complete nonsense ,” August 31). In particular, the idea of ​​a 30% quota for women is considered nonsense.

I remember that Mr. Gaidai, when promoting “The Diamond Arm,” stuck a small atomic explosion at the very end of the film, artistically motivating it with some kind of absurdity. Everyone, understandably, stood on their hind legs; in the end, Gaidai agreed to cut off the stupid explosion, but other nuances went completely smoothly, such as anti-Soviet songs about hares and grass, and also about those born on Monday.

This quota is so ridiculous that its role is approximately the same. It looks like there is something else funny in the document , but not yet discovered. In addition, the topic of the law on proportionality is not so much political (with the exception of the decision itself) as arithmetic. The law should contain a lot of arithmetic tricks, despite the fact that in the cited document the principles of distribution of votes do not seem to be set out. In addition, the regional structure is extremely unclear. A description of the details of the problem can be found in the article “ Electoral system: what do we want to reform? ” (Boris Makarenko, Politkom, August 31).

In general, there is a technological question: for what purpose is the reform being carried out? There are some general considerations, but they are very vague, but what comes first? The Ukrainians pictured their reform, which has not yet been fully adopted, in concrete terms: it was based on the redistribution of powers from the president to parliament; In the package with this idea, a law on proportionality was adopted, and also on the president. It is clear there - they are restructuring power, reducing the level of authoritarianism. What's here? The preamble of the document talks about generalizing the electoral experience and making adjustments, but the transition to a proportional system does not look like an adjustment at all.

Interesting, of course, is the clause on mandatory representation in the Duma of at least four parties, which presupposes the primacy of the norm. Kondovoy: if all but one party receives one and a half to two percent, three of them will enter the Duma, representing a multi-party system. Which will be the development of the party system on reasonable, good and eternal grounds.

In general, everything is simple: whatever frame is given, the discussion will take place within that frame. And it’s really interesting that the meaning of the actions taken is not open. And since it is not there, how can we understand what is the main thing in the document and what is frills?

For example, Gazeta.ru took a comment from Alexander Ivanchenko - under Yeltsin he headed the Central Election Commission, and now heads the Independent Institute of Elections (in the same “ Elections the Soviet way ”, the interview is attached to the text):

“- Alexander Vladimirovich, how will the introduction of a proportional election system affect the balance of power in the State Duma?

- The parties had this idea for a long time. In principle, it was supported by the communists at different stages; it was always supported by the LDPR, SPS and Yabloko. But in the current conditions, when United Russia has formed a qualified majority contrary to the results of the will of voters in December, I think the attitude of the parties should change... In the conditions of a de facto emerging mono-party system, this is consolidating the status quo of the one-party system. In extreme cases, we can expect a one-and-a-half party system or a unit with a quarter, which could be satellite parties spun off from the same United Russia, especially since all these proposals have already been voiced."

Please note: they are asking about “how it will influence”, and not at all “what is it all about”. Ivanchenko explained what he was talking about ( “At the new stage, this is the consolidation of a mono-party system” ), but go figure - is this really what the Central Election Commission had in mind, but was embarrassed to say. Or is he even talking about making Putin prime minister? But then we need to start not with proportionality, but with a constitution about the government.

So even Zyuganov has become conspiratorial, like APN: he suggests that the analytical note is only the first part of “a certain plan to build a new system of power in the country... I fully admit that in the highest spheres the idea of ​​​​transforming Russia from a presidential to a parliamentary republic is being hatched " . The moral is still the same, just mentioned: this will solve the problem with the constitutional restriction on electing the same citizen as president no more than two times in a row.

But it’s good: analytical notes have finally become the main texts in the Russian Federation. And one more thing: changes to the election law began after the previous elections, following the events. Clearly based on precedent - all experts seem to agree with this - and not at all bearing in mind any proactive views into the future.

And then, right next to it, a similar project of the “Committee 2008” appeared: “ Committee 2008” demands to cancel the results of the elections to the State Duma ” (Grani.ru, August 31): “Next week a lawsuit will be sent to the Supreme Court of Russia demanding the annulment results of the State Duma elections held in December 2003. This decision was made at a meeting of the “Committee 2008: Free Choice” late Monday evening.”

That is, some people record the result, others demand it be refuted. And all this happens a year after the event. And in its pure form, the zone “about the eternal” was represented by the work of “NG” “ A Soviet-type power pyramid is being put together in Russia ,” (Sergei Shapoval, interview with Olga Kryshtanovskaya, August 31), from which it is clear that eternity in Russian circumstances is always clearly connected with whom.

“Today there was a massive rise of the Ivanovs to power. So many people with the last name Ivanov have never been in power!.. Yes, it looks symbolic. The Ivanovs are the most widespread Russian surname. These are people “like everyone else,” and they are definitely Russian. If you want, the Ivanovs are a symbol of “Russianness.” Their rise to power is not always accidental... All these are signs that by 2007 Russia will become a parliamentary republic. Perhaps the president will be elected by parliament. the elected president will become a weak figure. Deliberately weak. And the number one figure will be the prime minister. Putin can become such a strong prime minister, and one of his associates can become a weak president ."

And also about eternity. During the period under review, the composition of the political science resources of the Ru zone was supplemented by the website “New Politics” , published by the center of the same name. The site is simple, the authors are diligently noted on topics that are circulating in space. Apparently for the sake of publicity, the “ Rating of Socio-Humanitarian Thinkers ” was presented there, the publication of which was successively refused by “RZh”, “Polit.ru” and “Prognosis”. But “New Politicians” staged - with enthusiasm and an announcement: “Intellectual Russia: Rating of socio-humanitarian thinkers. 100 leading positions. Year 2004” - this is a study conducted by the INTELROS group in order to fill the existing gap in the assessment of leading Russian intellectuals. In the own words of the initiators of the study, they conducted “monitoring of strategic meaning-making and project analytics through rating socio-humanitarian thinkers of Russia.”

This is how “Novopol” showed itself, where can it go now from this story. And there’s nothing to say about the group of comrades who drew this, and everything is written on the website. But here it is: even such freedom-loving individuals as socio-humanists, it turns out, desire orderliness and, as a result, at least some kind of verticality of their own.

Of course, it would be necessary to make a list of 100 correct intellectual boys - invite someone to compile a vote of thousands for three positions, evaluating each p.i.p. according to approximately five parameters: sincerity, artistic performance, pan-humanity, and the like. And what will happen to the traffic to the site that implements such a project?..

All this, meanwhile, completely continues the story about the new language for describing political science cases. This language, which tends to translate anything into some kind of kitschy symbolism, also includes the commentary from Granei.ru: “The initiative of the Committee 2008 is like a gun salvo over a battlefield, where marauders are already in full swing. This salvo will not particularly frighten anyone and will not change the outcome of the battle, but it is an encouraging sign for those who have not yet raised their hands." This is about the idea of ​​invalidating the elections that took place a year ago.

In sum, personal experiences expressed in bad language intend to become this very description. The problem is this: it's all so sticky that it lasts a long time. And even then: to whom, in fact, are the complaints of individual representatives of the Russian intelligentsia sent?

But real humanitarian technologies have made themselves felt. G. Zyuganov, “ Once again about “party literature ” (“Pravda-info”, August 25):

“During the post-congress discussions, we talk a lot about new methods of political struggle, about a new language of opposition. About bright imagery through which our ideals, goals and objectives can be expressed. More than ever, we are aware of the need for close interaction between art and politics. Why is this process so important today? The rough bureaucratic language, the language of postulates, has simply become boring. It no longer conveys the wealth of ideas of those meanings that should be conveyed to the consciousness of the masses. These meanings themselves, expressed in this way, cease to be perceived by people... Meanwhile, the language of images. , signs, symbols are understandable to the absolute majority..."

Considering that Zyuganov may have problems under the law on proportionality (he said it himself), people of humanitarian work can take heart: the fact of getting into the Duma is directly related to the linguistic features of party activity. As we write, so it will be.