Dmitry Shusharin. Loneliness of the country

Loneliness of the country
Dmitry Shusharin

Publication date: February 16, 2004

A few days before the explosion in the Moscow metro, the peculiarities of presidential election PR were discussed in a government-owned company. They talked about different things. About the fact that commonplaces are an insidious thing. It is generally accepted that Putin’s victory is a foregone conclusion, that everything is already clear. True, they are already saying that there is not enough intrigue, and therefore voters may not turn out in the required numbers. There really isn't much intrigue. And even less propaganda and campaigning for the favorite in the election race. Not at all. Which, on the one hand, is strange, but on the other, understandable.

This is strange because, in general, propaganda and agitation simply have to exist. There are no elections without them. And it’s understandable - due to the fact that it is completely unclear how to conduct Putin’s campaign without harming him. And this despite the fact that, in general, no one really attacks him. Publications by Khakamada and Rybkin as advertising - ugh! Everything could have been done much simpler and cheaper. It is very easy to collect sins and shortcomings for any group of the electorate. It will be unpleasant for some to remember the story with NTV (TV-6, TVS), for others - rapprochement with the United States on an anti-terrorist basis. Or: some will reproach you for the “YUKOS affair,” while others will blame you for the sluggish foreign policy of recent months and the not entirely coherent vertical of power. “Nord-Ost” will not evoke happy memories, nor will the latest terrorist attacks. But politicians and Irina Khakamada are silent. They are reproached by one, then by another, but there is no system.

However, they can run into you. And how to answer? Here in the conversation there was an agreement that trying to run Putin’s campaign by repeating 1999 was very dangerous. To scare the electorate that without Putin everything will collapse is to harm the president. The bad manager is the one after whose departure everything falls apart. And if you now begin to sculpt the image of the savior of the Fatherland, who is surrounded by enemies (Chechen separatism, international separatism, oligarchic conspiracy, left and right extremism, and so on, so on for every taste), then any mind will have enough to ask: what, exactly? the president studied for four years? He directed all his efforts to seize property from Berezovsky, Gusinsky and Khodorkovsky, and therefore they were not enough for Chechen toilets?

This question itself (not even the answer) is needed not for Putin’s sake, but for understanding what is happening “with the Motherland and with us.” But there is no discussion about this. Rivals do not ask serious questions of the president because they themselves do not want to answer such questions. For example, about his plans in case of victory in the elections (unless Glazyev is an exception). Because no one is striving for power. This is the trick of 2004. No one is waging a thoughtful campaign that was waged for the sake of understanding the life of the country - its past, its present, its prospects. The main thing is to shine, especially, by the way, without irritating the president with a principled conversation. So, old themes, old techniques.

The behavior of the gentlemen candidates is very deplorable. This is yet another proof that the successes of the ruling group are determined by the even greater, in comparison with their weakness, weakness of society, which demonstrates complete indifference to what is happening up there. It is this indifference that Putin’s high ratings reflect, measured in conditions of a political vacuum, lack of political competition and sane opposition. "We do not care!" And it is precisely on this principle that they will vote for Putin.

Oddly enough, not the worst option and not the most vile motivation. There will be no catastrophe, but stagnation is guaranteed (though stagnation is a delayed catastrophe ).

Historians are somewhat prejudiced towards such a science as political science. It is very strange to assume that living, irrational, emotional, passionate human activity, which is politics, can be described in the formalized language of a bird. Only historical science can do this, operating in evaluative categories and in everyday language. Even when this is the industry that is called current history - current history.

Well, what can we say about what we are for Putin, in the beautiful language of political science? After all, a political scientist will not dare to use simple human language when talking about the incentive motives for the actions of the authorities. He is unable to recognize their deeply human, ordinary and base character, which they project onto the entire country. That is, the authorities are not driven by the most lofty aspirations and attribute them to others. And in this, politics is almost always right in relation to the “here and now”, from the point of view of retaining power, but not in the perspective of using it for nationally and socially significant purposes.

And political science does not judge these goals. In any case (this disclaimer is valid for the entire present text), that political science that is presented in Russian in the Russian media space. Political science is generally good where there is already established conventionalism, where it is clear what goals are significant, what is good and what is bad, where... In a word, political science is appropriate where it arose - in a modern civilized society. That is, in an open, informational, democratic, politically correct society. Where the political language, with all its conventions, is still understandable to everyone. Where there are messages, not signals. Where causes have effects, where, having said “a”, they say “b”.

So, the question is what will be the consequences of such an attitude towards us on the part of the political elite. Whether we agree or not that we can be controlled without entering into explanations with us and appealing to our base (greed, envy, cowardice) feelings, or not. This is a historical choice that no Central Election Commission will determine. There is no methodology for counting votes and no voting system has been developed.

The electorate for candidates is a “disposable people,” as some political strategists say. It is clear. And for Putin, who are we? Not “who are you, Mr. Putin?”, but who are we to you? Speech at a meeting with trusted representatives is too much yours and ours . Calling the collapse of the USSR a tragedy and at the same time declaring commitment to liberal principles... It’s the same as if Stalin, back in 1929, proclaimed a course for complete collectivization, declaring the October Revolution a tragedy.

Some time ago, a report by a political strategist called “ The Loneliness of the President ” was made public. Observations of the presidential campaign lead to the idea of ​​the need to write a treatise, “The Loneliness of the Country.” We have not acquired either a full-fledged state or capable public institutions. The sentiments of the authors of the United Russia project are very indicative. The creators of victory do not feel like winners, although they say that there are no more left and right. But they weren’t there.

Who are our liberals? It would seem that they should have one most important difference: if they protect anyone, then first of all a private person. An individual for whom his own personal characteristics are much more important than his social status. But it is quite obvious that for our right-wingers a private citizen is something like a homeless person, even if he has a fortune. For even a millionaire is worth at least something if he is friendly with the authorities. This point of view was, and still is, held by the leaders of the Union of Right Forces, gathered into one company in 1999 by the iron will of the presidential administration.

And on the left flank there are only missed chances. Last summer, the Communist Party of the Russian Federation had every opportunity to finally part with the image of the party of people from the past. Firstly, the wonderful features of the Soviet apparatchiks began to be associated with United Russia. Secondly, in the party’s PR activities there has been a rejuvenation of the image, intellectualization and aestheticization of positioning. But it didn't work out. If people who call themselves liberals clearly do not understand what a private person is, what the middle class is and what it needs, and therefore this class divides its votes between the LDPR and Rodina, then the left in modern Russia is in no way connected with social organizations, being their natural base. More precisely, with those that should be their base. There are aging apparatchiks appealing to unhappy pensioners, and there are young and not so young intellectuals. Socially active young people prefer something nationalistic or worse, which always smacks of Azefism. And the socially passive remains socially passive. The left flank is not a zone of action - it is a sphere of nostalgia, intellectual and aesthetic design. And there is no connection with what constitutes the routine everyday life of social protection - well, who and when recently carried out actions to protect the rights of workers, where are the actual functioning trade unions, etc., etc.?

True, the regional elite is already talking about a contract with the president for a second term, and is already formulating a program for modernization reforms . But these are all wishes. And the possible participants in such a contract do not seem to understand at all what they want from them. Here, by chance, randomly selected details characterizing both high-level contracting parties.

Russia today is the only country in Europe where charity is not encouraged by the state in any way. And the president confirms that this will continue to be the case in order to prevent unnecessary tax breaks .

Human rights activists admit: society continues to tolerate the fact that the army remains a school of life, maiming and killing students; conscription slavery is still considered inevitable by the majority .

Finally, the president is charged with turning the country into a “great power . ” It would be nothing, but don’t we know what is meant by this and what is compensated for by it?

Well, what kind of society is this, with what kind of power and what will it negotiate about? Is it just about not disturbing each other? What you won’t expect from the authorities.

Therefore, Putin’s era of underwear will end sooner or later, just like Brezhnev’s beautiful era. Imperceptibly, it will gradually fade away without any, at first glance, significant losses, but with large and far-reaching consequences.

The country will suddenly discover its loneliness. And another crisis of self-identification will begin.