The train is standing

A year ago, in our public correspondence with Dm. Shusharin discussed the question of where we are all together today. Mr. Shusharin argued that we have already entered directly “into a catastrophe, which, although long-lasting, must still end.” I, for my part, believed that we were still “on the road to Amsterdam, well, not to Amsterdam, of course, but rather somewhere to Caracas or, not to mention, to Ashgabat.”

I admit that, in any case, I was mistaken in the address. Although this address was not at all difficult to guess, and without any political science or Kremlinology.

The essence of the matter was once very clearly explained by an athletics coach, an elderly gentleman about my age. “Young men,” he used to say, addressing his students, “the ideal technique that I give you is preserved exactly as long as there is no fear of losing, and there is still strength. When you have jitters or are exhausted, or both, you immediately forget about the learned technique. Instead, muscle memory “reproduces” all sorts of nonsense that has been ingrained in it since the time you fled from the yard bully.”

So I’m correcting my mistake and bringing the correct address “for information and guidance” to readers:

The German Democratic Republic (GDR) is a socialist state in the Soviet occupation zone of Germany and the eastern (Soviet) sector of Berlin ( 0710.1.949 - 10.02.1990 ).

This once-existing country used a highly technological multi-party model. There was one and only irreplaceable and correct party - the SED , the Socialist Unity Party of Germany, a kind of “United East Germany”. This party, or, more precisely, its top, together with the leadership of the legendary STASI, controlled everything that was required by the state: the army, the police, the court, the prosecutor’s office, the economy, finance, foreign relations, the media, education, culture, sports...

For the sake of general beauty (Europe, after all!) and under the conditions of mandatory recognition of the leading role of the SED, the existence of four more, so to speak, junior partners was allowed: the Christian Democratic Union of Germany (CDU), the Liberal Democratic Party of Germany (LDP), the National Democratic Party Party of Germany (NDPD), Democratic Peasant Party of Germany (DKPD). Their role was purely decorative. In particular, they were supposed to receive a microscopic quota of participation in representative bodies of power from the relevant party committees of the SED, as well as agree on the personal composition of candidates within the allocated quota. All this was called, if anyone doesn’t remember, “people’s democracy.”

For some, this scheme has become firmly embedded in “muscle memory”, and in difficult times it came in handy...

On December 4, 2005, with our joint efforts, we confirmed the choice of exactly the same scheme of government in general and multi-party democracy in particular.

We were not alone in our choice. Shortly before the free and happy Muscovites, the free and happy voters of Chechnya demonstrated their loyalty to the same only correct choice. Moreover, the distribution of seats between the “correct party”, as well as its two junior partners – “conditionally left” and “conditionally right”, turned out to be almost the same in both subjects of the Russian Federation: approximately 40: 6: 4, if we take it in terms of a conditional 50-seat representative body.

Remember these proportions. It seems that they are recognized as normative and will be strictly implemented in all other subjects of the Russian Federation as the East German model of power marches victoriously across the country.

As for undisciplined “junior partners”, as well as individual undisciplined (or too popular, or too noisy...) members of disciplined “junior parties”, they will be removed from the run without warning.

There are allegations that we were not squeezed into the East German model entirely voluntarily. Accordingly, the most popular thesis is about numerous violations during the preparation and conduct of elections, as well as during the tabulation of voting results.

Agree. The violations committed by the real authorities, or, if you prefer, by the “correct party,” were massive, rude, and sometimes simply boorish.

about this better than anyone else . wrote My neighbor in the constituency, Evgenia Albats, a famous political journalist and professor of political science,

“Now imagine,” writes the further quoted author, “that there would be not every second, but at least every third or fourth, “idiots” and “slaves” in your beloved city? It is known: the electorate of the communists is the most disciplined, and the electorate of the party in power is the most organized. The role of “idiots” - in the classification of the ancient Greeks - in our country is invariably assumed by those who are generally considered to be a democratic electorate. Let's discard the “slaves” and assume that half of those remaining would vote for the Democrats. Did you count? Right. The “united democrats” would have approximately 27% (versus the current eleven). But it won’t. And are Belykh and Yavlinsky the only ones to blame for this? Or idiotes too?

It is not difficult to calculate that even in this purely virtual version, the “united democrats” would have 6 seats in the Moscow City Duma, which would allow the “conditionally right” junior partners to get ahead of their “conditionally left” brothers. No more…

So maybe our idiotes are not such idiots after all?

I confirm all her observations. I was most impressed by the non-Russian-speaking migrant worker janitors who pasted posters of the “correct party” in the surrounding yards and, at the same time, scraped the propaganda products of the “junior partners” from the walls. Also unusually good were the photographic portraits posted, among other things, on the blue walls of portable toilets. The same ones on which Mr. Luzhkov and Platonov (or Messrs. Luzhkov and Govorukhin) depicted something like an unbreakable Russian-Chinese friendship through a fraternal handshake. By the way, they decorated Leninsky Prospekt and surrounding passages in large numbers on election day; some still decorate it this way, etc.

But, as it seemed to me, the best decoration of the elections was the “day watch”, made up of brave police officers and frightened school authorities. All together they were preparing to provide a worthy rebuff to the “great and terrible” Ilya Yashin.

So I confirm once again: I agree, the mirror was indecently crooked.

Just don’t blame the mirror if your face is crooked.

Ms. Albats considered the main reason for this “crooked face” to be the presence in the electorate of a huge (about 65%) number of “idiots” (in Greek - idiotes). Among them, the professor of political science recalls, the ancient Greeks included “ignorant and stupid” “private people” who “shied away from participating in the life of the polis” and thereby “reducing themselves to the position of a slave.”

I went to these elections, I voted for the list of “united democrats” with the participation of district candidate Alexei Navalny, as well as for single-mandate Ilya Yashin. Unfortunately, however, I am not only a voter, but also a reader.

So, in the election program of this brave and energetic young man, positions were spelled out, two of which (the abolition of conscription and the election of the mayor) do not fall within the competence of the Moscow City Duma at all, and the other two (free higher education and the preservation of minimum prices for travel on public transport) are much more look more appropriate in the program of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation.

An equally brave and energetic young man, Alexei Navalny, explained to residents “what needs to be done to defend the shell.” At the same time, he, along with his colleagues on the “United Democrats” list, participated in many city actions aimed at disrupting the construction of multi-story underground garages, including in our own district.

It is obvious that social activities of both kinds are pure left-wing populism, and, moreover, extremely harmful for the city’s transport system , which, moving along the bourgeois trajectory of development, has already exceeded the mark of 300 cars per 1000 inhabitants.

Older intellectuals, who traditionally vote “for Democrats,” may support such candidates. But young intellectuals with good earnings - in fact, the most natural electorate of liberal parties - are unlikely. In fact, the man bought an apartment in a good area, and also spent money on an underground garage. With what joy should he approve the claims of his neighbor, who wants to preserve the rusty “shell” that was once installed right on the lawn in front of the entrance for a small bribe paid to the caretaker?

But all this is not so bad! In our district, a single-mandate from the “united democrats”, although not the most convincing, was nevertheless presented to the electorate. In 11 of the 15 districts, these vacancies remained unfilled altogether.

The leaders of the “united democrats” explained this by a shortage of money in the party coffers. I understand and sympathize: none of the large structures will give a single ruble to the elections today without enlisting the support of the Kremlin curators of the “correct party.” But on the other hand, at not a single political gathering of the last year have I heard calls addressed to the liberal infantry: they say, fellow citizens, let’s chip in a hundred dollars, maybe we’ll get a lemon or two and have enough for the elections...

By the way, about calls. Does anyone remember what agenda the “united democrats” went to the elections with, which was relevant for the city and the world? There was something very pompous about defending democracy; plus “Apple” slogans, indistinguishable from social demagoguery, densely represented in all competing programs; plus lonely reminders from Mr. Belykh that there is some liberal component in the coalition.

None of the democratic leaders or candidates for the Moscow City Duma provided clear answers to really important questions:

Do we support the “Luzhkov’s” path of development of land relations, urban planning and architecture, transport, urban management?
Do we support the “Luzhkov” scheme of social policy and relations with business?
How do we feel about “Luzhkov’s” superprojects, starting from “Moscow City” and right up to the turn of the Siberian rivers?
or, simply put, are we for Luzhkov or against?

The literate part of the electorate (and the illiterate in all cases does not vote for Democrats!) was waiting for these answers.

After all, if “yes,” then why the hell vote for you?! Luzhkov has his own team. And if “against”, then please imagine a “united alternative”!

But what kind of “united alternative” is there if one of the “united democrats” tried to outdo Yuri Mikhailovich in the field of social promises, and someone even promised to turn off the “adversary’s” electricity.

One gets the sad impression that the leaders of the “united democrats” simply accepted the East German rules of the game and agreed in advance with the quotas and “red lines” of political behavior brought to them. By the way, the democratic electorate along with them...

Yuri Arabov once remarked with sadness: “ The train moves relative to the forest, but relative to the stars it stops.”

Today, the democratic train stands firmly not only “relative to the stars,” but even “relative to the forest.”

The train is standing

See also: