FAQ for the president

It does not happen so that there is no way. The fact that two months are political scientists and so on. Public analytical thoughts are engaged in Ukraine (successful, by the way, in approaching adequacy), cannot mean that nothing happens besides this. Well, two weeks, okay. But two months - impossible. It's time to conspirally take care and find out what it was in a quiet way at that time in the Russian Federation.

But conspiracyology is not required. There was an event: the fifth congress of United Russia, November 27. Bottom line: at the congress, the structure of the governing bodies of the party was changed, and Gryzlov from the co -chairs of the Supreme Council turned into the only chairman of the EP.

The main political point: “ Having read out the presidential greeting, the party leader Boris Gryzlov spoke to delegates with an hourly report in which he sharply criticized the work of the Cabinet of Ministers. At one time, before the parliamentary elections, the role of the scapegoat was played by the government of Mikhail Kasyanov. He was readily criticized by“ United Russia ”and other participants in the election race. However, from the time of the coming to The post of Prime Minister Mikhail Fradkov is the first large-scale public attack on the government by the party of power . " (" The mentality of the bear ", with the clarification: "United Russia" chose a boss and targets for criticism "," News Time ", Ksenia Veretennikova, November 29).

Given the proximity of United Russia to everything in Russia, the conclusions are interesting, here they are. Mr. Gryzlov said that the Cabinet of Ministers includes only three from United Russia (Zhukov, Shoigu and Gordeev), so the party does not answer for it. And vice versa: "United Russia" " as a party of the parliamentary majority has the full right to present the most stringent requirements for the Russian government, and clear lines of disagreements have already been identified during the joint work ."

For the future: "Five main disagreements of" United Russia "and the Government" ( "Bears" go to the opposition " ," Izvestia ", without the author, November 29):

- to increase the size of the minimum wage ... The government considers it an increase in a non -market measure ...
- by administrative reform. ER does not see its results ...
- According to pension reform. The government did not make any clear explanations ...
- On interbudget relations. The Duma supported the government in these matters "on credit", but the problems were not removed ...
- At fuel prices. The measures taken by the Government, from the point of view of the "United Russia", do not yet lead to any results ...

It is curious that in total there is a slight populism on a household basis, hinting at the beginning of an ideological struggle. If we consider the government market, then EP (Duma) is going to go along the left road.

The technology of government management is interesting: " ... The first vice-speaker of the State Duma, Lyubov Slushka, was even tougher, threatening not to take harmful ministers to the party:" If the government ignores our proposals to increase the minimum wage to the level of living, then we will see who to take from the government to "United Russia" and whom to withdraw from the government "(quoted" news time ").

It is also interesting with the leadership ("who will lead" United Russia. "Viktor Khamraev, Kommersant, November 29)

“ Now only the executive General City Council with the Presidium and the Advisory Higher Council, who finally turned into an organ for wedding generals, remained in the party. Boris Gryzlov, elected by the party’s chairman, extended over all these organs. He can now impose his will, but no one can remove him from his post, since he was elected as a congress. In other words, Boris Gryzilov will now be able to manage the party precisely Just as he leads the deputies of United Russia in the State Duma.

... Meanwhile, United Russia is still regarded by some of its leaders as a platform for influence on the decisions that the country's highest authorities prepare. In particular, the mayor of Moscow, Yuri Luzhkov, and the President of Tataria, Mintimer Shaimiev, were trying to use it, being co -chairs of the High Council on equal terms with Boris Gryzlov. Now both have lost such a site, remaining along with the third "father" of the party Sergey Shoigu in honorary posts of co -chairs in a purely honorary Higher Council . "

That is why this is interesting: the last time it was reported about the special point of view of the Moscow group on the eve of the congress. It extended not only to the budget, but also to intra -party relations, it was voiced by Boos (" The party should not be a structure of the sample of the Soviet period "). Obviously, this idea at the congress did not prevail.

Moreover, the Moscow group also suffered on a budget vote, the State Duma refused to recommend the government to allocate additional funds for road construction in Moscow, although the group of Moscow deputies had, according to the Boss, " a number of claims for underfunding road construction ."

And at this time, a little on the side happened something very similar to the centralization of United Russia. The newspaper "News Time" (" Council yes enmity ", Vera Kuznetsova, Alexei Gryvach, November 25) stated events at a meeting of the Council on Competitiveness and Entrepreneurship:

Here is Mr. Gref: “ He stated that the bet on a small business is the right path to doubling GDP.“ What are we doing? ”Mr. Gref asked.“ We are creating Gazprom Hypermonopoly. It is invested in all conceivable and inconceivable businesses. Now he is a national treasure, but if he goes on, he will become a folk state, ”Herman Gref was indignant. And he added:“ I, as a representative of the Board of Directors of Gazprom, the last to find out through the Internet that he bought an EEC blocking package (in fact - Mosenergo. - Ed.). It remains to buy a railway, and that’s it. In such a situation, we can not hide our heads in the sand. We will not have small business in gas . "
Fradkov reacted epic: " In the near future, the possibilities that are in Gazprom, we will not change anything ."

In the same connection, Gazeta.ru was noted, in the editorial text " Petersburg Leviathan " (November 29):

Gazprom in Putin's Russia is not a natural monopoly and not even a new Ministry of Oil and Gas. This is a tool for practical management of the state. The same as, for example, "United Russia" .

The conclusion: “... with the help of Gazprom, Putin and his environment implement the same plan of monopolization, the state of state and social sphere, which, using United Russia, is implemented in the political field.“ United Russia ”provides the Kremlin with legislative support for all its political initiatives, including diverging with the current constitution. Gazprom helps to build the same bureaucratic state at the level of the economy .”

So the accounting period was characterized by a rare consistency of state political movements, especially since Gazprom immediately confirmed the validity of the hopes assigned to him ( the Gazprom Board of Directors will consider the issue of the participation of Gazpromneft in the auction for the sale of Yuganskneftegaz at the meeting in absentia ), Putin at the Judicial Congress “ recognized that the authorities depended on the power depending on the power oligarchic groups " and promised to fight, and RBC Daily conducted an expert survey, actually connecting all this severe unambigence with Ukrainian affairs.

From the artistic side, this line was already traditionally supported by the heading of Putin Putin’s “Putin” “ Novaya Gazeta” (“ Another country and another people ”, Sergey Tarasov, November 29). Genre - a refutation of negative thoughts.

" Putin and war in Chechnya ." V. Putin did not solve the Chechen problem, which is why the war continues and terrorist acts are taking place, "many forum authors say."
In the consistent implementation of his Chechen policy, V. Putin can not be refused: he still achieves his goal of his own goal. He just has no other way out.
Putin and bureaucracy . “Bureaucracy under V. Putin seized all the power and all property in the country” is the second argument that can often be heard from the President’s critics, including the Novaya Gazeta forum.
The liquidation of internal offshores and other tax minimization schemes ... brought billion dollars to the treasury. Reducing taxes, land reform, a taming of gangster lawlessness are only the largest achievements of the V. Putin team. Here is the answer to one of the "tricky" questions raised on the forum: what, they say, has changed under V. Putin compared to the 90s?
If you like, the whole paradigm of a society, previously aimed at grabbing and quickly sell it to the west. Now the resources are more and more heading into the country. Slowly? And how else, if we do not want revolutions and mass repressions?
Bureaucrats and "redistribution" . Now - about the so -called redistribution of property. Say, the bureaucrats who were playing under V. Putin take away the property from the legal owners.
V. Putin believes that today the state should be strong, and he supports the people - hundreds of questions confirm this. Does someone think differently? Prove your innocence to people and win the elections, that's all.
Putin and the political system . Finally, about the political system, which is supposedly all subordinate to the president, almost a totalitarian regime in Russia has established.
V. Putin at a recent meeting with the Duma faction of United Russia already said that it would be nice to think about the organization of various platforms within the party - these are the embryo of future parties. A new political system arises before our eyes, which will not incite national and social discord, but on the contrary, smooth out contradictions in society, to promote the search for compromises. Without this, not to restore the country . "

That is, there is a well -known political technological genre, FAQ, Frequently Asked Questions. With answers, of course. Typically, faki is a manual to the agitator and the propagandist, and the transfer of this technology to the general political field, there will be no doubt.


And one more interesting political science innovation close to Gilyarovsky or the collection "Physiology of St. Petersburg": " Psycho-neurological dispensary in Kozikhinsky Lane " ("Compromat.ru", Alla Moskvina, 11/26/2004).

The text has a classification of persons who are in the circle of communication of the oligarchs. At the basis - the study of the life of the restaurant "Color of the Night" (opened on the patriarchals of gentlemen Friedman and Gafin).

" About whom the bankers would like to see in their restaurant, and who will never be a welcome guest there, eloquently speak of completely indecent prices ... However, the creators of the" color of the night "did not take into account Russian specifics and did not figure out the" institution for their own ". The systematic visit of" drunk-bar "over the course of the month allowed to classify it as follows:
1. Actually, "their own", as well as politicians of all stripes
2. The metropolitan bohemia
3. The most expensive keepers of Moscow and ladies, seeking this
4. Young businessmen trying to solve their problems here

5. "Zevaki" who came to look at all this glamorous zoo . "

It would seem that we are talking about a particular case, but this classification has a completely technological reason, which should be taken into account in political science. It is also not too customary to consider the structure of the company (in the vicinity of preparation and even decision -making) in the frame of the goal -setting of certain groups of these surroundings. No more than at the level of insider information, leaks and assumptions about someone's career ambitions. But these are all one -time actions, and a systematic approach will work perfectly both in the case of party members and officials, not to mention the employees of the presidential administration.

So in a situation of some semantic fatigue in which political science is in, the way out is to change the approach. To get away from the championship of the branches of the authorities to the championship of the interests of individual groups. To write as about the "color of the night" - the power, in essence, is the same institution, albeit more crowded. He said, regulating the state crisis, Mr. Kuchma: “That situation, Yaka stabbed at the decoration © N╗ demands inadequate half-oriented rhe” or in the not very accurate translation of “Interfax”: “The situation that has developed today in Ukraine also requires inadequate political decisions.”

And why are political strategists worse than Ukrainians?