New terror

Terror, especially with mass victims in the capital and the use of suicide bombers, is, by definition, a means of political communication. Even when it does not have a clearly expressed form of blackmail, i.e. when so -called The "requirements" of the organizers are not announced. This abstract can even enhance the communicative effect, since the object of the attack is not the other actions of the state, but the very fact of its existence.

It is characteristic that the North Caucasian Islamist underground today does not have a specific political program, but at the same time acts very, very actively. Giving terror an adequate political answer in this situation is more difficult than after an invasion of Dagestan or during both Chechen wars. Then Moscow managed to turn over part of the separatist movement, direct it in a different direction.

But, firstly, then the opponent himself, his structure, his goals were outlined much more clearly.

Secondly, returning to the starting point after so many efforts to “stabilize the Caucasus”-does not look like zero, but as a negative result.

* * *

The current political regime was formed, to a large extent, as a response to a terrorist challenge at the beginning of the zero years. The restoration of the North Caucasus is repeatedly declared, expressed in the cancellation of the regime who is in Chechnya, the promotion of the success of “peaceful construction” and so on - one of the cornerstones of the so -called “Putin stability”.

The end of the war was bought at the cost of the disproportionate strengthening of the famous Chechen security official, which, quite naturally, caused serious criticism. The reputation price that is paid by the Kremlin for peace - and sometimes simply for the illusion of the world, is very high. Obviously, this is not the best solution. But this decision, which worked, at least in the sense that it allowed the Russian layman not to think about the war in the North Caucasus. And he used this opportunity perfectly.

But if the war is returning to the capital, then the previous formula of relations - the world in exchange for indemnities - loses its strength . Both from the point of view of legitimacy in the eyes of society, and in terms of effectiveness. It is hardly possible to give a solution to the problem of the North Caucasus to outsourcing local clans and sleep calmly.

By the way, sometimes there is a feeling that the president understands this. The audit of North Caucasian politics has already begun , at least in January of this year. I mean, first of all, the creation of a new district and the appointment of a representative of Moscow with special powers, including control and financial. It is important that this revision is not turned back under the influence of terror .

The course at a higher level, the higher quality of Moscow in the region has no alternative. But it is important that this quality becomes really higher.

In particular, it is necessary to overcome today's economic centrism, the confidence that the root of problems and contradictions is insufficient socio-economic development. We cannot afford such optimism.

* * *

The Khloponinsky “Governor General”, apparently, does not reach the consolidated and qualified power component. But not in the sense of a police and repressive force, which in the region is more than enough, but in the sense of “smart power”, the forces of intelligence, analytical services, supported by political will.

The unified headquarters of control over investment flows going to the region from the center is good. But is there a single headquarters of control over social and information flows - over everything that ultimately makes the public infrastructure of terror , including the interests of the ruling clans, the forces of the underground, the actions of neighbors in the region, the actions of external players, and multiple ethnic, religious contradictions?

The question remains open. But this is exactly what the Kremlin cannot count on the success of their new Caucasian policy, and residents of cities - on security.

Judging by indirect signs, we really experience problems today with the presence of this kind of “smart power”.

For example, those experts who could “cleanse” social networks of terror work on anti -extremist reporting, catch city crazy people with prohibited literature.

* * *

We are only talking about the crisis of law enforcement agencies and special services. But this crisis itself is discussed in a negative pledge: it is about how to deprive the “security forces” of the opportunity to commit crimes, and not how to strengthen their effectiveness in counteracting crimes. This is a bad sign that speaks of a certain irresponsibility of power and society.

We already hear that a new level of terrorist threat can put a cross on plans to reform the Ministry of Internal Affairs. If you understand the imitation of public flogging under the reform with the aim of working out informational negativity - then, probably, such a reform can really be turned off. But if we are interested in effectiveness, then the shock caused by the return of terror should only aggravate the question of reform. As a question about the new quality of power policy, and not just the fight against abuse inherent in it.

I think something similar can be said not only about the reform of the Ministry of Internal Affairs or the new Caucasian policy, but also about other points of the Medvedev summary of transformations.

Say, if we talk about the political system, then the purpose of its democratization is not only in the production of competition, but also in the production of consensus, national solidarity, civilian self -organization, which ensure the immunity of society to terror , To the destructive, atomizing effect of intimidation.

If we talk about innovative development, we will not forget that one of its leaders is Israel, accustomed to living in an atmosphere of terrorist pressure. By the way, the innovators there should be kept in this unsafe place clearly something else in addition to comfortable working conditions. For example, the atmosphere of the national project . And we also need to pay attention to this “something”.

In a word, it is very important not to kow development plans in the face of security calls, but to make them more consistent, resistant, nationally responsible.

In the end, there is only one way to defeat terrorism: not to allow yourself to terrorize.