Translated material
Underbutor without choice
A trip to the site is a matter of moral choice and does not affect the result. Legitimacy is measured not as a percentage
The loyal meeting of “presidential candidates” Vladislav Davankov, Leonid Slutsky and Nikolai Kharitonov with President Vladimir Putin, with their subsequent participation in the rally-concert on Red Square, is an expressive final chord of the electoral procedure, de jure called the presidential election of the Russian Federation, and de facto had a very distant attitude to the elections. And not only by virtue of a previously known result.
The conduct of elections in conditions that are largely characteristic of martial law - with the actual blocking of a number of articles of the Constitution, guaranteeing political rights and freedoms, with a criminalized dissent, the impossibility of realizing freedom of speech and assembly, political censorship, arbitrariness of law enforcement agencies and courts, stamping indictments against disagreements - does not allow them to consider the elections.
The lack of independent observation was added to this, replaced by either observers from the “public chambers”, who widely turn a blind eye to any violations, or observers from the listed sparring partners of the current president, who were little different from the “ward” (it is enough to say that in St. Petersburg the denunciation of the precinct election commission from the “apple”, on which they tried to remove it from work in the commission, wrote the observer by the observer was written from Davankov).
And the rejection of video surveillance, replaced by “video recording”, which does not allow real time to control what is happening.
And the creation of numerous interference to members of the election commissions from the opposition, which did not give documents, opposed, and at the slightest discontent tried to remove from work in court.
And a three -day vote, when all the ballots fed in the first two days could be replaced by others for two nights, when they were at the full disposal of the election commission.
The word "Underlines" begs.
And without any studies on electoral statistics, it is clear that in such conditions the declared result (already almost a “Turkmen” type) may have little to do with reality.
Moreover, with such a composition of candidates who almost did not differ (which I talked about in the Novaya Gazeta, bringing the table of their votes in the State Duma) from each other on all fundamental issues, and immediately after the vote came to bow to the winner.
And at this meeting, Vladislav Davankov, advertised by some characters as “candidate for peace and negotiations”, told Putin directly and honestly: “You absolutely said that our common goal is to win in a special military operation. Only you can win this confrontation. ” And also added about the "Kyiv regime."
This commendable frankness is unlikely to convince those who “drowned” for him - both far from Russia of political strategists and political scientists and journalists who are in Russia (and who, after this meeting, continues to seek excuses for him).
But maybe she will make those who voted for him think, because he said something about the world.
Not paying attention to the fact that it was on the basis of the laws for which Davankov voted that Alexei Gorinov and Vladimir Kara-Murza*, Ilya Yashin* and Alexander Skochilenko, Mikhail Afanasyev and Igor Baryshnikov, Maria Ponomarenko and others are sitting today.
Think about the fact that one cannot choose “less evil”, and you need to vote for principles and values, and not based on the technology “for anyone but Putin”.
Actually, it was already - and “for any other party”, after which the State Duma was flooded by the Communists and Socialist -Revolutionaries, which were long -term from the United Russia.
But no, we decided to step on the same rake again ...
The number of violent disputes in the protest environment - both during these "undersized" and after them, is overwhelming.
Basically, they argue about whether it was necessary to go to the polls or not, while some accuse others of the fact that they “legitimize power” with their turnout, and those that they “sat on the couch, without influencing anything”.
There is little sense in these disputes.
Because in such conditions as we observed, this choice was exclusively moral, not affecting the previously known result.
Everyone decided - to come to him or not, and if you come, when exactly: it influenced the mood of the voting participants, but did not affect what was happening.
As for the “legitimization” of the authorities using participation in the vote, this is a very old argument that has already arisen many, many times.
Because (I will refer to one of the best Russian political scientists by Vladimir Gelman), no interest - neither a turnout, no results of voting, including abroad - have nothing to do with legitimacy.
The legitimacy is not at all measured as a percentage, says Helman. The legitimacy is the readiness of the subject to obey the ruling, regardless of how the former relate to the second.
The voting results can lead to some of the Russians will change their preferences and cease to perceive the preservation of the status quo at all costs as the least evil compared to changes.
This, according to Helman, is a necessary condition for the crisis of legitimacy, but, as mathematicians say (I still remember my first profession), but insufficient. For this crisis, it is necessary that preferences go into actions. And between them a distance of a huge size. Yes, sometimes it is overcome very quickly, but it may well happen that the transition will take a very long time ...
It is important today - I already had to write about it - not how many percent of which of the candidates they wrote in the protocol. How many Duma, senators, governors, ministers and state propagandists were not enthusiastic about the president’s result and did not regard him as evidence of the “unprecedented rally” around him. Remember how much voted for preserving the USSR? And what happened then?
It was clear that during this "electoral procedure" it is impossible to achieve changes in the country.
The path to them will be, perhaps, very long and difficult. And he will be able to begin - I will repeat it again and again - only after the ceasefire and the death of people.
Perhaps the well-known statement of the emperor-Stoic of Marcus Aurelius will be justified: "Do not lose courage-the worst in front."
Because in conditions of the president’s unlimited power, almost anything is possible.
And yet, nevertheless, yet.
Forty years ago, the power of the CPSU was not limited.
And it seemed (in 1982, 1983, 1984) that we will always live in this regime and nothing would never change in fundamentally.
However, it has changed. And quickly enough.
Remember the famous: “It was forever until it ended”?