Not a fountain

The mass protest against election fraud is just over 4 months old.

This is not a lot yet, but it’s not so little anymore.
Some conclusions can already be drawn.

For analysis, I’ll take the last rally on March 5.
Let's use his example to figure out what was good and what was not so good.

It’s obviously good that people came, despite the fact that day and night on 4.03 we had to plow through the elections and catch carousel operators and record stuffing.
Many spent 20 hours on their feet on March 4, then went to work during the day, and in the evening found the strength to come to a rally against election fraud. As they say, “we should make nails out of these people.” I respect and am proud of those who came.

What was bad:

1. Before the rally on Pushkin Square, the communists held a rally in Novopushkinsky Square.
Quite a strange non-communist approach. I remember that throughout my childhood they told me: “Workers of all countries, unite!” And instead of uniting, they separate. Why 2 rallies on the same topic? Isn't it better to unite people?

2. Offer bold and very good. my respected Sergei Udaltsov, staying on Pushkin Square after the rally was for many, incl. and for me, a complete surprise.
Only the rally was announced in advance. There were vague half-rumors, half-hints that we would go to the Kremlin to form a white ring, like on Sadovaya. But the majority went to the authorized rally for a couple of hours.

At the meeting of the organizing committee for organizing actions for fair elections on March 1, we discussed the possibility of going to the Kremlin, but we did not come to a common decision and agreed only on a rally on Pushkinskaya.
Therefore, when I heard Sergei’s offer to stay on Pushkin Square, I was very surprised and I think I’m not alone. First of all, it was not clear why we should stay in this square. Why go to the Kremlin is understandable. This is the symbol of the Country. What does Pushkin Square symbolize? What is the point of sitting by the fountain or even in the fountain on Pushkinskaya?

3. The proposal to stay on Pushkinskaya, which was not agreed upon in advance, led to different speakers calling for different things.
The members of the organizing committee did not have a common understanding of what to do. People still didn’t understand what to do next, whether it was better to stay or not. Many began to leave after the rally and I completely understand them, because:
a) they were presented with a fait accompli without warning in advance,
b) they were not explained why and what the fountain was for.
As a result, the dose of police force calculated to affect many thousands fell on a small number.
The irrationality of sitting in the fountain in the cold was compensated by the irrationality of the barbaric crackdown with beating of journalists and wringing of hands.

4. Fence.
A fence is always bad, it is a sign of mistrust. Why is there a fence between the stage and the people? Who should speakers isolate themselves from? Why shut yourself off from people? These are Putinoids, let the people be afraid. Let's do this: whoever is very afraid and cannot perform without a fence, let him not perform. Personally, I find it deeply unpleasant to look at my comrades through bars. The fence is a shame and disgrace. It needs to be removed.

5. And again, for the hundredth time, the principle of inviting speakers is not transparent.
At the organizing committee 1.03 we did not discuss speakers and the principles of inviting them. I have not heard of any other public discussion of this issue. The result is dissatisfaction and misunderstanding, booing and so on. People came after a hard day, they were not afraid of crowds of policemen, they deserve to listen to whoever they want, and not whoever the mysterious someone wants.

As Lewis Carroll wrote, “Hence morality”:

1. Scheduling several rallies on the same topic on the same day is a division of forces, which means there is no need to do this.

2. Before making important public statements, they must be coordinated with each other.
Very good. It’s bad when different calls are heard from one stage. It is more effective to work in one direction.

3. People must be honestly warned in advance where they are going: to an authorized rally, to a rally and great stand, to a procession or to an assault. This is a sign of respect for those gathered and a guarantee that people will do what they came for and prepare in advance.

4. Before a rally, you should ask who they want to hear.
We must differ from the Putinoids in the honesty and transparency of our decisions. The decision about speakers is important. There is a small but valuable experience of voting on speakers for Sakharov. I think before every rally we should organize such an online survey.

5. Fence down.

Original