Andrey Madison. About our choice (instead of a review)

About our choice (instead of a review)
Andrei Madison

Publication date: March 28, 2000

I remember that in the best times for Literaturka there was the following picture embossed there: a typewriter with a piece of paper inserted into the carriage, which read: “Typically, the Volga flows into the Caspian Sea...”.

The picture was intended to symbolize banality and cliché - both the thoughts and the style of some of our literary scholars and critics.

It is worth mentally replacing the piece of paper and slightly changing the text on it, and we will receive an accurate description of the result of the latest elections of the head of the Russian state: “Tellingly, Putin became president...”.

And - enough about that. At least for a while.

In the diaries of Mikhail Prishvin there is one entry, dated 1930: “... take everything for verification with the premise “yes” instead of “no,” like nihilists.”

The starting point for “no” could have been six months ago, when Yeltsin appointed Putin as his successor. In relation to that time, it is understandable and psychologically explainable: nothing good was expected from the elderly madman, as the former president was then perceived by the majority of the population. It was also insulting that in a declared democracy, on its most important issue, no one asked for your special opinion.

The "bug" has now been corrected. Putin has been given a mandate to rule by the people themselves. And even taking into account the fact that not all citizens took part in the voting (no one prevented them from doing so) and that Putin received the fifty and a penny percent of votes necessary for victory in the last hours of voting (however, he did). We have no other procedure and no other people. Just as from now on there is no other president (and not an “heir”).

All this, of course, is not a reason to say a magnanimous “yes” to Putin’s policies. But this is quite a sufficient reason to change the starting point when assessing it - from “no” to “yes”. Because you cannot ignore the fact of the expression of the will of the people to which you belong - at least at the moment of this expression of will. And if you ignore, then honestly declare that you consider yourself to belong to another people.

I don’t think about the future (“development of events”). Those who have their own scale of values ​​know how to move along it themselves. For those who have a leveraged or overly flexible system, much will depend on their ability to observe and react in a timely manner. By the way, this is also work. And for it to be productive, it is also better to start it from a “yes” state.

That's almost all. This “yes” is necessary to begin the overall work. Which is impossible without a feeling of instantaneous unity until we can do more. Artificially in such a state can only be maintained by force - whether it is weapons, fear, or mass hypnosis - it does not matter.

One thing is clear: without an initial, consciously expressed “yes,” the likelihood of the latter is much higher. Because speculative mistrust can only give rise to real mistrust.

And then everything is quite simple: “on business...”. Including our own.