Egor Kholmogorov. Elections to abolish elections

Elections to abolish elections
Egor Kholmogorov

Publication date: March 13, 2004

To put it briefly and without fear of apparent paradoxes, the main task of the government, which will receive its legitimation in Sunday's presidential elections, should be to eliminate the conditions that led to the fact that these elections took place, had to take place, could not fail to take place...

In general, everyone or almost everyone understood perfectly well that it would be quite possible to do without a burdensome procedure that did not lead to anything good. The reputations of all the participants in this campaign, without exception, suffered from it, and some consensus around common national tasks that emerged after December 7, and even the notorious “rating”, whose temperature dropped not critically, but quite noticeably by March... The elections would have had some -it would make political sense if a model of competition between political alternatives was implemented in the form of a struggle for second place. But this did not happen - any political content, any alternative, any element of choice was cleaned out in the most thorough manner during the administration of the campaign.

Over the course of three pre-election months, this “administration” has steadily moved towards more and more complete implementation of the plebiscitary model of elections as a popular expression of trust and support for the current government. However, the “plebiscitary” path has not been completed to the end - instead of the question of trust in the current president, there will be several formally equal candidates. And it is precisely this imaginary alternativeness, with real plebiscitarity, that generates voter apathy to a much greater extent than would be the case in the absence of any alternativeity. In the USSR there was no “absenteeism” of voters not only because strict uncles and aunts from election commissions chased people home and caught them with ballot boxes in dark gateways. With the most “liberal” approach, the turnout would still be very high - Soviet citizens knew that they were participating in the ritual of the civil religion of the Soviet Union, in the celebration of the unity of the people and the government, communists and non-party people, in a procedure that made the country the Soviet Union. And if the question were posed like this today, then the notorious “rating” would automatically be transformed into turnout and votes, which is what the current president actually asked for last Thursday.

However, it is difficult to expect understanding when you are asked to take part in a church prayer service and at the same time are given an admission ticket to a vaudeville performance. Plebiscitarity excludes any alternative except “Let your word be: yes , yes ; and no, no.” And the introduction of an “alternative” (which was clearly and harshly shown to be imaginary) into the plebiscite is all the more humiliating both for the plebiscite itself and for its participants, since everyone perfectly understands the reason - and a very shameful one at that. Elections in Russia cannot be “alternative” due to the limited civilizational, cultural and political sovereignty of Russia. The electoral procedure must follow the same model as in countries of “developed democracy,” and deviation from this model will be fraught with serious foreign policy consequences. Even having complete control over the situation in the country and the ability to carry out (or impose) our will in any situation, our government finds itself constrained by the format of a procedure alien to the nature of this power. She has to create rather elaborate technologies of “managed democracy” in order to protect the real political culture that has developed in modern Russia from the destructive influence of formal democratic procedures.

Organizationally and technically, the existence of the Russian government in a democratic “pseudomorphosis” is not too burdensome for it. Others have to pay, the increase in cultural and political tension, the exacerbation of cultural schizophrenia that occurs in society whenever it is faced with a contradiction between the more or less national content of political culture and the alienness and borrowing of its form ... “Democratic procedure”, especially in the national level, is least of all perceived in modern Russia as a “people's conquest” - on the contrary, it looks like a trophy of a conqueror on our land, albeit built without external invasion. Likewise, the Athenians left behind democracies wherever they invaded during the Peloponnesian War . And the indispensable bondage to Western democratic procedure is one of the most visible and offensive signs of the limitations of our sovereignty. Imagine a normal family, normal people who live their lives - and suddenly, once every four years, under the spell of a certain wizard, they organize a months-long race to compete for the title of the most important person in the family. Gradually, of course, the family adapts, and the main prize goes to dad time after time, but the very fact of jogging, jumping, doing pull-ups and push-ups against one’s own will remains a humiliation... And the inability to establish a state for oneself in any most convenient and natural form - be it the power of the soviets or the zemstvo monarchy, veche democracy or military dictatorship - is an extremely unpleasant humiliation for Russia and its citizens.

It would be extremely strange to expect people to participate in the action that confirms this humiliation with cheerful faces, interest and enthusiasm. Actually, one could expect a certain amount of fun in one single case - if the entire election process was perceived by the nation as a cheerful deception of Western patrons: “If you want elections, we’ll arrange them for you now.” Moreover, the composition of the “masks” of the Russian political scene would make this performance truly fun. But we are afraid to reveal the deception even to ourselves, and we are required to go to the polls with a pathos that would not be entirely appropriate in “normal” elections, with the pathos of a Cause of State Importance... And how pleasant it can sometimes be to be funny and mocking hypocrisy, it was so jarring, jarring and will continue to jar from the pretentious and gloomy hypocrisy...

Undoubtedly, everything will go “as it should”, since our good people are perfectly able to understand and calculate this “should”, even when the boss who says “should” behaves like a bestial and is tempting to act “to spite” him. There will be no disruptions to either turnout or results. But one of the mental reservations that the nation will make when it does “the right thing” will be the demand for the government to finally put an end to the situation in which such elections are needed to legitimize it, to finally free itself from restrictions that are unfair and without our consent imposed on our political and cultural sovereignty.

The authorities should free us from the need to pretend that we elect them. And how will she do this - by reforming the electoral system and creating organic democracy in place of managed democracy, that is, operating where democratic alternative is really appropriate, and not where it puts the country on the brink of an abyss every four years, or by abolishing the electoral system altogether a sham, or preserving the current system, but filling it with politically sovereign, non-sham content - the tenth thing. Sovereignty is primary in relation to any formats for its implementation.

Once upon a time, humanity tried to organize a “war to end all wars,” albeit unsuccessfully. Today in Russia it would not hurt to organize elections for the abolition of all elections. And if the elections on March 14, 2004 become such, then they will remain in the history of Russia, and not with the worst certification.