Translated material
We won't win like that
Human rights activists and politicians Sergei Kovalev, Lyudmila Alekseeva, Vladimir Lukin, Arseny Roginsky, Grigory Yavlinsky came to discuss whether to take the initiative or not. The moderator of the discussion was sociologist Boris Dubin. They talked about the perception of history and the reconstruction of the Soviet regime, but in the background of most speeches - after all, elections were just around the corner - suddenly there was not just general uncertainty about victory, but complete confidence in loss. They knew for sure that they would lose, and they had already accepted it. And the only thing that makes sense for us, those who are younger, to learn is how to behave in the event of complete defeat.
Courageously.
For example, don’t be afraid to go against everyone, the way Vaclav Havel did. Arseniy Roginsky recalled that, as President of the Czech Republic, Havel personally apologized to the Sudeten Germans for their deportation after the Second World War, although society was not ready to even discuss this issue. Sergei Kovalev remembered that Havel objected to the lustration law, although he was forced to sign it out of duty, and this, in the words of Sergei Kovalev, “is a good characteristic for a democratic president.” Havel was alone against everyone. He was and remains a living example that resistance is possible. And the fact that a smart, talented and not naive person is resisting makes the resistance itself meaningful and not devoid of historical significance. Therefore, it was with Havel that the best of those who do not accept the current regime in Russia decided to consult. So what do you think, Mr. Havel, “to show or not to show initiative”?
However, they rarely said “initiative”, more often they said “effort”. Our efforts are worthwhile. They must be done without fail. Another thing is the result, so you don’t have to wait for it.
Vaclav Havel, wanting to share the Czech experience, confirmed: “It was impossible to count on an instant result. We did many things because we thought it was necessary and right. We didn't expect the sacrifices we made to be counted. Everything we did was later appreciated. However, the relative “happy ending” of our efforts does not mean that any good work will necessarily lead to results.”
Sergei Kovalev, speaking about the current political situation in Russia, said in passing: “There are no elections in the country either, and every attentive person understands this very well. This does not mean that I urge you to boycott the elections - you can come to the elections to take the first step of civic consciousness..."
Lyudmila Alekseeva also indicated her faith in victory: “We are doomed to this resistance until we get results. It will be hard, it will take a lot of effort and time, but we will achieve it.” (In this case, we were talking about the fight against the new school history textbook.)
With such an attitude one cannot win even in fair elections. With such internal readiness for failure, one does not even lead one into the last battle. If people, who are certainly experienced in the fight against power, are certainly authoritative and are called upon to bring at least the notorious 7% to the elections, DO NOT believe in victory - then what is the point of our participation in these elections?
And this despite the fact that until now I was ready to overcome my disgust and approach this ballot box for the first time in many years. Because I naively believed that today, when the smell of my Komsomol youth is already so strong around me, participation in elections is my only peaceful means of eliminating this smell.
If there was courage in the performances, it was the courage of the cavalry rushing towards the tanks. The arguments against the state interpretation of national history, given by the respected Lyudmila Mikhailovna Alekseeva, were from the same distant times: “I wonder how the interpretation of Stalin’s personality as a wise manager and an exemplary patriot will be perceived in Europe and America? I hope that they realize the danger posed by a huge country whose leaders have as their model of government the greatest villain of all time? Among the many fair accusations thrown by Lyudmila Alekseeva to the authorities, there were also arguments that caused nothing but bewilderment: our bosses keep their savings in the West, their children study abroad, and “they can no longer imagine life without foreign resorts.” , restaurants and other temptations.” So what does this have to do with restaurants? And I would also like to teach children abroad...
I was told how the legendary human rights activist Tatyana Velikanova believed that it was necessary to refuse military service. “But then it’s a prison,” they objected to her. “So it’s a prison,” the great Velikanova summed it up.
For some reason, if principled human rights activists get down to business, we are offered two life options to choose from: either prison or foreign temptations. Prison is definitely more worthy. But prison cannot be the conscious choice of millions. Human rights activists with their ideal ideas about honor and duty will not lead the party to parliament.
Today’s feeling of a loss that has already occurred was indirectly expressed by Vladimir Lukin, explaining to those present at the Sakharov Center that a soft revolution took place in our country in the late eighties and early nineties, and a soft revolution has its pros and cons. The advantages are that people’s destinies are not maimed or broken so much. The disadvantages include the fact that both old and new forces remain in society, which are in constant struggle. “After August 1991, the new forces were convinced that they had won,” Lukin reasoned, “but as it turned out, they were mistaken. Now the old forces believe that they have won, but I assure you that they are also mistaken. The truth is, and I know it,” here Lukin grinned, “that this process is wave-like and very long. So effort is extremely necessary, and a lot depends on whose efforts are more intense, more serious, smarter and more selfless. Let's make efforts..."
Concluding the discussion, Grigory Yavlinsky once again confirmed that, in general, there is nothing to hope for: “We know what today’s elections represent. We know that Russia has nothing to count on: no countries or international observers will solve these problems for us... Yes, today we are in the minority, so we must remain in this minority with dignity. But revolutions, coups, and popular uprisings are extremely dangerous things and will bring the most unacceptable forces to power in Russia, even more unacceptable than today.”
Those who are disgusted by the current government, even two months before the elections, emphasize only the historical significance of their own struggle, without expecting any noticeable result. Like in that song by Novella Matveeva: “It was enough for me that the nail was left behind after the cloak.”
With the same confidence in victory, eight people came to Red Square in August 1968. They went out because they couldn’t help but go out. But they knew for sure that they would not return home; they didn’t even set such a task for themselves.
Today's struggle is increasingly taking on former anti-Soviet forms and is beginning to resemble dissident warfare: an act for the sake of an act, when the main thing is to preserve dignity. These are familiar forms of struggle for those who are ready to lead the movement. The priority of dignity over life is the right thing only at times.
And never as an election program.