What is they singing so plaintively?

In a work of art, reality is often reflected in addition to the will of the author, and sometimes contrary to it. It is not entirely clear how exactly the idea of ​​a state council was born to a political system - either in response to criticism of the October elections from the opposition, or with an eye on the presentation of the modest and controversial proposals of the new Medvedev political package as a variant of political modernization. However, this is exactly the case when not the most powerful director has a work that expresses time.

The main parties on the State Council were performed by Two Tenors - Medvedev and Putin, as well as the leaders of seven political parties. The speeches of the three chapters of the regions - the old governor -communist, the leader of the National Republic and the new appointment from the Siberian region - were extremely streamlined and low -concentrated. The same, that is, the governor in style, was the performance of George Boos , who made a report from the working group. Actually, it was only important in it that the introduction of the proportional system in the election of all levels proposed by the Kremlin proposes to leave at the discretion of each region - "there is no artificial partization!". Regarding other proposals - refusing to collect signatures during registration, streamlining the application of absenteeism, early voting - the working group failed to come to a general agreement. Who would doubt it?

By the way, at least three party leaders - Sergey Mironov, Sergey Mitrokhin and Georgy Bovt - proposed the formation of election commissions by parties, without the participation of the very authorities that they have to be re -elected.

Zhirinovsky fulfilled the Juritarian Party, and performed with brilliance. “If someone considers yourself a ruling party, you must listen to criticism. You are on Olympus, you have power, you have an orchestras, you all under a visor. But you should know that you are not loved. Once and for all, remember: the authorities never love, especially in Russia. Any power is bored with the people. Therefore, in order not to bother, they need to change their faces, people to change, positions.” Along with an exotic proposal, about the ceiling of 40% for any batch in the election, so that there was no desire to return to a one -party regime - he demanded to abandon early voting and voting at home. Zhirinovsky and his long -standing idea of ​​gubernization could not help but recall: 40 regions, and only by geographical principle, without national ones.

Gryzlov introduced a non-commissioned officer at the political system. In his opinion, she took place, and this system "is far from the worst among the advanced countries of the world." Almost the main problem, according to the chairman of the State Duma and the Supreme Council of the EP, is the number of regional parliaments and their names that need to be unified. The election on October 11, in his opinion, is a provocation of parties-appropriations. The new Gryzlov chip is the self -sufficiency of the subjects of the Federation, which is understood to be the excess of own income over expenses.

It is curious that almost each of the speakers appealed to the Soviet Union, and with a negative shade. According to Sergei Mitrokhin, our system in general terms reproduces the Soviet and its main vice is monopolism: the executive branch, one political party, the class of bureaucrats. The parallel with the USSR was especially successful with Gennady Zyuganov , to whom this plot is closer. Comparing the United Russia with the CPSU, he said: "The CPSU was smarter, stronger, more competent, more deserved than" United Russia "and could not resist the same wing without normal dialogue, when the order of one person was carried out without hesitation."

Putin’s performance looked the most helpless, who took over the functions of the class teacher at the school assembly, who takes the word at the end and evaluates everything that was heard, but on the merits of the question he had nothing to say. He only gave birth to an image "The political system should not tremble as a liquid jelly with each touched" in reinforcement of thought about the need for a healthy degree of conservatism. Again, like in the fall, unusual notes of self -justification were heard in Putin’s words - this time regarding the reform of the Federation Council to ensure the fight against corruption (?). His statement was more strict against the excessive independence of the courts, which, they say, have already gone beyond public and state control and threaten to turn into a "closed uncontrolled corporation." As two polar dangers for our political system, he designated “Ukrainization” and rolling up to the other - authoritarianism and despotism, urging to prevent either one or the other.

The question remains: who and why did the State Council for the political system need?

If the end was made to make excuses about the elections, then it looked pretty awkward. Actually, there were two arguments, and they sounded with variations from the lips of Medvedev, Boos and Gryzlov. Their essence is that there are few cases about elections in the courts, which means there is no evidence, and criticism of the electoral system is a provocation of the opposition, political squabbles and legal nihilism. The arguments of the "Party of the majority" were rattled by Zhirinovsky, who said that all over the world the honesty of elections was determined by the opposition, and "you have received power, sit on Olympus and listen to what we are talking about you."

If it was necessary to release steam with the help of a working group, which did not give birth to anything, then it was unlikely that it turned out as conceived. Demonstrate softness and democratic or, conversely, stiffness? It didn’t work out like that.

As a result, the following picture emerged. The Kremlin and the leadership of "United Russia" (no matter, internal or external) showed complete unremarking for changes. The Communist Party and LLDPR took the position of comfortable waiting - they are in general, they are arranged by the system and their role in it, only I want a more respectful attitude. “Fair Russia”, “Yabloko” and “Just business” are for serious changes. The position of the authorities regarding the elections and the electoral system, in particular, the Kremlin’s unwillingness to collapse their dirty linen, is just a consequence of the general slurry in relation to how to be with a political system.

It seems that the authorities understand that the existing political system is not adequate either to society or the tasks facing the country. But how to modernize it and whether it is worth doing, it is not clear to her. This begins to resemble the situation of the second half of the 1980s - only the new Gorbachev, if any, is trying to rule the country under the supervision of the living Andropov.