Mud under the brush of a malyar

The Luzhkovsky Crisis raised on the agenda the question of the possibility of the rapid decay of the Putin regime, the impetus for which this crisis can serve. Authoritarian systems sometimes begin to fall apart without a sharp increase in distress in society, in the absence of a truly massive protest movement. As if under its own weight.

The stability of such systems can be very deceiving. The lack of protest activity and high ratings of leaders often express not conscious support by their society, but only the humble acceptance of the existing system as an inevitable given. Everything rests on the artificially created illusion of monolithic, debugging, the "impenetrability" of the system. But as soon as in this system there is a noticeable failure for everyone, the illusion disappears. And then the social behavior of significant masses of people can change quickly.

It is impossible to predict exactly how events will develop. But if the case is not limited to the crumbling of the plaster from the regime facade, serious regrouping in the opposition camp, the emergence of new layering lines are inevitable.

The general place began to divide the opposition into system and non -systemic. The system plays according to the rules established by the regime, mainly informal. These rules are reduced not to make the regime painful: not to raise particularly unpleasant ones for him, not to take actions that seem dangerous to him. The non -systemic opposition, on the contrary, seeks to make the regime as much as possible and purposefully violates these rules.

The leaders of the system of system opposition belong to the privileged part of the society and their status, they receive a place in official state structures and media space from the hands of power. They are not at all interested in the complete destruction of the system of simulation and manipulative democracy. The limit of their reformist aspirations is the elimination of the most egregious disgraces that pose a threat to the system itself. At the same time, some of the "systemic opposition" agreed to play by the rules for tactical reasons, in the hope of gradually changing the system from the inside. And in the case of corrosion of the rules themselves, this part of the opposition can be significantly radicalized.

The non-systemic opposition appears under the banner of the complete dismantling of the authoritarian-paternalistic regime of "controlled democracy". But in the non -systemic opposition there are figures who joined it for tactical reasons. These oppositionists are involuntarily, who were supplanted in the non -systemic opposition, drove, although their own aspirations do not go beyond the aspirations of systemic opposition. Having lost faith in the possibility of begging minor concessions in power, they want to tear these concessions. They are ready to create a revolutionary threat to the authorities, but not in order to realize it.

The foregoing applies primarily to the liberal part of the non -systemic opposition, or rather, to the right wing of non -systemic liberals. The Putin regime of the right -wing liberals is considered a historical misunderstanding, an abnormal deviation from the trunk path of the "neoliberal modernization" caused by the intrigues of "the Chekists who have made their way to power." They repel them in this mode not so much to restrictions on political freedoms as constraint for business. Right liberals do not really believe in democracy, and the essence of the Western public model is seen primarily in the more subtle manipulation of the masses from the "elites". True, for such sophisticated management, our soviet people, they consider not yet matured. So they are not alien to the ideas of authoritarian modernization.

True dreams of right -wing liberals are by no means formulated by street activists and human rights activists, but by the status court experts like Jurgens, which are quite built into the system. This is all the same Putinism, only a little more tolerant of all kinds of democratic pranks. But without a serious rotation of elites.

At the slightest signs of some individual messages, the right liberals experience the greatest temptation to demonstrate their “realism” to the authorities and the will not demand too much. For example, not to achieve the restoration of the election of governors, but to ask the president when appointing a new mayor of Moscow to consult with the chosen public. Do not insist on the immediate cessation of cynical crooks with the Law on rallies, but to be satisfied with the place where the authorities send the opposition to rally. After all, the Kremlin "pigeons" are very tender creatures. They are so easy to scare and push them into the hugs of the "hawks".

And in order not to scare the pigeons, they still need to show that we are not driven anymore with dangerous radicals Lemonov, Udaltsov and Kosyakin. We also understand that they cannot be put into great policy. Then the whole class of successful and wealthy people immediately with slender columns to the banners of the liberals will escape. After all, this active and dynamic class, which is only able to lead the modernization, has not yet opposed Putinism actively and dynamically only because he sees liberal leaders next to these red monsters.

In the class of successful and wealthy, unlike democracy, right liberals believe in selflessly. Talking from the Kremlin, periodically distributed from the Kremlin about the search for an advanced minority, ready and capable of modernization, cause excitement and fog their heads, like a draft cry of a monkey leader. In the end, many right -haired figures themselves left the political elite and continues to connect much of them with her. Of course, it would be a simplification to call right liberalism by the ideology of only the elite. This ideology enables everyone who feels advanced to believe in the prospect of "integration into the world elite." This is an ideology of attraction to the elite.

Right liberals know that not advanced social lower classes always pay for modernization costs. So accepted all over the world. And making sure that the corrosion of Putin's stability has really begun, many right -haired oppositionists will seriously think about whether it is worth breaking up to the ground that all the prevailing mechanisms of control over society. After all, any new redistribution of property will only damage modernization. In short, democracy, human rights, civil solidarity is, of course, good, but “consent inside the elites” is more expensive. And while the changes have not gone too far, we must have time to present to the public a new image of the opposition: respectable, pragmatic, cleansed of left and generally radical elements. Contracting - with elites, of course.

It is impossible to bring to the end the score of an authoritarian system without undermining the system of economic dominance of the ruling oligarchy and not taking into account the economic interests of those layers on which gingerbread is not enough. Therefore, sequentially the anti -authoritarian part of the liberal opposition will be ready not only for a tactical alliance with the left, but also for a serious compromise with them on economic issues. Those who are not ready for this will soon or later try to stop the destruction of the authoritarian system halfway. The demarcation between those and others is inevitable, attempts to unite them into one organization are hopeless. Do not notice these fundamental differences in the liberal camp - either myopia or conscious deception.

In the very idea of ​​consolidation into a certain formal unification of the liberal part of the non -systemic opposition, there is nothing bad. This can make liberals a more significant part of the anti -authoritarian movement and will make it possible to have a more significant impact on the process of dismantling Putinism. But only if the liberal coalition is not opposed to the idea of ​​the Union of liberals with the left, but is combined with it.

In the same way, there is nothing wrong with the idea of ​​giving the site agreed with the authorities to those oppositional citizens who are not yet ready to go under the batons. She is quite in the spirit of the combination of legal and illegal forms of struggle against the autocratic regime recommended by grandfather Lenin. But only if this is precisely a combination, not a contrast. However, the organization “Democratic choice” headed by the participant of the recent coalition agreement of prominent liberals Vladimir Milov, after the rally held by her, said: the benefits of coordinating public events with the authorities and the harm of the confrontation line to conduct any cost of inconsistent shares. That is, it is about contrast, and not about the combination.

And this leads to a sad thought that the rallies on the Bolotnaya and the Coalition against Arbitrariness and Corruption itself are trying to use the Liberal part of the non-systemic opposition to break the activists of the coalition, which spontaneously developed from the bottom around the strategy-31. From the coalition, much wider than purely liberal, based not on an ideological community, but on a sense of general -degree solidarity.

The initiators of the creation of a liberal coalition could be very easy to dispel such suspicions. By announcing traffic support-31. Having demonstrated that very solidarity with the left -wing part of the non -systemic opposition. Having proposed on their “legal” agreed site the first word to the one who is purposefully and illegally deprived of such a site. He earned the first word in fairness. At least his role in strategy-31. It would be a very true sign gesture.

However, liberal leaders prefer to remain silent on the issue that today is the most important for the entire liberal opposition. This is a question of readiness for joint actions with left -winged movements. About the readiness to be their honest, reliable, not halfway with an ally. This is a test for true intentions. Does the liberal opposition want to be part of the general civil movement for the complete dismantling of the Putin system - or is it ready to be satisfied with the role of auxiliary link in the Kremlin project to paint the dull and dirty building of Putinism?

"And the dirt became dirty-blue, and the dirt-yellow mud under the hand of a malyar became dirty yellow. Yes, because the dirt is dirt, what color you are not painted." So once wrote Alexander Galich. Putinism reproached into modernization colors with the human face of Jurgens will not solve any of the most acute problems of modern Russia. And the question of his complete dismantling will still arise. Only that part of the liberals that will go along the second path, along the path leading to the swamp, will lose the opportunity to influence this process. The authoritarian regime will be dismantled without them.