Demagogy with blood

From the editorial office. In his recent article, one of the leaders of the “Our” movement Boris Yakemenko approved the actions of Colonel Gaddafi, who “showed the whole world how to treat the provocateurs who strive for a coup, destabilization and a civil war.” How can such a statement be evaluated from the federal manager of the Orthodox Corps project? Is it possible to consider violence against the rebels legitimate? About this "Russian magazine" asked publicist Leonid Radzikhovsky .

* * *

I believe that there is nothing wrong with the fact that the government uses force against the rebels. This practice is a global. If the government fundamentally refuses to use force against armed rebels, then what is this government? Then any gang of urban punks can knock out this government, it will get in the tail and run away with the words: we cannot use force. So the use of armed force against the rebels, also armed, is a common thing.

After all, the question is not whether to use force or not to apply, the question is in specific conditions. If the crowd is not armed and requires any changes, for example, the president’s departure, with the help of peaceful demonstrations, then applying force against peaceful unarmed people is a crime. If the crowd is armed and attacks the government, then, on the contrary, not to use force is a crime.

If in the country there is a way of a calm open legitimate change of power in the elections, then to demand this, and even with the help of force, is a crime, this is a violation of the law, it is an attempt to usurp power. If in the country there is no mechanism of a clear simple transparent legitimate change of power, then the people have the right to demand that such a mechanism be introduced and a change of power to be produced. But to demand a change of power and raise an armed rebellion is two completely different things.

And finally, in the case of an armed rebellion, there are also different methods. You can try to use tear gas, vodtetes, and so on, that is, you can limit the force, or you can bomb in the areas. These are all completely specific issues that are resolved in each individual case.

But the meaningless demagogy, in which any armed crowd is called the word “people” with a capital letter and is pronounced with a sacred aspiration, in my opinion, is as unpleasant as the situation when any tyrant and usurpator calls himself as the leader of the people, president and so on. In general, I am not a fan of walking with large trump cards. The people, 99.9% of the country's population, never at anywhere, in any rebellion and uprisings, is not involved, by definition. It is not at all the fact that he supports power, and it is not at all the fact that he supports the rebels.

In order to find out who the people really supports, the election mechanism has been invented, more or less honest, more or less transparent. And when some group of armed people, whether on the street or whether in the President’s palace, speaks on behalf of the people, but not on behalf of the people, this is ordinary political demagogy , but often demagogy with blood.