Libyan layouts of Russia

Events in Libya (or the angle of information lighting of these events) fell very peculiarly on ideological throwing in Russia. And the controversy around the decisions of Colonel Gaddafi, in his country, involuntarily causes very hot debates among our experts, political scientists and just bloggers. Can the authorities pacify civil riots by force, or in other words, fill these riots with blood? This question stood up after Boris Yakimenko’s words that Comrade Colonel does everything right, and it would be nice to carry out such a preventive stripping.

It is clear that Libya and Gaddafi are deeply secondary for our polemicists. The main thing is to clarify for themselves through the prism of Libyan events and give it to others, which is better than Russian realities (worse) Libyan, and to which the people in relation to power in any-including ours-the country have the right.

Our president, who actively made friends with the United States and declares himself as a liberal, reformer and humanist, became a completely defined part of the guards and to some extent fell in love with some liberal opposition. But national conservatives and nationalists look at the current head of state with great distrust. And the point here is not even in the notorious “fertile modernization”, corruption and other national problems. The point is in the symbols taken by Medvedev “on the flag”.

The monument to Yeltsin and the awarding of Gorbachev - here, in fact, is the main stone of the stumbling block in the guardian environment of recent months. For any conservative, these characters are, first of all, symbols of rebellion, decline, collapse of the country. Symbols that are very clearly associated with unrest in Libya, and indeed in Africa. For liberals, on the contrary, Gorbachev and Yeltsin are great liberators who have not completed something, but chose an absolutely true strategy. True, for liberals now associations with African revolutions are quite obvious.

Here the paradoxes of Russian political thought in the guardian environment begin. Our conservatives obviously do not welcome what Medvedev does, some even act with moderate-opposition statements. Recall the same Yegor Kholmogorov, who designated quite unequivocally his attitude to the current government from the pages of the “look”. Or Pavel Danilin, who expresses in his blog some perplexity about a number of public statements by Medvedev. The list of names here can be continued for a very long time. Not in the names.

The main thing is that the numerous national conservative guards, with all the dislike of the current liberal political course, mainly clearly stated that Boris Yakimenko was saying absolutely correct things. Why? Because even liberal and modernization stability is better than a rebellion, better than a revolution. This, if you want, is understood by conservative guards at the genetic level. No one wants either the nineties or even the end of the eighties. And therefore, the actions of the Libyan colonel are perceived by them as something quite logical and in this situation is completely true. In other words, despite the fact that this particular political regime by conservatives is not too welcome, to even more extent they do not want a coup and power overthrow of even this regime. Even at the level of public theorizing.

As for the liberal security circles, then everything is exactly the opposite. The initiatives of Medvedev (if not all, then many) are welcome with such liberals in every way. But at the same time, in their theoretical reasoning, in relation to Libya, the actions of Gaddafi, they label as unacceptable. Bearing in mind the fact that, in principle, the people have the right to an uprising. In this context, Gaddafi seems to be a sort of authoritarian tyrant, which presses tanks and bombs with airplanes of innocent citizens. And authoritarianism was just overgrown to citizens, they wanted democracy.

It is clear that the arguments about the fact that the “simple rebellious citizens of Libya” may turn out to be so terrible Islamists that the Wahhabis - a choir of Viennese boys, do not act on liberals compared to them. Firstly, because democratic and liberal reforms, according to the liberals, will even change ultra-orthodox Islam, and secondly, because, as I already said above, Libya and its uprising in this case are only a background for reasoning about Russian realities.

Actually, this is in general terms the current disposition. So what does the people have the right to and what does power have the right in a crisis? Simply put, does she have the right to crush the rebellion with power methods? The question, it seems to me, is posed incorrectly. In this case, we are not talking about a certain moral and moral law. The main imperative of power, whether liberal, conservative, democratic or communist is expediency. In a crisis situation, such as the revolution, expediency comes down to the potential of survival and self -preservation of power.

If the authorities have a resource, there is political will and actual sovereignty or a reliable “international roof”, then the power will crush, shred and cut. To accelerate with water -flows, grenades with lacrimal gas, and if this does not help, then a fatal weapon will be used already. If the authorities do not have such potential and such opportunities, then it will be eliminated. A peaceful or armed route, but a revolution will occur. What happens after the revolution, we saw on the example of Ukraine and Georgia. This, I recall, there were “velvet” revolutions, where power was captured peacefully. It is clear that they did not occur on their own, but, on the one hand, were inspired by external players, on the other hand, they were successful because the current power of these countries was not ready to do something in this situation.

As for the “rebellious people”, this term is incorrect. Either the crowd is rebelled, and then a merry one begins with pogroms and robberies, as in Moldova. But in this case, the popular uprising most often fades away by itself, with minimal efforts from the authorities. The efforts come down to "fucking with a baton, send to a kzzyatnik." Or in the center of the rebellious crowd there is a revolutionary organization. And while the heated crowd is fighting “for your and our freedom”, the organization is fighting for the seizure of power. In Libya, there is a crowd of looters and a completely organized revolutionary government. There is a part of a society that actively supports Gaddafi, and therefore it is incorrect to talk about a popular uprising.

Talking about the right to uprising citizens against the authorities and the boundaries of the use of violence by the authorities, it is necessary to constantly remember the notorious political expediency. The rights in this situation are always a winner. The rebels will crush the rebels - he is a hero, he was right, and the rebels all were completely bandits, looters and terrorists. The revolutionaries will win - they will be right, and the colonel will be a bloody maniac, tyrant, psychopath. However, with any result, Libyan events live in the next few years in this country will be much worse for everyone.

And here it is necessary not to recall the revolution, not of moral law, but why the National Conservatives of the Revolution do not want, and why liberals in their judgments allow the right to revolution. After any popular uprising, the life of a simple and not very simple layman is very complicated. Exactly because the revolution is a costly matter. Well, also because it is one thing to lead a revolutionary organization, and in case of success of the revolution you will have to lead the country, and this is completely different.

Our liberals in their theoretical constructions regarding Libya proceed from the premise that to live citizens under this regime is already completely unbearable. Just nowhere worse. Hence the universal principle: the people have the right to fight for a better life even with their own power. It will not be worse, then it will only be better.

But conservatives, on the contrary, are well aware that almost always is much worse. That is, you can not live very well, even bad, but in a state of relative peace, stability, when the rules of the socio-political game are established, unshakable and understandable to everyone. But after the revolution, successful or not, get ready for a “hungry five -year plan”, anarchy in the field and other household and organized banditry. And, God forbid, after five to ten years later, people will come in legally who will again establish reinforced concrete stability.