White House in the party, EP - in opposition

It is known that some changes took place in the theoretical part of the EP. So, the place of A.chadaev was taken by M. Remizov. What Chadaev did-I can’t say, related to the EP strategy. Doubt here has no derogatory and, in general, emotional shade - I just don’t know, because this work is naturally opaque. And some bursts of Chadaev’s feelings in LJ do not give reason to extrapolate them for all his work.

Chadaev left, Remizov instead (Remizov’s history is excessed - here he is clearly a different story that is hardly much connected with his past, and there is Google). But, unlike Chadaev, Remizov began with public statements. At first there was an interview with him in Gazeta.ru, “ United Russia” often demonstrates its helplessness “with a subtitle” one of the authors of the United Russia election program told about the problems of the party. ”

Then in the same Gazeta.ru - " Hunting for the Bears " Remizov and Boris Mezhuev. Regarding the title, Mezhuev specified that "the name is editorial, not copyright." Why is it all the time “Gazeta.ru” is not discussed. Not from polemic defaults, but simply - not an object.

The joint article is serious: "The socio-economic course of the conditional liberal party again and again is" the only possible "for the executive branch, regardless of the results of this party in the elections and even participation in those."

Who is to blame?

The above means that there is no party in power, the EP does not have power, it is no more than Fake, a party demo version of politics presented to the population. Despite the election noises and elected successes, it is a fiction, and liberals rule. The statement looks like some riot in the EP, especially - given the positions of Remizov and Mezhuev (with the exact assumption that these are such positions).

However, in an interview with Remizov, it is already clearly said: “United Russia”, although the absolute majority has no influence on the personnel decisions of the authorities and on the government’s policy. And even the influence on the legislative process remains very weak, which leads to constant embarrassment with the abolition of just “voted” decisions. This is obvious, and this does not add a batch of attractiveness. ”

The reason is also named, the answer to the question:

"How much does Vladimir Putin are effective for" United Russia "as a leader within the pre -election campaign?
- Of course, his high personal rating remains the main hope of the party. But, on the other hand, it is precisely because of the dual position of the prime minister as a non-partisan leader of the United Russia party that is forced to bear responsibility for the socio-economic course of the government without any opportunity to influence it. ”

In total - a clear and concise position. The point from which the strategy will be built is also clear - according to the authors data. The party’s power is fictitious, it does not have real ways to influence politics, and the nominal leader does not contribute to this.

Further there are different "what to do" and polemic. The initial package is eroded in the options for actions and polemic relationships. However, all these opinions and versions can be arbitrarily political or, on the contrary, almost domestic, but they remain on orbit around the same basic point: the power of the liberals, and the EP - the cover cardboard. Not to say that there is already a general political consensus, but there is a report of the report.

ER in opposition

In the article there is a theme of the deposition of EP in opposition, as one of the development options. But it is considered taking into account competing reports. The case is sound, however, it is analytical. And then, even if we approach the constructions of conditional competitors as subjectively as possible, the format is blurred - from certainty to the noise. It follows that there is no mechanism for implementing this specific understanding. Scenarios are repelled from competing reports, the original personality is eliminated altogether, and the hypothetical program for the output of the EP from an ambiguous position is secondary regarding the current array of strategic documents.

Therefore, the text begins to be repeated. The conclusion that the EP is no more than the scenery, with some even masochism is returning: “Therefore, in the logic of the current system, another scenario is more likely-the use of United Russia as a kind of electoral golem, ensuring the political cover of unpopular measures by popular people with a motley coalition of athletes and showmen, together with considerable administrative resources of the“ party power ”. In this case, however, the result will not be reminiscent of a political loan, but a political forgery, which will become another and possibly too difficult test for young post -Soviet democracy. "

Only this conclusion has already been made in an interview with Remizov, who said, as an obvious fact, "the socio-economic course of the conditional liberal party again and again is" the only possible "for the executive branch, regardless of the results of this party in the elections and even participation in those." What other political forgery does he now expect with Mezhuyev when everything has already happened? Unless, the party members must be accustomed to this fact gradually, giving time to get used to the idea.

If the meaning of the materials is really psychotherapeutic, then yes, repetitions and return to the main point are logical: "Therefore, the reputation crisis of" United Russia "is a crisis of the very idea that wide public support for the current government is possible."

Here, a reputation crisis of EP is recorded to the heap. Of course, such papers are always written by people who have just appeared as some actors in the clearing, which, in their opinion, is in an extreme decline produced by predecessors. Yes, by default it follows that their proposals will eliminate reputation damage. There are also proposals, but they - and they are different - united not so much by a statement as the lack of a specific addressee. Therefore, the idea of ​​the need to leave the EP into the opposition does not look like a party itself, but a move that saves only the article itself: "Having gone into the opposition of a real party in power (liberal establishment), EP could form a new majority tomorrow and determine the new political landscape."

Authors and words

There is such a topic: the devil knows how the authors feel the words they use. “The political landscape that they had in the brain when writing this phrase? This is not a nit -picking, because there is again a question of formats and textures: in the opposition to whom? The next battle of the whale with an elephant in an indefinite area: so that in this scheme the YP will go to the opposition, the executive power should immediately take shape in the party and then it will not be easier.

OK: "If the liberals are ready to win in a competitive political struggle, let them go, win and bear political responsibility," it is said. But only who does it really need this? ER-yes (according to the plan of Remizov-Mezhuev), and why the executive branch? What is the resource of EP in order to force the executive branch to perform such an unnatural action? Unless try to get "weakly." This is humane, but innocent.

Of course, the authors admit that the authorities will not create a party. Then: “But if, as before, they prefer to embody their ideas without taking them to a court of voters, then why shouldn't they finally accept the well -deserved responsibility for all those political features of the Russian regime that do not fit into the standards of democracy for Europe?”

By the way, the transition from the future strategies to history: it turns out that the entire vertical of power and, according to continuity, all other state -forming in Russia was built by liberals. This is a strong statement. Perhaps this is the case, however, it is not specified here: “accept a well -deserved responsibility” - they would write a procedure for accepting this liability. And what exactly is it “responsibility” here and what does it look like?

Moreover, even if this "acceptance of liability" can be carried out, then what exactly will change for EP? After all, there is a specific structural bad luck associated with the construction of a party political life. And, obviously, opposition can only be in the relations of power groups, and not institutional.

Yes, it is further said: “This is, of course, not about the party to be opposed to the president or prime minister, but that it can nominate its own program for the development of the country, opposing the alliance of raw materials and the dogmas of court liberalism. Themes of this confrontation can be very different-from the withdrawal of large businesses and restrictions on immigration to a policy of memory.”

This is again the battle of an elephant with a whale, that is, many wanderings are already with kitst. Apparently, this is the only context in which it is only possible to think about what is happening. Well, right, court liberalism and restriction of immigration together. What common will all this be clearly combined? The opposition will be in the battle of analytical notes and projects. But then with his article and interviews Remizov, the opposition EP has already designed and the case has been done. Yes, there is not enough mentioned "own program for the development of the country", but what's the problem?

But this is the topic of responsibility, from which the power leaves ... After all, then there is a symmetrical desire to go into the opposition in order to get away from the same responsibility. Even if it is attached to it - the authorities are attached, at least its attributes.

The hilly bar

In fact, in this package (interview + article), not a statement and not a sentence are interesting, but a completely abstract thing. How to say this is shorter ... There is some political and political life. There are more opinions, points of view, their sets and situational structures. All of them go somewhere. Not so that it is exactly the authorities, it is already taken into account. And in some area where the new development may begin to act. This is not a matter of luck-someone will read or not. There is some other mechanism, as if there is some bar through which the proposal should climb. And how to climb - it will begin to work there.

Well, this did not move there. Despite the fact that there are grounds for becoming a completely instrumental thing ("EP does not have power. She has the liberals from power"). The statement is quite operating. Knocks the rest. Of course, vague sentences and controversy make it difficult to success in the event, but such a format for submitting its ideas is traditional and it is automatically not taken into account - only this could not be interfered. Of course, fuzzy addressing of proposals also collapses the original idea. But the main problem is not related to fuzzy addressing. With the language:

"Just like the stunning cultural barrenness of the zero led to nostalgic projects, on which the aged artists sing the old Russians of the stillborn songs of the two previous decades ..."

"The main anti-democratic risk associated with" United Russia "is not falsification of the votes, but the falsification of the voting subject itself: a request for social stability and responsibility is lowered into the urn, card-blanche is extracted from the urn to neoliberal reforms."

Is there too many epithets and metaphors to design a simple thought? Or is the very problem of EP used here only then so that the authors gained poetic inspiration on it? Ah, right, the style of the Russian magazine still cannot become instrumental. Of course, it is a little instrumental, but only for the editor-in-chief of the RJ.

P.S. After the article was published, it was reported from United Russia that Mikhail Remizov has not yet been appointed to the position that A.chadaev previously held.