21 years of building a multi-party system ended with the emergence of a “guiding and directing”

The “All-Russian Popular Front” around “United Russia”, initiated by Vladimir Putin, will be a natural outcome with which the country will complete the 21st anniversary of the formation of its multi-party system. Or rather, the result will be a virtual abandonment of the multi-party system.

In better times (1995-1999), there were about 200 political or socio-political organizations in the country, each of which had the right to participate in elections. But none of them arose in the course of a full-fledged political struggle with the CPSU. All of them appeared only because the authorities allowed political pluralism. After which numerous detachments of the Soviet bureaucracy and elite, which were no longer able to be served by the only hierarchical pyramid in the entire country - the CPSU, scattered in different directions in the hope of creating their own pyramids.

The suddenly wide range of political options then instantly found their consumers, who fell into euphoria from the fact that after 70 years the authorities had finally left them alone, ceasing to demand assurances of love and lifelong loyalty to communist ideals, and also ceasing to look into everyone’s wallet and into your personal life. But it was a given freedom. Therefore, the consumer immediately abandoned it as soon as he realized that the authorities were not encroaching on their wallet and personal life, but only on civil liberties.

Sociologists recorded public disappointment in parties already in the second half of the 90s. After two election cycles under the new Constitution (Duma elections of 1993, Duma and presidential elections of 1995-1996), the mass consciousness unmistakably grasped that the victory of a party in the parliamentary elections does not at all mean that it has come to power, but in the presidential elections they will record victory " who needs it and they won’t ask us.” From then until the end of the century, parties, together with trade unions, shared the last lines in ratings of Russians’ trust in state and public institutions. Since the beginning of the 2000s, citizens have most distrusted parties.

And the stronger public distrust became, the stricter the laws regulating political activity and the electoral process became. Rigidity intensified with the direct participation of opposition parties, which had their own factions in the State Duma. Each of them, regardless of political orientation, voted for almost all the rules according to which no party could appear in the Duma without the permission of the Kremlin, except for those that were already seated there. The apogee was the law “On Political Parties,” according to which numbers became the main criterion for political organization.

“The authorities must come to their senses in order to save themselves physically”

The first victims of such legislative tactics were the democrats - SPS and Yabloko, who have not been in parliament for the second convocation. But their experience did not become a lesson for others who still have factions in the State Duma. They continue to vote for all legislative innovations that make life difficult for non-parliamentary parties.

Meanwhile, it was the Duma that could maintain some public trust in the parties if the party in power did not have a controlling stake in parliamentary mandates and was forced to coordinate all its initiatives with the opposition. In this case, there might not be a single democrat in the Duma itself, but it would remain a parliament that would serve as the most reliable guarantee of political pluralism in society and multi-party system in the political system. Now the oppositionists are forced to tell each other like a story the real fact that the leader of one of the parties encountered during a pre-election meeting with voters. "Do you like our party's program?" — the leader asked one of the voters after the end of the meeting. “Yes,” answered the citizen. "So you'll vote for us?" — the leader rejoiced. “No, first you become president, then we’ll vote.”

Experts argue that this story actually illustrates the paternalism of mass consciousness, according to which Russians do not believe that opposition parties exist to fight for power and come to power. The opposition, in the perception of the majority of citizens, is needed only to periodically extract from the current government what “the people need.”

Against this background, experts single out the only organization, United Russia, which truly meets the definition of a “party.” Its leader is the most popular politician in the country. She has the majority of deputy seats in the State Duma and in regional parliaments, due to which it is impossible to become either the prime minister of the federal government or the governor without her consent. Membership in United Russia or constructive cooperation with it becomes one of the conditions for career growth. That is, it, as befits a real party, provides a “social lift”.

"Any multi-party system tends towards a two-party system"

The only disadvantage of United Russia is that it is only good in a non-competitive environment. It is no coincidence that during the eight years of dominance in the State Duma, the largest party did not produce a single new public politician capable of withstanding a discussion with an ideological opponent. Those party members who are capable of this acquired the skills of polemicists back in the “dashing 90s.” But the party leadership does not allow them into public space. However, for opponents of the government and its party, public space in Russia is limited to the blogosphere. That’s why United Russia manages to maintain the party’s ratings without participating in television talk shows, and win elections without participating in pre-election debates.

That is, United Russia really has the characteristics of a real party. But in terms of its status, principles of internal life and style of behavior in the political space, it fits into those characteristics that distinguished the CPSU during its time. Now United Russia is closer than ever to the image of “leading and guiding,” judging by the fact that Vladimir Putin decided to surround it with the “All-Russian Popular Front.”

The CPSU walked this way at one time. The first (after the dispersal of the Constituent Assembly in January 1918) direct popular elections of the Supreme Council were held in accordance with the “Stalinist” Constitution on December 12, 1937. By this time there was not a single party left in the country except the Bolshevik. That’s when the tradition of voting for an “unbreakable bloc of communists and non-party people” arose.

Perhaps exactly the same bloc around United Russia was conceived by political strategists from the prime minister’s circle. Sociologically, the technology looks flawless. Of the seven parties existing in Russia, only three have a chance of entering the State Duma so far: United Russia, the Communist Party of the Russian Federation and the Liberal Democratic Party. All others, including the LDPR, have an anti-rating that far exceeds their rating: that is, they have much fewer supporters in society than opponents. Trust in United Russia is based on high trust in Vladimir Putin, who, judging by polls from leading sociological centers, is also popular among supporters of other parties. And since a paternalistic society in its relations with the authorities does without parties, then the “bloc of United Russia and non-party people” will be most compatible with this attitude.

True, the same sociologists record “fatigue” from the current government. The high rating of the “tandem” and the willingness to vote for “United Russia” are maintained only because society does not see an alternative force and alternative personalities, thanks, among other things, to the “cleansed” information flow. And the constant “improvement” of election legislation and the law on parties has already resulted in the fact that alternatives are impossible, and in the fact that the majority of Russians do not believe in the fairness and integrity of elections. With such “fatigue” in the mass consciousness, the authorities risk repeating the experience of the late CPSU during the times of Mikhail Gorbachev. In 1989, in order to expand the number of supporters of perestroika, the authorities only allowed some completely controlled public associations to introduce a handful of their candidates to parliament. Two years later the party was gone.

Victor Khamraev

Price issue

Vyacheslav Igrunov

Director of the Institute for Humanitarian and Political Studies

Nobody needs parties in Russia, neither new nor old. And everyone understands why they are not needed. Authoritarian power is burdened by a multi-party system, and it limits it with draconian laws, and the people, committed to paternalism, are ready to vote only for those who are already in power. Deprived of effective mechanisms for changing power, the country faces an inevitable catastrophe. And many active people, seeing no other prospects, leave the country. Others strive to become part of the system, make good money, and then run away. It seems that only nationalists are seriously ready to change the system and stay here.

Parties that consider themselves victims of authoritarianism persistently dream of political competition. But there is not a single one among them that would live within itself according to the laws of competition. All of us are leaders, and therefore authoritarian. They perceive a team that is inevitable in politics as in football: 11 people play, but only one scores. Leaders need boys to hit the ball for them. And if suddenly a bright personality appears on the team, the party squeezes him out. After which this person gathers his own football team and begins to suffer from the fact that the Ministry of Justice refuses to register it as a party.

Well, who will need parties after this if they are all the same in the most important thing - in style, even though some call themselves communists, some liberals, some social democrats. Mass consciousness reacts sensitively not to ideological programs, but to the stereotypes with which the party lives its inner life. In the same way, a child absorbs not the words of his parents, but their manners in everyday everyday behavior.

There is no doubt that the party is a greenhouse in which political leaders are grown. But the party must be a team of stars, in the competition between which leaders are formed. At the same time, we must understand that political competition is not only rivalry, but a technology for coordinating interests and mechanisms of solidarity. With such living parties, if, moreover, there are many of them and different, the people will eventually stop focusing primarily on people from the ruling elite.

But for this to happen, political life in the country must be liberated. And to do this, we need to rid the party system of all those laws that are strangling it. And only those who want it and already have power can deliver. But the current political elite does not want this and is even afraid. Other politicians have virtually no chance of coming to power until democracy becomes a hard-won value for the people. It is precisely through suffering, otherwise, as Herzen noted, “it is easier for people to endure the chains of slavery than granted freedom.” But for this to happen to the people, experience in political life is needed.

Active people think that this is a vicious circle. There is no way out of it. You can’t break a butt with a whip, and nothing will change in the next thousand years. That's what many dissidents told me in the 1970s. And I believed that there would be changes, for the sake of which, in fact, it was worth doing what the dissidents were doing. And change has come. The system collapsed. Everything that the dissidents sought was realized, perhaps even in excess. In the same way, now the vicious circle can be broken, first of all, through the efforts of the intellectual elite.

But there are intellectual forces in society. And they are significant, as I consider bookstores to be indirect proof of. There are now books on sale there that I previously tried to get at the cost of freedom. And note that they are all published by commercial entities. This means that our intellectual layer is strong enough for many publishing houses to work for it.

For intellectuals, however, there is now a simple way out of the circle - Europe, America, Australia, etc. But this makes life easier for only one generation. The situation in the West is unfolding in such a way that all the values of Western democracy will most likely have to be defended by the grandchildren of those who go there today. Therefore, it makes sense to stay and change the situation here. Otherwise, this will be done by nationalists who are not going to go to Europe.

However, you can stay and live happily without changing anything. Intellectuals now have a lot of opportunities to realize themselves profitably in all kinds of institutes, centers, and expert groups. But if today personal material success really dominates the value system of intellectuals, then let them get the country they deserve.

In fact, it requires the selfless, ascetic (no matter how much laughter these concepts may cause now) work of intellectual leaders. Let this make them not the most revered in the country today, even if they are considered outsiders. But in 20 years their work will definitely have an impact. Even if society collapses by this time (and for now, it looks like it will collapse), then all their achievements will definitely be needed in the new world. All we need is for these lone intellectuals to join forces. I don't know how to combine them. If I had known, I would have already done this.

Newspaper "Kommersant" No. 81/B dated May 10, 2011, p. 4

Authors:

Victor Khamraev

Themes:

There is only such a party