On a slippery way of analogies

The search for historical parallels is an entertaining thing, but dubious. All analogies are lame, history is not repeated, not to enter the same river twice. But still there is a great temptation to look for a roll call of plots, characters, especially during the crisis. In Russian history, there really is a certain cessation, cyclic repetitions of the tides of reforms and castings of counter -reforms, public depression and euphoria.

Many, too many similarities were launched in the comparison of the first half of the 80s with the second half of the zero: almost complete autonomization from the state who had gone into private life of citizens; Hypertrophy of the propaganda machine; The final separation of the TV from reality; ossification of the ruling class; Imperial grimaces in foreign policy, etc.

The events of the last weeks and especially days give a new reason for parallels. On December 15, 2011, Mikhail Prokhorov said that, having become the president, he would have mercy on Mikhail Khodorkovsky. On December 16, 1986, Mikhail Gorbachev pardoned Andrei Sakharov-he called Gorky and allowed him to return to Moscow. Of course, Prokhorov could not cope with the historical calendar and did not try to provoke any associations. The more symbolic this coincidence seems, the more persistent the association - this kind of accident is expensive.

With all the dissimilarity of the human appearance of Sakharov and Khodorkovsky, the status and the role of the first in the late 1986 and the second at the end of 2011 coincide. Both are representatives of the establishment, albeit at different levels, included in the conflict with the system and sent to places not so remote. Both continued to influence society from non -freedom - and the further, the more. The one and the other are the most famous in the country and abroad of the Politseki. The names of both became passwords. The liberation of Sakharov became a sign of the change in the state course and the beginning of a new era. The liberation of Khodorkovsky would mean the same. Returning to Moscow, Sakharov becomes not just a banner of an intelligent opposition, but, in fact, an informal national leader. Returning, Khodorkovsky ...

It was with the fate of Khodorkovsky that in recent years hopes for the liberalization of the regime were associated. Many expected from Medvedev that he would release Khodorkovsky, will become the new Gorbachev. He will not release and did not. This finally turned out to be past autumn, and President-Sharik was blown away instantly, ceased to be any interesting to society. Prokhorov, again emerging on the surface of the waters with a pardon for Khodorkovsky, unequivocally made an application for the role of the latest hump. It doesn’t matter whether the application is false or not - this is another marking that marks our position on the route. Prokhorov gave a reason to carefully look in 1986.

In 1986, nothing foreshadowed changes. Brezhnev stability under Andropov and Chernenko became still moron ... more stable. The dissidents andropov thoroughly finished: the democratic movement was essentially defeated. Who sat, who left, the remaining in the country and at large were tied hand and foot. They finally spit with America, but did not fight. The social camp is calm. Live, Politburo, rejoice. But no. Gorbachev appeared. The first significant deviations were associated precisely with dissenters and consisted in actions, as if not directly related to the vague Gorbachev rhetoric. In the spring and summer, the KGB is an order of magnitude reduces the number of political arrests. In the fall, the political prisoners are produced and, in exchange for spies, Yuri Orlov and Nathan Scharansky. Then - Sakharov. After Sakharov, they begin to release everyone. The process went: "democratization", mass activity, elections.

People who have become stagnated by the bearers of the culture of freedom, ideologically and morally prepared a democratic revolution - i.e. Dissants - played not the most important role in it. Sakharov, Bonner, Kovalev, several less well -known characters were active, Bukovsky wrote from England, Solzhenitsyn from America. Nobody entered power (cf. Czech Republic and Poland). The dissidents fulfilled their historical mission, pretty shaking the foundations: that units thought in the 60s, everyone thought in the 80s. And contempt for power became universal. The real heroes of the late 80s and the early 90s were the third-assigned representatives of the Soviet elite-populists and businessmen, on the one hand, and "ordinary people" who woke up from hibernation-on the other-on the other. After 1991, Soviet human rights activists and political activists close to them were more or less on the sidelines - the farther, the more.

Today the layout is similar. Contempt for power is becoming universal, mass activity. It would seem that the time has come for political activists and human rights activists, who had a decade holding their shield against the authorities with almost complete indifference of the layman. The shield was held, but the bridgehead was not expanded. And today the field of political action is growing rapidly, but will the protesters become the main players? We still do not know what the fruits of today's protests will be and what is tomorrow's landscape. The crisis would not be a crisis if it could reliably predict its consequences. But now it is clear that the politicians of the 90s-the 2000s can be divided by the fate of dissidents, to be on the periphery of a new era, which could not take place without them.

In this regard, the second rally on Bolotnaya, organized by the "apple", but declared as a general civil. As expected, there were many who came to the area of ​​the 17th, but still an order of magnitude less than the 10th. Of course, weekly promotions are tiring, people take care of gunpowder for December 24. But we know that with a real drive, gunpowder is enough for multiple exits and a long retention of the street. Apparently, the majority did not want to go to the rally despite all the declarations of the organizers and the host (Sergey Mitrokhin) - party. It did not want to participate in the actual, albeit unanimous benefication of Yabloko and Yavlinsky, the next day nominated, as expected, to the presidency.

But one of the most well accepted by the public speakers of the 10th and the main speakers of the Committee for the preparation of the 24th, Akunin, urgently suggested Yavlinsky not to take this step. Most participants in the latest protests Akunin are prettier than Yavlinsky and other liberal politicians. First of all, stylistically. Sensor of Akunin and Parthenov’s irony is closer to these people than a stilt of pathetics. And at the rally of the 17th, the calm speeches of the journalist Igor Yakovenko, Yana Rachinsky ("Memorial"), Sergey Smirnov (Moscow Helsinki group) sounded undoubtedly organic and convincing more than the tutorial of party leaders. “People are not united by ideas, people are united by style,” said the historian Arseny Roginsky once. The stands and leaders should write out this quote for cards and re -read before going to bed, reflecting on the future life and their place in it.

Returning to the slippery path of analogies: one of the main and obvious differences in the present time from 1986 is oil prices. At low prices of political zones, you have to let go, reform control, and with high ones it is not necessary. In 1986, it became clear that it was time not to measure with force, but to ask for help, to pick holes in the iron curtain. And Gorbachev makes concessions - Reykjavik, Vienna, then everywhere. The West invariably laid the lists of political prisoners on the negotiation table, and the process went. As for Khodorkovsky, oil made him rich, she also holds him behind bars. The same with political reforms.

Bad paradox: in Russia, the better, the worse. The victory over Hitler strengthened the regime and the propaganda concept of victory, which served and continues to serve authoritarian power. Nefteedollars of the 70s and zero are perpetrators of the notorious stability. But suppose that the Masons brought down oil prices and with them our excellent economy. Are the ways to freedom cleared? I shive. Bolivar will not stand two. Another breakthrough to democracy through an economic crisis, a threat of poverty and a nervous breakdown associated with it will be difficult to survive. We must be able to feel the third way - so people think and feel on December 10: to eat a fish and ride in the phaeton, although it is much more familiar to lose and suffer. And in a sense, it is easier: "The side, thank God, familiar, is extinct along and across."

And to live well, and to feel free people - this has not yet happened in Russia. It is worth trying, as they say in the same advertisement.