Translated material
Speakers and curators
It seems, here it has happened! Tens of thousands of demonstrators, about which the opposition at their modest rallies dreamed about in the last years, took to the streets of Moscow, St. Petersburg and other Russian cities. Russian citizens showed that they are not humble slaves, but society is quite civilian, living in the interests of the country responsible for its future.
And what did the opposition show? The opposition demonstrates its weakness, insolvency - not yet a catastrophic, but seriously threatening the success of the protest movement. On December 24, a rally in Moscow left a dual impression: the success of the society awakened from the hibernation and the inability of the political opposition to comply with the public mood. The society turned out to be ahead of the opposition, although it should have been the other way around.
The rally on Sakharov Avenue was perfectly organized, but what was missing for him was speakers. But this is the most important thing at the rally! The vast majority of the speakers appealed exclusively to the emotions of the audience. This, of course, is not superfluous, but not the most important thing. At least if you keep in mind the audience of the liberal rally. Mikhail Gelfand spoke very reasonably. In his speech, respect for the audience was felt, he talked to her, and did not call and did not campaign. Convincingly said Grigory Yavlinsky. Mikhail Kasyanov spoke informatively. Others tried to please the audience, light it with speech, support her "morale".
The attitude to the audience of the rally as a mass of mass, which needs to be warmed up and kept on a platoon, is insulting for the intellectual public, which was the majority. Of course, the audience supported the calls of speakers with their chanting, but do not flatter yourself - this support is emotional, superficial and short -lived. What is appropriate on the "Russian march" with its wretched contingent is not suitable for a rally of liberal opposition. You can not treat a hundred thousandth rally as a children's matinee: the question of the speaker is the answer of the mass; "Let's take a chance", "let's say together" and the like. The speakers in the role of a mass-stall at a political rally are inappropriate. The speakers must learn that they are not a teacher, and the audience is not children.
The adoption of the rally resolution by voting is a fake. There is something in vain Soviet, from production assemblies, at which "correct" resolutions have always been accepted unanimously. And the Churov himself can envy the voting procedure at the rally!
In addition, what kind of style? Who said that the hoarseness in his voice, the cheeky tone and the platform abuse is what the people who came to the rally best understand? It seems that this manner with a jerking voice with a pan -breeze with people who came to the rally was led in a liberal environment from performances in the role of leading Vladimir Milov, who always made a depressing impression on the rostrum on the rostrum.
Of course, among those who came on Sunday, different people were on Sakharov Avenue. But, as it seemed to me, most of them are intelligent educated people, calm and not aggressive, with open faces and a benevolent attitude towards others. This is not a rally of communists or liberal democrats, ours or nationalists. This is a society, not a crowd. As a reporter, I have to visit different rallies, and the differences in the audience are very clearly noticeable. Society, unlike the crowd, requires respect. If you try to manipulate them as frankly, as Alexei Navalny does in their performances, then the best part will come to the next rally reluctantly, and will not come at all in duty. Only those for whom the friendly answer to the incendiary speeches of his leader will be the meaning of protest, and the rallies of the liberal opposition will turn into a kind of "Russian marches", on which, in fact, Alexei Navalny worked out the style of his performances.
They may object to me that the rally held on December 24 was not a rally of liberal opposition. I would not agree with this. I don’t think that if nationalists or “fair Russia” carried out their rallies separately, they collected at least a tenth of people who came to Sakharov Avenue. This is clearly evidenced by the reaction of the rally to the speeches of speakers. The protesters stirred together the nationalist Vladimir Thor, chanted him "Leave!" And they also supported the response of Vladimir Ryzhkov "Russia for everyone!" Fertile Ilya Ponomarev whistled and shouted "Hand over the mandate!" There was an absolute minority at the rally at the rally, and they did not make the weather.
Another question: why was it necessary to dilute the rally by foreign interspersed? Only in order to call him "general -degree"? Without nationalists and left -wing participants in the rally, it would be perhaps five thousand less - no one would have noticed this. The idea of a common front is always dangerous, but sometimes it can be tactically profitable. This benefit may consist in the fact that each political organization leads its supporters, which significantly increases common forces. But in our case, the case of the Antiputine Front, for nationalists, a systemic opposition, socialists and National Bolsheviks, there are no serious forces. And thank God! Cooperation with them is at least meaningless, mostly dangerous. It is stupid with my own efforts to build up muscles to them. To legitimize them in the eyes of a decent society, to enhance their influence, then, after the collapse of the Putin regime, to withstand the new enemies of democracy, is irresponsible. You cannot solve today's problems by any means without peering at tomorrow. Politics and history are not a funny game that can be interrupted and re -start at any time.
The protest movement is met today and another threat. The authorities are no longer decided on broad repressive measures against the demonstrators, it chose another tactic - the tactics of implementation. It is inexplicable why people who formally or informally represent the interests of the authorities are included in the organizing committee of the rally. Why did Ilya Ponomarev and Gennady Gudkov, who received their deputy mandates and did not abandon them, decided the fate of the rally? Perhaps they like to sit on two chairs, but do they occupy someone else's place in the organizing committee of the rally? And what should people think at the sight of the dodgers participating in the rally for honest elections, but at the same time use the fruits of the elections of dishonest? What should they think about the rest of the organizing committee?
You can not even guess in whose interests people delegated from power act. They are designed to inhibit the development of such events that do not fit into the Kremlin scenario. On the eve of the rally at a meeting of the organizing committee, the former KGB Colonel (and a member of the organizing committee) Gennady Gudkov suggested “for respectability” to invite a representative of the Communist Party of the Communist Party at a rally. We stopped at the candidacy of Oleg Smolin, and no one even objected. Fortunately, he did not perform at the rally. It would be nonsense - the Communists for honest elections. And then we do not know what elections are under the Communists! The same Gudkov suggested looking for opportunities for negotiations with the authorities. Already now, until the power of protests with a demand for new elections has yet unfolded! He would be the main negotiator. No wonder they say that there is no better way to destroy the matter than to lead him!
It is quite obvious that the Kremlin is feverishly looking for opportunities to reduce the intensity of public protests. The authorities are prepared for concessions, compromises and negotiations. Medvedev introduces liberal bills to the State Duma, television allowed the opposition rallies to show, and they may be removed to Churov for general reassurance. A performance at a rally Ksenia Sobchak and Alexei Kudrin can be considered an unofficial invitation to the Kremlin to cooperation. Sobchak urged not to fight against the authorities, but for influence on power. Kudrin openly called for negotiations and offered himself as an intermediary.
In essence, it is not surprising - the usual tactics of the bending regime. The only question is how much these proposals will be adopted by the leaders of public protest. How much they resist before temptation to exchange the situation in the opposition for the position in power. Unfortunately, this is not a scholastic question, there are examples. It is enough to recall the relatively recent choice of the democratic leaders of Sergei Kiriyenko and Nikita Belykh. Therefore, it is important that people with clear democratic views, tested in opposition, tested by temptation, who could stand firmly on their feet, and not sit on two chairs, included in two chairs. Better be reliable people than sonorous names. It will be a shame if the matter of freedom and democracy will again gradually go into the hands of the rogue, as happened 20 years ago.