The struggle against existence

Obviously, rallies and processions on February 4 demonstrated not only stability, but also the growth of protest moods, the readiness of citizens for protest actions. The protest movement retains the potential for further development and the chance to turn the political situation in favor of society.

And at the same time, there are no guarantees that the protest wave will not fade away. Moreover, it can be shot down not so much by enemy countermeasures as the struggle of ambitions, mutual claims and frank squabbles among political leaders and activists who claim to be the organizers of civil protest.

The danger that emanates to the protesting movement, emanating from the "Polittusovka", was very clearly manifested in St. Petersburg. On the one hand, the grandiose procession showed that the bulk of the citizens are configured for general actions with the participation of representatives of all basic ideological movements. As it turned out, ordinary citizens are much more tolerant than political activists to “not their” party-ideological symbols. But how many screams were that the presence of the flags of nationalists will push away from participation in the procession of supporters of liberal ideas and vice versa.

On the other hand, two who claimed the role of the organizers of the Committee event could not ensure its organized conduct and prevent frank provocations directly aimed at pushing the foreheads of the protesters of various ideological orientations. The rally scene has turned into an arena of a chaotic struggle between its organizers.

The helplessness of the organizers was largely explained by the fact that all the time the preparation of the action went to endless negotiations between the two committees. We butted most on the issue of party and generally "ideologically colored" flags. Either prohibit them at all, or to limit them by quantity or location. Healthy voices indicated that it would be impossible to ensure the implementation of such restrictions purely technically was not heard.

On both sides there were people who deliberately delayed negotiations, striving to disrupt them with a nomination of unrealistic requirements and conditions or to secure dominance and “squeeze” the opponent. The parties evaded clear obligations, trying to leave their hands if possible unleashed. As a result, the capable general organizing committee of the shares was never created, its regulations and even the list of speakers were not agreed. Some oral agreements turned on a knee in the last hours before the march group in general random persons without proper powers. Is it necessary to explain in which chaos it all happened.

That is why a scandal on stage became possible when a representative of one of the many nationalist organizations brought his speech “against the regime” to the platform sculpture at the address of the representative of the LGBT that spoke before him.

Naturally, the very next day, both committees fell upon each other with accusations of violation of the agreement and invited the "healthy part" of the competing committee to leave it and join them. On the question of negotiations and joint shares, the final point is supposed, they say.

Of course, there will be no final point in this matter and cannot be. The objective development of the political process, the requirements of society will force it to return to it. But the next united action will be successful only if people who take on its organization, whoever they are, will be guided by several simple and clear principles from the very beginning:

1. The movement of protest against the actual occupation regime, equally hostile to all parts of civil society, should become a kind of "folk parliament", which will represent all the main political and ideological trends existing in civil society. And liberal, and socialist, and nationalist.

2. The competition between these currents for the souls of citizens is natural, and trying to exclude it completely is a hopeless business. But at the time of the struggle to eliminate the occupation regime, it should be limited. Just as any leading total war, even the most market, limits economic competition within itself. Between the adherents of various ideologies, a “great water truce”, the actual “non -aggression pact” should be concluded.

3. The polemic will still be, but at least it should not be of an offensive nature. At the same time, no one can claim the monopoly ownership of the protest site, to the right to decide who to let it on and who is not. But lovers to push competitors from this site and incite the confrontation between the protests participants, the movement should try to politically isolate the movement as much as possible.

4. No one can forbid such people or groups to participate in rallies. But in the organizers do not take them and do not give them words. But to be guided by not an ideological criterion, but exclusively by the behavior of a particular subject. If one provokes enmity between protests. Of course, there is no one hundred percent guarantee that some provocateur will not break into the rostrum. But with a solid general goodwill of the organizers and participants, the negative effect of such an episode can be quickly neutralized.

5. Participants in rallies have the right to express a negative attitude towards speakers. It will not be a disaster if someone is hanging or even shout "shame!" And "Down!" But more intelligent forms are preferable. In this matter, it makes sense to listen to the advice of the Bozheni markets to express his disagreement to turn his back and scream "Fu!" Out of respect not to the provocateur, who was breaking through the rostrum, but to other participants in the rally.

6. And finally stop the counter -productive and unpromising bickering about the flags. Let any flag freely flutter where he wants - with the exception of a limited space in front of the stage, which should be numbered by the squad of the organizing committee of the rally. Minimization of requirements for participants will ensure the maximum possibility of monitoring their compliance. Perhaps one of the protesters suffers the neighborhood of "enemy" flags, with difficulty overcoming themselves. But there are others - those who are the multicolor of the flags and inspires. Because it allows you to feel community with the Inaki. Symbolizes the very national unity. Or the civil world.

If, in the course of the protest movement, it will be possible to approve such principles of political relations within civil society, this will be very useful in the future. During the construction of the new Russia. This is the political culture of openness and dialogue. Which will not let the path that we have already tried more than once again had already been tried more than once.

I am sure that politicians and activists who are serving fellow citizens above the protrusion of their "I" will be found in St. Petersburg. And then what is described in the aunt -known joke about the hut of a forester from the Soviet era. The forester will return and simply pick up matches from the playing great -age children who continue to live according to the laws of the marginal sandbox of the Putin stagnation era.