Andrey Levkin: Citizen Kudrin Committee

It is announced that the “former Minister of Finance” Alexei Kudrin and “a number of other politicians and public figures” created the “Committee of Civil Initiatives”. What is the meaning and pathos, as well as where the place of this project is in a general political clearing?

On the site of Kudrin, a " application on the creation of a committee of civilian initiatives" is quickly posted. Here is its beginning: " The past elections demonstrated the desire of citizens to really influence the situation in our country, choose a course in its development. Supporting the desire of society for democracy and updating, we create a committee of civilian initiatives ." For brevity, we use the abbreviation KGIAK (AK - Alexei Kudrin).

You can seriously inspect the application, but the statements are theoretical cases, and KGIAC has already been submitted. There are Newsmeykings Kudrin, who, for example, explains that the organization will receive funds for existence from Russian business. " We will not take money from abroad ."

And answering the question of whether he discussed the idea of ​​creating a committee with President Dmitry Medvedev or Prime Minister Vladimir Putin or someone from the Kremlin administration, Kudrin replied that " he had not discussed this initiative with any of the above ."

As for Putin, the matter is foggy. But the mention of Medvedev is curious. In general, given the relationship of Kudrin with Medvedev ... Perhaps the journalist who asked the question, I forgot about this story. After all, so much time has passed since then, half a year ... But here is about another: it is interesting to find in the list of the I. Jurgens and E. Gontamer committee - what, Incor, the main Medvedevsky Think Tank changed political orientation? So far, journalists have not asked them about this, and on the site of Incor there is no.

Kudrin also said that " we were not created to create a party, but of course we will participate in the socio -political life of the country .. We are not a party organization, we are ready to cooperate with representatives of various parties ." At the same time, the organization may support "any candidates for certain elections. But again, now we are not creating a party ."

In this regard, of course, you should recall March 23, when a message appeared ( even on federal television) that " the fund, which is planning to create Alexei Kudrin, will be ready to cooperate with the party of Mikhail Prokhorov ." Details: “ The ex-Minister of Finance of Russia said this in his microblog on Twitter:“ He met today with Mikhail Prokhorov. The fund, which will create, will be ready to cooperate with the party of Prokhorov for specific problems " ". " Well, earlier Kudrin " expressed his readiness to promote the creation of a new liberal party in Russia ."

Ok, Prokhorova and the party hold the party in the mind, but the announced KGIAC is the announced fund? Judging by that. What on the eve of Forbes Russia wrote that tomorrow Kudrin will announce the creation of the Fund, it is, just by morning he was renamed the Committee? ( UPD : These are different stories the committee is not a legal entity, the fund will be and will already be practically created). But the rest of the committee is not visible in the position of the committee, all this is somewhat non -linear and everything will be clarified by the subsequent Organization. And then the composition of the committee is important.

Who is inside?

About Jurgens and Gontmaker already said, and besides them, in particular (completely list here ) - Arkhangelsky A.N., Belykh N.Yu., Gozman L.Ya. , Gordin Ya.A., Gusman Yu.S., Dmitriev M.E., Kolesnikov A.V., Oreshkin D.B., Posner V.V., Raichelgauz I.L., Revzin G.I., Svanidze N.K., Urnov M.Yu., Yasin E.G., Yasina I.E.

The composition of the committee is textured and stylistically that there was some kind of rebranding of the organizing committee of Bolotnaya. Only in a non -public version (well, this organizing committee is unlikely to collect 50 - conditionally thousand). Apparently, for this inertial reason, Gazeta.ru included in KGIAK and Yu.Saprykina, in connection with which he was forced to write to the FB Yury Saprykin :
" Regarding this. I am pleased to be in such a company, but I did not sign the Kudrin manifest and personally asked at least two participants in the noble assembly to remove my last name from the list. If someone from the RU newspaper sees me, I ask you about it and you http://www.gazeta.ru/politics/news/2012/04/05/n_227761.shtml ".

Well, Gazeta.ru not only turned it on of the fool and did not look at the list, but even inserted it into the headline: " Kudrin formed a committee of civilian initiatives, which included the Belykh, Posner, Saprykin and Jourgnes ." The logic of continuity is clearly felt. In general, yes, interesting, maybe KGIAK and rallies will also organize? And it’s also interesting that the Revzin, he is a skeptical person (for example - here ), anywhere he would not fit, but here, there.

UPD again - Revzin also refused, the same Saprykin " explained that among the signatures of the Committee manifesto, the special fan of the Kommersant Publishing House Grigory Revzin should not be . Details: " " I called Gregory (Revzin) today. He even managed to go to some organizational meetings, but today he did not go to sign anything, ”Saprykin said.” Well, the jamb of the organizers, definitely.

And once again, the UPD , again in the FB Yury Saprykin: " Lord, now it turns out that I also set it up Grisha. Maybe he was not opposed to signing all this - just did not go, and that’s all. What kind of crap is with this newspaper ."

Their place is to be intermediaries?

The most interesting place that KGIAC would like to take in a political glade. Here, of course, we keep in the mind of Kudrin's former proposal about the readiness to become an intermediary between rallies and power. . Of course, this is not about mediation with Medvedev. But, referring to the general citizenship of the current prime minister, as well as indirect inheritance by the Organizing Committee of the rallies, the theme of intermediation with Putin cannot be particularly appropriate at the moment. Well, about mediation in the statement of the committee, it is not explicitly said.

But indirectly is there? Here, for example: " Society in its development is ahead of power - this means that the changes are inevitable. It is necessary to make them effective, safe and acceptable to everyone ." How in such a design there is no relationship with the authorities?

Or specific projects: " Create an infrastructure of support for civilian initiatives;
openly opposite the actions of the authorities, despite the persons and positions;
Alternative options for solving political, economic and social problems for public discussion and civil examination. Use your entire professional and social authority to implement these decisions . "

Given that the party is not built here, which would work out these topics in a partyly way, the implementation of the declared is possible only through mediation. Well, not with a specific figure, with some power AS is. And this is normal, not with the cosmos to communicate, as the rallies did. But then it should be clarified the ideological basis of this mediation, a place in the Polit -Polyan.

It seems that this is enough “left” committee - since it does not mean a certain class of citizens, but citizens in general, as well as just society (which “ is ahead of power in its development ”). Well, if these concepts are not detailed, then there is uniformity, which, in fact, is sociality.

It is curious here how sometimes the events are sniffed: exactly at this time, but the “Business Russia” in the person of Boris Titov a little explained the foundations of her worldview a little in the more cupid and image (in the media-making format). The worldview a little later, but about mediation with the authorities, it was immediately announced: from business worship, of course. That is, they have this mediation simply officially driven into the daily routine.

The event did not differ pathos, DR, it seems, restored contacts with the press after a pause, which lasted since November. As a result, as for the autumn -winter period: “A lot of things happened, but nothing, in fact, happened,” approximately such a resume. This is from the point of view of DR, of course. What is common sense, but this obvious contradicts the format of KGIAK's activity.

Actually, DR, as it were, represented the theses of the Liberal Center “Right Course”. This refers to a project that business Russia "rolls into a more or less political environment. They determine themselves by the socio-political movement of the right liberals. The difference from the “left” is seen, of course, that those are for a fair distribution, but they are vice versa: so that citizens can work for themselves, and not wait for the reference to distribution. They are declared (further words in the text are highlighted by both a bell and italics) meritocrates, which require the approval of the rules of the game and equal starting capabilities. As for the general equality of birth, they do not agree, the results are important to them. And so on, such that distinguishes right liberals from the liberals of the left and, moreover, from non -liberals.

This, in fact, to distinguish the situation, otherwise now everything will be confused. And so, this is a completely different pole, clearly having little in common with the KGIAC, especially - not massive -public. According to Titov, right -wing liberals do not go to rallies, preferring to solve their problems in other ways. Here, the attitude of DR to Prokhorov is also curious. Titov does not consider it right - if only because during his brief stay in the "right business" he already declared his desire not to be either right or left. Not to mention the presence in his version of the party of persons who cannot be attributed to the right: neither Roizman, nor Alla Pugacheva.

And, in fact, maybe in KGIAK, and not left at all, but statesmen? Well, in terms of functions, in general, left. But in the same statement on the creation in the second paragraph as follows: " Our country has all the possibilities to take the place of one of the global leaders, but this is hindered by the archaicism of political institutions and the inertness of the state apparatus ." Well, how is it not statesmen?

However, the committee has our person. To clarify the objective truth, Polit.ru (E. Krasavtseva) turned to him.

Ivan Belytin about the "Committee of Civil Initiatives"

The Civil Initiatives Committee is an expert organization, in fact without a legal entity. Its meaning is in supporting specific public projects. From the very beginning, an example of such projects was voiced, including a fair court (ensuring the independence of the judicial system, including the election of the chairmen of the courts), a school of local self -government (this is the search, analysis and dissemination of better experience), an open budget (public formation and execution of the budget at all levels), transparent police (publication of detailed criminal statistics, public audit and the election of the heads of the department), a civilian Solidarity, health care for everyone and others.

When creating the committee, it was declared that these projects are only priority examples. In fact, it is supposed to create a structure of support for civilian initiatives and openly opposite the actions of the authorities, regardless of persons and positions, as well as offer their decisions in key areas of socio-political life.

I myself entered this committee for the reason that some of my ideas that I promoted for a long time (for example, a “transparent police”) can be in demand there and will begin to come true. In order for our police to be reformed not only declarative, significant structural changes are needed, including in its publicity, so that citizens have relevant timely information suitable for subsequent analysis, about the activities of police officers.

As I understand it, Alexei Kudrin, in addition to this committee, creates its own fund, and specific initiatives will be supported, including through this fund, with the involvement of entrepreneurs.

Is it possible to compare the “open government” of Dmitry Medvedev with the new structural Kudrin? Will they compete or, on the contrary, to complement each other and cooperate?

Firstly, competition is good, not bad. But still, I believe that they will cooperate rather than compete directly. The Kudrin Committee is not a state initiative at all, there are none of the officials, its participants for the most part are cultural figures, art, journalists, and representatives of various humanitarian trends. This structure is more likely similar to Think Tanks. While the activities of the “open government” are quite bureaucratic and concentrated on solving state problems, not socio-public ones.

There is an opinion that the “Committee of Civil Initiatives” can become a platform for the formation of a new party in support of Kudrin.

As far as I know, many participants in the committee just do not want to enter any party. I, too, is not particularly eager to enter into any party. I am engaged in social activities, and I like this social activity. Even if some party is created, then most likely not on the basis of the committee. Perhaps it will be created in parallel.