Fair elections are a theory

State Duma deputy from A Just Russia Ilya Ponomarev on Pushkin Square on March 5, 2012 again tried to use his status to protect civil activists and oppositionists from the police. He stated that in the fountain, which was occupied by people who did not want to disperse after the agreed rally (the idea belonged to the coordinator of the “Left Front” Sergei Udaltsov, who was supported by Alexey Navalny and Ilya Yashin), a meeting of the deputy with voters was taking place. Despite this, the police still dispersed the citizens.

In an interview with Lenta.ru , Ponomarev admitted that standing in the fountain was a way to “keep people” from storming the Kremlin. He also tried to explain the positive meaning of civil protests that did not end with a change in political elites.

“Lenta.ru”: Do Udaltsov’s actions on Pushkinskaya seem correct to you? I would even ask again: not correct, but meaningful? Why is this? It was clear that it would all end something like this, but it could have ended worse. After all, in my opinion, there was no good option in this?

Ilya Ponomarev: There is one good option, if we talk about what the point was. I would even say two meanings. Firstly, I’m willing to bet that if we had not done this, then a small group, maybe three or four hundred people, would have staged a breakthrough on the Kremlin, simply on its own, spontaneously. Then, naturally, this would be charged to us as a pre-planned action. Moreover, all these Rumolovites, there, and so on - they were all initially set up for this. " also " United Russia told me that you will definitely go to the Kremlin on this day. In this sense, since people stayed and did not go anywhere, it turns out that we kept people. This time.

By the way, there was another scenario. I know that about five or six tents were brought to the rally. And there were people who said: "Let's put up tents." And we: “Let’s not.” Or, at a minimum: “Let’s wait. Let’s talk here for two or three hours, but if people disperse, then, if it’s cold, then we’ll think about it.” That is, we talked them out of it. Moreover, when it was clear that this would all happen, Kolokoltsev . And Kolokoltsev said that if there are no attempts to break through or set up tent camps, then the police will not touch anyone, let them stand. And so we believed that this should not happen.

Udaltsov said that now there will be tents, I remember this phrase. They asked him: “Where are the tents, Seryoga?” He said: “Now, everything is fine, there will be tents.”

This is to reassure everyone: there will also be tents, and everything will be fine. This phrase was said in such a context. It was not Sergei who brought them in. We heard, we knew that they exist, but they are not us.

But there was a second meaning to this story, besides keeping us from such a radical scenario. There was also a certain review of forces. That is, it was interesting to see how many people are ready for some kind of action, what is the real degree of radicalism. We measured it, we got about ten percent. There were about thirty thousand in the square, about three remained, that is, about ten percent. It's not that much, but it's quite a lot.

I think there weren’t ten percent on Bolotnaya. I think that at that time those whom we call professional activists were ready for radical actions, who at that time, moreover, for the most part were in jail, they had not yet come out. I think that there were a thousand people on Bolotnaya who were ready for some kind of action. And this is a thousand from fifty or even eighty thousand, that is, this is a significantly smaller percentage than it was on Pushkin Square. Radicalization has increased, but not yet enough to say: it’s fifty percent. This was a pretty significant measurement.

It turns out that for the sake of measurement, people were put under batons.

Protest on Pushkin Square. Photo by Alexander Kachkaev for Lenta.ru
Lenta.ru

We didn't put people under batons. I will say again that people would have stayed like this, and some of them would have gone to fight, breaking through. And by and large, if the cops, for a reason that is not completely clear to me, would not have started the crackdown... The reason is really irrational. I thought maybe this was due to the fact that they were initially focused on the fact that there would be a breakthrough and it was necessary to accelerate and strengthen the actions. Even from the point of view of the law - okay, we are doing something unauthorized there - the first thing the policeman is obliged to do is warn, that is, they should have come out with a foul language and said: “Citizens, an unauthorized action is taking place here, we urge you to disperse.” ". The main thing is that they always do this at all such events; they always have a person with a camera who films such calls, so that it is clear that everyone heard, but, nevertheless, did not obey. I stood on this fountain and it didn't happen.

Moreover, then this colonel, the commander of the second regiment, came, and he and I began to squabble when we were probably already three-quarters tied up. I tell him: “What are we violating?” He says: "Go away." - “What are we violating?” He says you are holding a mass rally here. I say: “Why do you think this is a mass rally? Here is a meeting with a deputy.” He says: "Get out of here." I say: “If you do not explain what we are violating, we cannot respond to your demands.” He says: “It’s no use talking to you,” and left.

I think that this was a purely political technological task: initially the Kremlin had an intention to show that there are extremists, there is chaos, there is the Orange Revolution, there is Maidan, there are militants, and we are protecting the country from chaos. I think that was the original goal for this rally. That is why there were these provocateurs, Rumolovites, how they dispersed in disappointment: where are the breakthroughs, where is the storming of the Kremlin?

But, by the way, they themselves did not start anything, I must say. I thought that they themselves would initiate some kind of fight, but...

Their task was to react, to strike in the rear, if there was a breakthrough. I think that was the challenge. Most likely, they had an intention not to provoke themselves, and if there was movement, then they would start a mess.

Why do you think few people came to Pushkinskaya?

For a working day, I think that’s a lot.

Why then did this entire protest movement end?

Once again: the liberal part of this whole story has no desire to fight. For the life of me, I believe that their main motivation is the negotiation process. I believe that they are still people who come from power, that is, Ryzhkov did not occupy the last positions. Ryzhkov was the leader, in fact, of the then “United Russia”, “Our Home - Russia” in the Duma, a vice-speaker, and the first vice-speaker and the most likely candidate for speaker, if everything had worked out for him, and Nemtsov was the first vice-speaker. prime minister, that is, the third person in the government and successor to Boris Nikolaevich .

Therefore, it still seems to me that their thinking as politicians - I’m not even talking about Putin , I believe that they will choose Putin.

What does it mean?

I believe that their task is a cosmetic change in power. recently clashed with them Ksyusha Sobchak at the State Department, where Ryzhkov directly said: “We must improve the current government.” And this is the difference: they want to improve the current government, and we want to change it. And, of course, in order to change, you need to act tough. This does not mean that it is bloody or illegitimate, but tough. And in order to improve, it is necessary to demonstrate such a mass that you can then go and sit down at the negotiating table and negotiate something behind the scenes in working groups and so on.

Well, okay, but why does their point of view win? And she won in the end, right?

Because the media. We don't have media.

There is media personality. Recently there was an absolutely magnificent and, in my opinion, very useful study by FOM regarding promotion, ratings, and so on. But there is no one from the left even in the top ten. Udaltsov completes this list, the only leftist who is actually there. And then there is the fundamentally alien position of Udaltsov, and the much closer position of Ryzhkov. Objectively, Ryzhkov speaks a different language and addresses your readers. And Udaltsov addresses people from regions who are much less your readers.

The network’s audience is also known: relatively speaking, if, say, Udaltsov’s audience (to put it very roughly) is an audience , then Ryzhkov’s audience is a Facebook audience . They are very different: if Facebook chooses Yabloko as a political party by a wide margin, then VKontakte chooses the LDPR by a wide margin and, accordingly, the presidential candidate. VKontakte does not vote for Prokhorov , but Facebook votes for Prokhorov.

They started letting Udaltsov on television, but Navalny anywhere. they still won’t take

Well, yes, they are very afraid of him, of course.

Even “State Department” was closed on MTV, in my opinion, almost because of this.

I think that's why they closed it. This is very clear: the mechanism of his personal legitimation is the mechanism of Boris Nikolaevich Yeltsin. It attracts people not ideologically, not platform-wise. After all, he is very weak as an ideologist. I was just in Ukraine, they stopped: Navalny was here, he gave an interview to Kiselev , and this is fear and horror: how is this, what is this? Are you talking about him as a future president?

Because he doesn’t win with this, he wins with his sincerity and anti-corruption themes. The same thing as Boris Nikolaevich did - fall into the river with a bag on his head, that is, fight against privileges. Here, this is exactly the same promotion scheme.

I think the likelihood of early elections is quite high. Putin still needs to somehow legitimize himself, and the best way is early parliamentary elections, then somehow against this background he becomes a much more respectable person. It’s not that he gave in to the opposition, there is no falsification, it’s just that new legislation has been formed: like, we will honestly hold new elections, new parties. And how does it work out - we have completely new parties in our country, but they do not participate in any elections. Let's announce parliamentary elections, say, early next year.

I find it hard to believe.

Well, I think this is absolutely real, especially since now this option is being discussed by so many people in government circles, I think this is an absolutely real, rational option. It is soft, this is a soft scenario, when reason triumphs to some extent and, relatively speaking, people will be drowned using political technology methods.

Or they can push it down not with political technology, but with blunt, crude primitive pressure. As soon as the mass wave subsided, the thought “total defeat”, “we are losers, goats” was conveyed to the maximum extent possible, so that the mass of people standing propping up the building would disperse because of this, and after that they would begin to unscrew their necks one by one, the levers for this a lot of. Business, first of all, of course, is finance. Well, in the media, ride in the ears of ordinary Russians even from morning to evening. Another thing is that by doing so you will strengthen the opposition, but marginalize it. That is, this will lead to the fact that if before there were a thousand people who disagreed, there will be ten thousand people. But it still won’t be ten million people.

It turns out that everything was in vain?

If we don’t achieve it, then it’s in vain.

“We’ll get it” in what sense?

Protest on Pushkin Square. Photo by Alexander Kachkaev for Lenta.ru

Lenta.ru

Firstly, I don’t think that everything is so lost after Putin’s victory. I believe that the most important and most vulnerable point is the intra-elite history. I believe that Putin’s main function as a figure is to legitimize [the withdrawal of] capital to the West. As long as he is an all-Russian “roof” for all corrupt officials, until that moment he is beneficial and necessary. Everyone will support and protect him. If we manage to deprive him of this function... And this, in my opinion, is possible precisely through working with the West, first of all. So that all these stories with Magnitsky are brought to an end.

I say, I offered the Americans and the Europeans the same thing: let’s introduce the position of a special prosecutor on corruption, for example, in Russia and the CIS countries. So that we have a point of contact. Who would be responsible for conducting these investigations so that they would not only concern crimes of American or European citizens, but would he have such a task also in relation to Russian citizens. So that we can tell him: here is a villa that costs a million that we found, and here is his declaration, according to which he earns ten thousand. So, there is a fact of money laundering, please put him in jail. Let him explain where the money comes from, let him publish there where he got the money.

Yes, but rallies have nothing to do with it; this could have been done before, without them.

The fact is that in order to take power, as Comrade Lenin taught us, two things are needed: the top and the bottom are needed. We have provided the lower classes, there are lower classes. We see that they don't want to. The question is at the top. A change of power is only possible when part of the elite is also interested in a change of power, and we have a subject to whom this power can be transferred.

After all, fair elections are a theory. And the practice is as follows: let’s say tomorrow Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin said: “That’s it, I give up.” Let's assume such a fantastic scenario. What happens the day after tomorrow? He said, "I give up." Should he resign as president? Great, who is he giving the nuclear briefcase to then? He cannot give it to a committee, especially one consisting of people with fundamentally different views. And what is the name of the person to whom the nuclear briefcase will be given?

What is the point of him resigning if he gives it to Medvedev, or Medvedev gives it to Naryshkin ? Sorry, it's the same gang. What, Matvienko will provide us with other elections? Or will Medvedev ensure other elections? By the way, Naryshkin can ensure other elections; in the Leningrad region, where he was elected, the elections were fair, he got 33 percent of the votes, which means that they didn’t draw anything there. Naryshkin, by the way, is the most worthy of these people. But it's still the same clan.

Well, yes.

This means that it is pointless for him to resign if we do not present a person to whom power should be given. Let’s say another scenario: okay, you don’t resign, is it then possible to hold, purely theoretically, fair elections? Who will pass legislation on these fair elections? Putin? Or maybe the State Duma controlled by United Russia? Well, purely technically: we won. Without presenting the subject, it is impossible to ensure the transfer of power.

Well, yes, but there is also a power grab.

Great, someone has to seize power too. Who? Will Boris Efimovich Nemtsov storm the Kremlin on a white horse?

I think no.

Not likely, right? Udaltsov can, nationalists can, Navalny can, Yashin can. But are there supporters behind each of them? I want to say, with the exception of Udaltsov, behind whom at least there is a “Left Front”. As a person who was involved in organizational work, I can say: at the moment, the “Left Front” has 10-15 thousand fighters in the regions, of which maybe 200, maybe 300 live in Moscow, and the rest live in the regions. And there is no one behind the other leaders at all.

Navalny is a network leader with a large number of volunteers who are not communicated in any way organizationally. And the assault - excuse me, this is an army operation, there is no network there. There must be discipline and hierarchy. Yashin too - where is the organization there?

Well then, the nationalists, as they scared us all, say, the nationalists will come...

This is the most real power in this situation. Question: do we want this?

What then is the positive meaning of this whole story?

The positive meaning is that people woke up, that people came out. And that people realized that nothing could be done by simply standing and trampling. I can now see from my LiveJournal how sharply, before my eyes, the demand for an idea, for a program, is rising. I posted a super-radical program on my LiveJournal, practically a maximum program for taking power. Well, within the framework, as they say, of preserving the socio-economic system. My program is absolutely tough, with nationalization, re-privatization and lustration, transition to a parliamentary republic, and with a transitional dictatorship that will actually last three years while all the institutions are being built.

I thought: now a dispute will arise in the most general manner. But two points caused controversy in this program among people: whether or not to leave the WTO and whether or not to give the right to visa-free entry into Russian territory to foreigners. I just thought that we needed to take a step to move to visa-free travel to Europe and the States. The first logical step is that first we give visa-free entry, then it is easier for us to agree with them that there will be visa-free entry there too. Here the votes were almost equally divided. A little more in favor, but basically equally, 55 to 45, in my opinion. And about the same result for the WTO.

.b-dreamers { font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; }<br />.b-dreamers a { color: #cc0b00; text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; font-size: 22px; }<br />.b-dreamers small { display: block; color: #444138; font-size: 10px; }<br />

Dreamers.

History of protest: from Chistye Prudy to New Arbat