The Constitution - according to its “guarantor”, or - about another element of Navalny’s DMP (part 1)

The results of the street protests on May 6 and June 12 are already known. In particular, the province practically did not participate in them. And therefore, outright terror was used against the relatively small number of Muscovites.

Quite a lot has already been said in the media about the reasons for the lack of success of street actions in both capitals (about the “discord” within the opposition). Therefore, the author undertakes to speculate on a way to fight the regime, invariant with respect to both “dubious” and clearly odious “political leaders”; which would allow the provinces to be drawn into this. Namely, about the method of “popular” expression of opinion about “Putinism” as such, in the form of a referendum: with the aim of declaring formal grounds for accusing Putin of treason , in the form of “an attack on the foundations of the Constitution.” For the author believes that “the opinion of the people in itself” is useless unless some “completely constitutional” attempts are made to change the existing regime: those that are quite safe from the point of view of beating demonstrators, as well as “sewing” administrative and criminal cases.

Next, let's see what difficulties exist along this path.

As is already known, the attempt to initiate a referendum on the topic “Stop the WTO” ended in nothing. Because Mr. Churov, who had already become very famous, “explained” this way: they say, ratification of international treaties is a “legislative” matter; those. According to the existing Constitution, this is the prerogative of the Duma only, and not of the people themselves. And from here we see such an alarming attribute of the current Russian “democracy”: almost any idea of ​​Putin and others like him can now be declared “legislative”. Where the electorate itself has, as it were, “nothing to do.” And from this, in particular, it follows “the “irreversibility” of the current vile laws on elections and referendums; i.e., the progression of the “absolute monarchy” in the “Russian Pseudo-Federation”.

Therefore, in order to analyze the “basic foundations” of our “democracy”, it will be useful (following Mr. Churov) for us to look into the 1993 Constitution.

And here we will discover some rather unpleasant things. For example, that this Constitution can be changed by a decision not specifically (and only) of the electorate itself, but by a decision of some incomprehensible “constitutional assembly” (Article 135). Theoretically, after these changes are “approved” by two-thirds of the regional Legislative Assemblies; however, in practice it may turn out that no one is involved in obtaining such “approval”. But the most touching thing here is that the Constitutional Court (i.e., the officials themselves) is allowed (clause 5 of Article 125) to “interpret” this (stupid?) Constitution in any way they like - according to the wishes of the next “autocrat.” T. that is, today – we have precisely and only the illusion (mirage) of the Constitution: which, by definition, should have contained certain unshakable rights, etc.

Moreover: any mention of the theoretical “right of the people” to change their own Constitution is already clearly called by today’s “interpreters” as “calls for the overthrow of the system.” Those. Even just words on this topic are already being called “extremism”. Not bad!

I believe that it is technically quite accessible to publicly discuss this interesting circumstance: in the form of an “official” all-Russian referendum – as the only alternative to corrupt “justice”. And for this, - relying on mentioned. Churov’s earlier “hint” - it is possible to introduce such questions for the referendum that cannot in any way be called “legislative”.

For example:

Question No. 1: “Do you agree that as a result of many “additions” to the 1993 Constitution by the main judicial officials of the Russian Federation, today’s Constitution has taken away from the electorate the real right to resolve national issues?”

Question No. 2: “Do you agree that the current laws on referendums and elections do not even correspond to this (“amended” by officials) Constitution?”

Question No. 3: “Do you agree that the Duma, which does not propose to change such a Constitution, is not a representative of the interests of the people?”

Question No. 4: “Do you agree that Russia should have an unambiguous Constitution: without the right to change it by “higher” officials?”

Question No. 5: “Do you agree that the “voting results” created by the existing “automatic” voting system (GAS “Elections”) are impossible to verify; and therefore, it provides the Central Election Commission with maximum opportunities for falsification?

Question No. 6: “Do you agree that the use of the State Automated System “Elections” in its current form should be prohibited?” (or - “Do you trust the results created (I emphasize the ambiguity of this word!) through the State Automated System “Elections”?”).

Question No. 7: “Do you agree that the costs of all-Russian referendums may turn out to be much less than the costs of maintaining the Duma, the Federation Council, and the presidential administration?”

I think that even in the current tricky law on a referendum, Churov will not find a direct ban on such “value judgments” (the term comes from A. Navalny) regarding the quality of the Constitution, or k.-l. laws of our “pseudo-federation”.

Or – on a “value judgment” regarding the State Automated System “Elections”, as an element of “electronic democracy”. Because like any program, this GAS obviously allows you to “program” in advance any “general results”. Because their counting, for approximately 80 thousand plots, is “allowed” specifically and only by Churov.

T. arr., in the sense of mention. “results” - the so-called “reasonable doubts” (the term comes from journalist Sergei Parkhomenko (League of Voters)). Because the so-called The “systemic” (Duma) “opposition” - for many years now - has not been at all eager to organize any parallel calculations to double-check the “results” of this GAS. Apparently - because the programmatic “synthesis” of the notorious “VTsIOM forecast” obviously preserves for the “leaders of the Duma opposition” their warm places in the Duma; those. – it is believed that everything else is the problem of the “people” themselves.

And no matter how anyone treats the famous entrepreneur Const. Borovoy, one cannot fail to recognize the validity of his public remark that on the part of the “systemic opposition” the Russian “elections” are something like a “giveaway game”.

Thus, having repeated that the State Automated System “Elections” was quite obviously used precisely for the programmatic synthesis of the notorious “VTsIOM forecast” - we come to the conclusion that now we have both the illusion of a “multi-party system” and the illusion of “elections” as a process. Those. in this sense, we have been in “virtual reality” for a long time.

And the author believes that this should be “thought deeply about.” For quite long before the last March “election”, the author proposed (via Twitter) to the leaders of the Duma “parties” a technical means that would suppress multiple voting with one passport (“carousel”). This is a very simple to use software package that uses Internet hardware resources and allows the formation (for one day) of any number of local (city, regional, etc.) networks: for selective or complete verification that any passport – “voted” within the city, region, etc. (and, in the limit, within the Russian Federation) only once. At the same time, interception or suppression of exchange by reference. local networks - even the craftsmen from FAPSI could not do it. However, the so-called “systemic” “political leaders” (G. Zyuganov, S. Mironov, S. Mitrokhin, etc.) simply “kept silent” on this matter.

Thus, one inevitably has to conclude that almost all of the “leaders of the systemic opposition” agreed in advance to a “programmatic synthesis” of the future distribution of votes in the Duma, through the State Automated System “Elections”. Since the so-called “VTsIOM's forecast” obviously ensured that these “main leaders” retained their warm places in the Duma. Apparently, this also explains the fact that neither before December nor before March - the mentioned “system leaders” - were really involved in either training observers or creating a “reserve” of observers: for those cases when the latter will be from somewhere “ delete” under one pretext or another.

However, the question arises - what “legal consequences” are expected from the mentioned “non-legislative” national discussion: since any “legislative” discussions are already, as it were, “prohibited”, and “non-legislative” ones are, as it were, “not legally significant”. Here, the author sees practical benefits even simply from a broad discussion of the fact of “virtuality” (in the current Constitution) of the electorate’s right to any “direct” expression of will.

And here’s why: if the collection of signatures (about a referendum) is “allowed”, then even the official media will not be able to avoid describing the “agenda” of this referendum. And the referendum “ballots” themselves will become a “means of conveying information” to the most “dark grandmothers without the Internet.” T. arr., mention. a referendum would also become an element of A. Navalny’s “Good Propaganda Machine” (only at the expense of the budget).

The opposition media will be able to engage in a public analysis of the reality of the notorious “voters’ rights.” Incl. – in the form of opinions of famous professional lawyers and human rights bloggers, incl. - by public comparison, for example, with the US Constitution.

And as a consequence, in the course of this discussion the sub-topic of persistent non-use by the Duma “elected people” of their rights to legislative initiative will inevitably arise: in the sense of returning the Constitution to a truly democratic one. Because the author believes it is wrong to make “the cause of all troubles” specifically and only “Fuhrer” Putin. And earlier, I already proposed to the Internet community to massively express their attitude towards the mentioned “cardboard leaders” of the Duma “opposition”, using the websites and blogs of the mentioned “leaders”: with the aim of destroying residual illusions, among the real “listed composition” of the mentioned “pseudo-parties” . Thus, the “leaders” of the Duma “opposition” – here they will not be able to “simply keep silent”: otherwise, from the Duma “pseudo-parties”, in the near future, only “leaders” may remain (in the Duma itself, where there are less than five hundred of them ). And although it is unlikely that the Duma “leaders” will be able to “hold up” (at the expense of regional “functionaries”) the listed number of their pseudo-parties to the minimum, allowing them to avoid self-liquidation, the question of the relative number of these “parties” (relative to the real opposition bloc) is also may be widely discussed in the media: e.g. - in the form of a poster “Have you already left your “cardboard” party?” (which will be another element of Navalny’s DMP).

And finally - an all-Russian expression of opinion regarding. the anti-democratic nature of the current Constitution will be an expression of distrust in its “guarantor”. And this will already be a “legal fact”; which the “guarantor” can hardly simply ignore. Especially if branches of foreign media are drawn into such a discussion. I believe that the first thing the “guarantor” will think of is to “request another 6 years” for the “analysis of the Constitution” (i.e., “express no confidence” in the results of its public analysis by well-known professionals). But then, the subject of discussion may become, in simple terms, the “level of stupidity” of the “guarantor”; those. – his fundamental inability to lead the state.

If the collection of signatures for a referendum is “prohibited” under some pretext, then this will initiate a discussion in the media about the fact of an open encroachment on the basic norms of the Constitution; those. the fact of high treason on the part of the “country’s leadership.” Which, then, it will be quite acceptable to call it a “junta”, supported by the so-called bayonets. "National Guard".

Let's now see what is the purpose of the proposed “aggravation” (by initiating a referendum) of the political situation, and “renaming” the so-called. “the leadership of the country” specifically to the “junta”. This goal is to destroy, in the minds of “very simple working people,” any “residual” reverence for the mentioned “leadership”; and also - the formation of an additional contingent for “direct expression of will” in the form of street actions.

Because now it is important to form a mass positive attitude towards the issue of the admissibility of accepting any financial assistance to pay for banners, megaphones, and other means of constitutional “direct expression of will.” Because In order to reduce the number of protesters, the officialdom is intensively hammering into the heads of “ordinary workers” a template about the “unpatriotism” of accepting such assistance even in kind (for example, in the form of a dozen tents or several megaphones).

If we mention “the leadership of the country” will be openly and demonstrably renamed into a “junta” (i.e. a regime that openly encroaches on the Constitution, and therefore is held on by bayonets), then the “popular masses” will be more critical of the “patriotic " the mantra of this junta regarding the non-acceptance of "outside" financial assistance for the "direct expression of the will of the people" in accordance with the Constitution.

Probably, in this sense, the leaders of the real opposition can be recommended to voice, at rallies, a list of sponsors: such and such a Russian living in the USA, and such and such a Russian living in Israel. Those. that both have nothing to do with the “damned State Department.” To the author, this seems like a good counter-propaganda move.

By the way: the attempts of “EdRa” to legislatively “suppress” foreign financial assistance to protesting citizens of Russia (the law on NGOs) are obviously ridiculous: because you can always find a “domestic” private person who will be an “accumulator” of funds contributed by Russian Americans, Israelis, etc. .d. "to help democracy." However, composing “loud” but not working “laws” is already “usual practice” of EdRa.

As for the “damned State Department,” on the one hand, any dictator is not interesting for the United States as long as he sells oil and gas on the cheap and does not create his own competitive industry.

However, on the other hand, Putin’s notorious “vertical” is more than obviously unable (or unwilling), for example, to stop the leakage from the country of materials for nuclear warheads, anti-aircraft missiles (the case of Viktor Bout in the USA), and even small arms . Those. As a “national leader”, Putin has already more than discredited himself. This means that the civilized world “shouldn’t be particularly trusted” and k.-l. international treaties signed by this “pseudo-leader”.

In addition: the mentioned “excess of production” of the military-industrial complex (presumably “grabbed” by the clan around Putin) is obviously dangerous for both the United States and Europe: because things have already come to the open armament of clearly extremist states (for example, combat helicopters for Syria).

Thus, it is quite possible to assume that for the United States a tangible transition of Russian industry precisely “to peaceful lines” would be beneficial: because Our industry clearly cannot make a qualitative leap in terms of competitiveness on its own. Those. any reasonable “leader” (instead of Putin) would start with the proposal of “Russian labor force” for American and European factories in the Russian Federation. And since joint ventures, as a rule, pay much more, and sometimes you can even squeeze an increase from the owner through strikes, it turns out that in this sense, the interests of the “State Department” and the Russian proletariat even coincide!

The “State Department” is pleased because then the workload of the population of the Russian Federation with “productive” labor will be regulated by the United States. The army of officials will continue to feed itself from the sale of resources. So the United States won’t even have to “unseal” its own strategic oil reserves.

T. arr. - the fact that the US State Department allegedly “gives money to the opposition precisely for the destruction of Russia” is a very big question. This means that the “immorality” of accepting financial assistance “from outside” for the implementation of constitutional procedures by citizens of the Russian Federation is also in question. Because the “junta” will certainly not give money for this.

The same can probably be said about the countries of Europe - in the sense of their attitude to the processes of confrontation between the junta and the real opposition. In a word, these are the questions that I would like to propose for discussion in the media.

In continuation of this topic, a discussion will be proposed with the help of which resource the creation of initiative groups of at least 100 people, in at least half of the regions, will be possible (this is a condition for initiating the collection of signatures for a referendum). Because according to the author, in the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, for example, only its “main leadership” is “non-virtual”. The Communist Party of the Russian Federation does not have a real resource even in the regional capitals: because the gap between “loud speeches” and real deeds is already very large: in the sense of the so-called. “strengthening the party” or other practical activities “on the ground”. I believe that the same can be said about other Duma “opposition” pseudo-parties.

And finally, further on, this blog may offer a discussion of practical ways to neutralize fraud during such a referendum: taking into account previous experience and available technical means.

For example, the so-called political observer Yulia Latynina blames the “stupid electorate” for the “resounding success of the elections” of United Russia and Putin; which, according to Yu. Latynina, is no less than 47...48%. For this electorate (“despite all the efforts” of Yu. Latynina) allegedly still “has not understood” the essence of Putin’s “stability.” I believe that this very electorate is by no means as stupid as Yu. Latynina “pleasantly seems.” And the main reason is precisely in the falsification of the results: as a result of stupid preparation of observers (the leaders of the “Duma opposition”), and computer manipulation of the voting results, through GAS “Elections”.

T. arr., The main thing in the above idea is that such a form of expression of the opinion of the people can no longer be brought to the “non -fulfillment of the legitimate requirements” of “pents”, “resistance to the representative of the authorities”, or other way of terror with administrative arrests. And t. . - It will come to the fore “precisely peaceful” prevention of falsification of voting in a referendum. For t. "Carousel" - it is quite possible to suppress; Let - and not 100 percent, but - quite noticeably. In addition, the Internet resources can be used for a duplicate calculation of the results in the Russian Federation - “in parallel” with GAS “Elections”.

(to be continued)