After the elections: results, motives, conclusions, expectations

Someone has already drawn the main conclusions regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the past elections to the Constitutional Court, someone continues to call them a farce, a way to “legitimize” Navalny, someone is skeptical about them, partly boycotting them, partly preferring to observe what is happening from the sidelines . And someone wants to convince others that, among other things, the elections to the Constitutional Court are no better or fairer than those held by the authorities. Well, because it’s a farce, the legitimization of Navalny is a waste of time, and most importantly, the process is opaque, and therefore has no less potential for falsification than the main stage of the current political regime, which is decorated every four/five/six years with ballot boxes, KOIBs and Soviet women. By the way, for a regime that is in a constant state of self-imitation, any successful opposition body of political power, even if it is three times a “toy”, is quite the plot of a nightmare.

To be honest, I find it difficult to answer the question about transparency, because it seems to me that the lack of motive and need for falsification answers this question by themselves. Not to mention the fact that honesty was a matter of necessity in this case, and any attempt at deception could cost much more than the results, which, I repeat, there was no need to fake. Still, we are not talking about the election of a leader, but about the formation of a body of 45 people, with announced quotas and an interest in the diversity of the composition. The elections turned out to be both predictable - every third one is for Navalny - in my opinion, an absolutely plausible story - and at the same time unexpected. Actually, how it should be. The impossibility of visual control can indeed be attributed to the formal weaknesses of electronic voting, but I personally have absolutely no idea what the implementation of complete transparency of this process might look like.

Just as I don’t understand how one can legitimize or leave this or that person in some illegitimate, apparently, state. The fact that Navalny simply could not help but realize the level of his support even without elections to the Constitutional Court is, in my opinion, completely unsurprising, as well as the fact that leadership in these elections, to put it mildly, does not harm him, although their main goal in no way is not. And today, no matter what anyone says, not a single person can know in advance with one hundred percent certainty what awaits the elected Constitutional Court in the distant and not so distant future. In conditions of the strongest external and possible internal pressure, his task, excuse me, not to get into trouble, is as difficult as possible. But the only price at which the opposition can obtain a guarantee against collapse, splits and the possibility of turning into a dummy is inaction. Actually, luxury is unacceptable in the modern political situation.

As for the results of the elections in general, yesterday I personally experienced a feeling of deep disappointment due to the failure of several candidates to get into the Constitutional Court, namely Oleg Kozyrev, Roman Dobrokhotov, Dmitry Ivanov, Elena Rusakova, however, it is clear that absolutely no result would have been achieved anyway satisfied. At the very least, I am pleased that not a single nationalist made it onto the civil list, that the political effectiveness of Kasparov and Illarionov alone is enough to cover the ineffectiveness of even a dozen media workers, who, however, also perform important functions, without which the Council would be not complete. I’m glad that the MMM guys didn’t do much harm in any way, but only reminded us of the large number of easily controlled Russians who should always be remembered. And she was surprised by Udaltsov’s 20th place - for various reasons she believed that his rating could already compete with Navalny’s.

But, apparently, the liberal public, which, judging by many factors, turned out to be predominant in the case of the elections, although they love Seryoga with a strange love, is not ready to recklessly give their voice to a left-wing politician with a revolutionary inclination in its entirety. Regarding Gelfand’s success, I personally decided to refuse to support his candidacy literally at the very last moment. Although after the debate I was sure that we would give our vote to him too. That is, I’m not at all surprised by this passage. Based on the election results, I got 21 matches on the general civil list, 4 on the liberal list, 2 on the left and on the nationalist list - with seventeen thousand voting against all of them. By the way, approximately every second of those who voiced anything at all did the same when voting on our RVC.

Of course, it was a little disappointing that the “curse of 100 thousand” is still in effect, even in the virtual field. But this is generally our big problem and difficulty, the resolution of which requires a lot of hard work. The key can be considered, firstly, the ability to better consolidate. Secondly, the politicization of the regions, which is at an indecently low level, as evidenced by the last single voting day, even taking into account all the voters who are in deep boycott or deep disappointment. Secondly, an adequate response to the ever-growing need to constantly demonstrate that the opposition is not just a disunited collection of eternal opponents of the government, but an independent and full-fledged alternative.

Yes, continuing to go to protest rallies with “anti” slogans, but capable of offering a set of constructive, independent programs - the functions of the Constitutional Court in this sense can generally be limitless, if only there were enough strength, responsibility, patience and professional resources. Still, if you choose between not doing anything new, looking at the walls of the meeting dead end, and thinking about the idea of ​​​​creating a body of political power, implementing which, creating an important precedent and gaining unprecedented experience, at the same time giving the opportunity to speak at television debates to a great number of previously known or aspiring politicians, civil activists, representatives of regions - everyone who wished it - I, without hesitation, choose the second option.

I know that this post is already indecently long, but I still can’t help but thank everyone who was involved in the creation and work of the RVC in Stavropol (Vasily Pavlov, Valery Ledovskoy and Tatyana Fedina), as well as everyone who came to vote and register or verify. Well, and in general everyone who took part in these elections. I am glad that in my city there live such wonderful people who are interested in the political situation in the country, who are ready to spend time and make efforts to change, at least in such small steps, something that no longer tolerates either closed eyes or a glance from an apartment window, which is always and exclusively on the edge, nor the cowardly selfish “this doesn’t concern me.” However, I understand everyone who did not participate in these elections for their own reasons. Like everyone who criticizes them. Criticism and our own, freely articulated opinion are our everything. We watch, we watch, we wait.

PS: I feel a strange, awkward feeling - I’m writing such a long post about the elections to the Constitutional Court while everyone is talking (shouting) about Razvozzhaev. But I (no one) know nothing for certain, what can I say?