"Speech Contest"

Scandals and sensations were expected from the fourth meeting of the Constitutional Court. A few days before it, information leaked to the press that the nationalist Bondarik and the little-known “leftist” Akim Palchaev would demand the expulsion of Yashin and Nemtsov. The reason was dubious, like the news itself: Yashin and Nemtsov actively participated in the “March against Scoundrels.” Another sensation in the waiting mode is the possible expulsion of Adagamov due to the fact that his ex-wife accused him of pedophilia (there is still no evidence or evidence). In addition, the day before, the Secretary of the Constitutional Court Nekrasov wrote in his blog about the upcoming Nashi provocations.

In general, there was, without a doubt, a certain suspense. I arrived early. Already in the hall on the first floor I noticed a bored Vladislav Naganov from Navalny’s team. In the hall on the second floor, the CC met without haste: out of forty-five of its members, only 21 came by the time the meeting began. They waited until there were 25 - this was already a quorum - and began. Ecologist Suren Ghazaryan called from exile on Skype. I found out whether there were Nazi provocations, and at first I even actively voted.

For the first hour and a half of the meeting, the Council discussed the rules and voting procedure. An acute question arose about truants: how to punish those who systematically do not come to meetings (this time Sobchak, Lazareva and Shats and, frankly speaking, many others were not present)? Nemtsov proposed introducing powers of attorney, according to which his colleagues could vote for an absent member of the Constitutional Court. “We have every second statement about the fate of Russia. We will turn into the State Duma, where people run around and press buttons, and we will shake powers of attorney,” Navalny retorted. The question, by the way, really excited everyone: later, Davidis said in the smoking room that attendance lists for meetings would be published in the near future, and voters would be able to find out which of their candidates conscientiously fulfilled their duties and which did not. Such a measure could hit truants in the next elections, the oppositionist believes. But let's return to the hall: when Gudkov Jr. decided to object to the procedure and cited the same State Duma as an example, chuckles and comments swept through the hall: “Well, in your Duma, of course...” Spikes also fell in Navalny’s direction: Bondarik reproached him for he did not come to the Russian March this year.

While there was a lively discussion of procedural issues, Katz was on Twitter, Yashin often checked Facebook, and Gudkov Sr. casually he succinctly described what was happening: “A competition in eloquence.” It seemed that there was no agreement on anything: the nationalists Bondarik and Krylov introduced an amendment, and the nationalist Thor voted against, Illarionov quarreled with Yashin, and Katz openly disrupted the meeting with remarks like: “Perhaps another, more effective body will soon be organized.” Nemtsov also struck the truth: “Everyone has already noticed that the CS works, to put it mildly, poorly.”

But during the discussion of the budget part, something interesting began to happen: members of the Constitutional Court were excitedly finding out how much money Sobchak gave for political prisoners. “There are no documents, where are the marks?” Is it worth paying regional members of the Constitutional Court for travel to Moscow? Who contributed how much to the common pot? Why didn’t Bykov, Kashin, Adagamov, Katz and others pay a penny? How much of the total budget (460 thousand rubles) was spent on lawyers for political prisoners? The discussion about money was perhaps one of the most lively.

However, the verbal duel between Chirikov and Krylov also turned out to be spectacular. The nationalist called for organizing targeted actions against deputies and other government officials, hostility towards whom would bring thousands to the streets - Chirikova asked not to turn into a hate movement. Krylov himself later admitted to me during a break that Chirikova, in his opinion, is a charming woman: “It’s a pity that Bykov is not there, he’s always trying to seduce her, but she loves her husband.”

Regarding the postponement of the date of the meeting from January 19 to 20, Konstantin Krylov said that, of course, this is complete stupidity, but if there are people who are so concerned about this (“Gelfand, for example”), then please, we can play it safe. And then he drew an unexpected historical parallel: “I remember the Jewish rule: when they punished someone with a whip, instead of 20 blows, they hit 19 times, so as not to overdo it in the direction of the worse, to play it safe, so to speak.” Gelfand and Katz generally give nationalists no rest. Krylov recalled the latter several times, and each time like this: “Katz should be prohibited from making any initiatives other than a proposal to surrender.”

In fact, during the meeting of the Constitutional Court, which lasted more than 5 hours, it was possible to make only one clear decision: on January 26 there will be an action in memory of Dolmatov, who died in Holland. Udaltsov called for going against the presidential administration, but the others turned out to be much more cautious: we will not expose ourselves and set people up. Therefore, neither the place nor the format of the action are yet known. By the way, Dolmatov was often mentioned, but for some reason no one thought of offering to pay for the funeral or somehow help his mother.

As for the expected exclusion of Nemtsov and Yashin, there were jokes on the sidelines. I even approached Palchaev (red jacket and bright yellow T-shirt with lions) with a question whether he really hoped to exclude them, but did not receive a clear answer. “They stole our victory,” “cut us off,” said Palchaev, referring to the successful “March against scoundrels.” Bondarik, who was passing by, admitted, however, that he had never demanded the expulsion of his colleagues from the Constitutional Court and never would. He just doesn’t want “Russian children to be sold to America.” By the way, no one said a word about Adagamov (except that he is a malicious defaulter and does not pay his fees).

There was also a problem with the policy statement of the Constitutional Court, or rather with the countless amendments to it. For example, serious debate ensued over whether to call the 2011 election situation “vote theft” or “fraud”: obviously, the correct wording would radically change the situation in the country. But not all members of the Constitutional Court discussed linguistic subtleties with interest: Udaltsov gave an interview in the corridor, Yashin stood nearby with a telephone.

“For the sake of Russian citizens,” it was decided to extend the meeting for another hour. By this point, the hall was somewhat empty, and the journalists, their eyes red from fatigue, stopped grabbing their smartphones at every remark from Navalny or Udaltsov. At the last minutes, it was decided to appoint Udaltsov himself as chairman of the next meeting. “It’s my 16th birthday. Give me a gift,” said the storm of the Left Front with a smile.

Going down the steps in some confusion, I ran into Dmitry Gudkov. And I decided that it was time to honestly ask him: “Why is there still no program, and what was it?” He said that there is a program: “And it’s clear what we need - the dissolution of the Duma, re-elections, and then we can make decisions on specific issues.” And he also told me that all the real activities of the Coordination Council are carried out in working groups, and this is all just a picture. The main thing is real work, assistance to political prisoners, rallies, developing protest, and not holding court meetings. How I want to believe Gudkov. And never have to deal with procedural issues again.