Own or foe

There should not be a great thought in the State Duma-from this logic, it seems that the Kremlin and its political managers, who are directly responsible for interacting with the opposition and the State Duma, come from.

Gennady Gudkov

The bottom line is: the Bureau of Fair Russia offered to determine the three prominent members with whom they are with a party or with a “swamp protest”. Ilya Ponomarev was ordered by the decision of the Bureau to leave the “Left Front” within a month (where it is in the mid-2000s), and Gennady and Dmitry Gudkov-to leave the coordination council of the opposition, where they were elected in the fall of last year. If they do not leave the organizations, then the question will arise about the exclusion of them from the party. The day before, the party’s bureau, as Ilya Ponomarev wrote on Twitter, did not dare to reprimand him and his colleagues for participating in the opposition “march against the scoundrels” (“For violation of party discipline”).

Gennady Gudkov did not agree with such a decision and told Kommersant-Online that “the protest movement is a very important component of opposition activity”, and the party, which is not considered to be, will be taken to the side of political activity. In other words: to ignore the activities of the Constitutional Court as an opposition site, including Socialist -Revolutionaries. His son Dmitry wrote on his blog that this is their common position with his father and they will remain in the coordination council of the opposition.

No opposition games!

With Gennady Gudkov, it is quite possible to agree in the sense that the motivation of the Bureau of the SR is clearly far from the idea “the party is incompatible with membership in other organizations” and the arbitrarily understood “party discipline”. If only because the party in the Constitutional Court became clearly interested in the membership of the Gudkovs. Still, the elections to this body took place back in October, and the party was not only outraged by the Gudkovov’s decision to run, but then she was silent for three months.

Ilya Ponomarev

As for Ponomarev, the “Left Front” has existed at least since 2005 (Ponomarev himself had previously gathered something under this brand) and, accordingly, just older than “Fair Russia”, which power political technologists blinded with the then speaker of the Federation Council Sergei Mironov and Nikolai Levich only in 2006. Ponomarev from the Socialist-Revolutionaries elected to the Duma in 2007 and since then there were no special claims about his “membership” or participation in the events of the “Left Front” (for example, the congress of the organization in October 2008) did not present in the party. It looks strange: to order a person to leave the organization urgently, when for more than five years everyone was silent and everyone suited everyone.

They are unhappy, of course, not so much in “Fair Russia” as in the Kremlin, where opposition areal activity and flirting with the “swamp Protestants” of three State Duma deputies caused extreme discontent over the past year. Such discontent is that Gudkov Sr. was even punished by deprivation of the mandate for hypothetical doing business, which deputies are prohibited. And Ilya Ponomarev, his colleague about the Unicorn Chamber Andrei Isaev tried to present family ties - introduced a bill prohibiting close relatives to the Soldumes in the State Duma and the Federation Council (Ponomarev’s mother is a senator).

Social Revolutionaries at a crossroads

The leadership of the Socialist Revolutionaries, people of quite contractual and loyal authorities such as the same Sergey Mironov (was a technical candidate in the Putin election in 2004 and 2012) and Nikolai Levichv, there is every reason to fear the Kremlin’s discontent. The party can simply defeat the party. Last year, the party members already had to part with five deputies who, contrary to the fractional decision, voted for the candidacy of Dmitry Medvedev to the post of prime minister. And at the end of the year it became known that the mandate may lose a prominent reference Oleg Mikheev, who, according to prosecutors and investigators, tried to trade deputy mandates.

Sergey Mironov

The fate of the “fair Russia”, which carries personnel losses, is, of course, the problem of the Premissies of the leadership of the Socialist Revolutionaries themselves. It is noteworthy here - in the current political cycle, the Kremlin defiantly does not accept any dissent in parliament, even purely populist and obviously safe for the authorities. After the “Italian strike” in the State Duma regarding the Law on rallies in June (the three current defendants took an active part in it) the Kremlin went for a sharp twisting of the nuts and twisting hands with opposition factions.

Apparently, the logic of "unanimous support for Putin's decisions" worked. If in order to demonstrate such support in the previous two convocations, the votes of United Russia and the LDPR were enough, then with a decrease in the representative office of EP and the fall of its popularity among citizens, in general, to legitimation, decisions were required (this is in the logic of managers of the political process) and two other factions. In addition, the policy of the new Putin administration is rhetorically built on the basis of "who is not with us is our enemy." The result was that by the fall, according to the fundamental bills of the Opposition Opposition, the bills of fundamental voting for the Kremlin.

Say, according to the anti -Sirot law that caused a storm of indignation. It is noteworthy: in the first reading he was supported by 403 deputies and it was worth expecting that after the wave of indignation of social activists, cultural figures, the media (and quite loyal authorities) their number would be reduced. By the second reading, to which an amendment about orphans was proposed, 400 deputies were expressed for for. But in the third he was already supported by 420 people.

Their own among strangers, a stranger among their

Oleg Shein

The principle “who is not with us is against us”, adopted by the Ivanovo-Volodinsky administration, just brought the Socialist-Revolutionaries to a situation of a difficult choice and even some crisis. Say, reference Oleg Shein, elected to the Coordinating Council of the opposition, has already announced the exit from there, emphasizing, however, that the party did not demand such a victim from him. “The hint understood and merged” if you translate press releases from press releases from the language.

This is like the Putin classification, recently described in an interview with the editor -in -chief of Echo of Moscow Alexei Venediktov: “Own”, “Enemies” and “Traitors”. In this logic, an example of Ilya Ponomarev, who has passed from the system youth of the Communist Party to a radical opposition, and then who became a deputy of the State Duma from a completely systemic “fair Russia”, is unlikely to imagine. Meanwhile, so it was, such rules worked until recently.

No, the Kremlin’s opposition, of course, was also actively oppressed, but also appointed, say, the representatives of Yabloko and the ATP for significant positions, which were not discouraged into the parliament, despite the active pressure on these political parties and their individual representatives. It is quite difficult to present such a flexible position in the present conditions.

The principle of “who is not with us” sets the rest of the Kremlin’s reactions to external political stimuli. “Bolotnaya leaders” received a black mark from the Kremlin and instead of campaigns to meet the president and his subordinates now go to the Investigative Committee. And ordinary activists, who have not yet been so long ago in power terminology “people who are actively expressing their position with fresh, intelligent, healthy, energetic persons” (Vladimir Putin dated December 15, 2011) are now perceived by supporters of the authorities and its representatives mainly as traitors of the interests of Russia. The authorities actually painted a virtual line, on one side of which “their” (friends, supporters, slaves, population), and on the other - “enemies” (radical opposition, their supporters, every “creative” intelligentsia).

This is not new, but in recent months, the possibility of a play, some kind of maneuvering between these two camps, a certain balanced position has almost been left. There is only almost openly formulated call from the authorities to choose the side. The “Ponomarev-Gudkovs” incident, a year ago, were considered “as if their” for the authorities, but a little played in the “opposition”, that is a clear evidence. The political diversity of this, of course, is very impoverished, the search for compromises gives way to "diplomacy of power." In the future, it is fraught with serious risks, because the only true opinion can be (about horror!) An erroneous.