Daily magazine: gangsters

In “Fair Russia”, personnel cleaning is coming. Already in March, most likely, the question of the exclusion from the party of Gennady and Dmitry Gudkovs will be considered. With a greater degree of probability, both will lose party tickets. Probably, some leaders of the regional branches, opposition to the leadership of the Socialist Revolutionaries, will also fall under the cleaning.

The confrontation between the Gudkovs and the tandem of Mironov-Levichv has long been no longer a secret and has entered the public plane. The subject of the dispute is the future of the party.

The Gudkovs have been worn with the idea of ​​reforming “fair Russia” so that it becomes a system -forming part of the protest movement. This would be logical - it was the Socialist -Revolutionaries who were the main beneficiaries of the protest campaign “Vote for any batch, except EP” in the fall of 2011, due to which they significantly increased their parliamentary representative office.

At some point, it seemed that the Gudkov’s plans had tangible chances of success.

In the spring, activists of the protest movement massively went to Astrakhan, where Oleg Shein announced a hunger strike from the mayors of Just Russia. During the week, modest pickets from the city administration turned into many thousands of rallies, and the authorities were forced to negotiate with Shein at the federal level. In the summer, the Fair Russia faction in the full force came to the plenary meeting of the State Duma in white ribbons and organized a very spectacular “Italian strike”, almost disrupting the adoption of the law on tightening the rules of rallies.

If the party developed in this direction, it could well become a platform for uniting the opposition and sharply increase popularity. However, the situation, as is usually the case, intervened in the presidential administration. The party’s leadership was set up by a tough ultimatum: to distance from the “white ribbons” or a war of destruction. Accustomed to the greenhouse conditions, Mironov and Levichev, were not ready to argue with the officials of the administration and instead of the struggle for power began the struggle for the "purity of the rows."

The course of the party leadership has changed dramatically. Despite public indignation, almost the entire faction supported in the State Duma a ban on the adoption of Russian orphans by US citizens. At the same time, the Bureau of Fair Russia decided to inadmissibility of combining membership in the party with participation in other socio-political associations.

Thus, before the most active participants in the “white -open” movement from the number of Socialist Revolutionaries, a hard choice was given: either protest or party.

Oleg Shein quickly forgot about the help of the "white -based" in Astrakhan and left the coordination council of the opposition. Shein did not consider it appropriate to apologize to 15744 voters who cast their votes in the elections for him. However, Shein’s “flexible position” did not have a surprise: even during the protest in Astrakhan, he in a whisper persuaded the opposition leaders to refrain from antiputine slogans.

Ilya Ponomarev’s exit from the leadership of the “Left Front” did not become a surprise. Ponomarev, in fact, returned to the opposition only in December 2011. The previous four years of work in the State Duma, he behaved extremely quietly, noted only by voting for the candidacy of Vladimir Putin to the post of prime minister.

Gennady and Dmitry Gudkov refused to comply with Mironov’s demands and leave the coordination council, which, obviously, makes their exclusion from the party inevitable. However, it is unlikely that Shein and Ponomarev have a future in Fair Russia. The leadership style of Mironov and Levichv is increasingly reminiscent of the methods of Yavlinsky and Mitrokhin. And the fate of the SR is increasingly reminiscent of the modern story of "Apple".

The technology for the ban on double membership as a method of personnel cleaning was invented in the presidential administration back in 2008 and successfully tested in Yabloko. Then, the party’s activists were given a choice: either an exception or a way out of the opposition movement “Solidarity”. As a result, several dozen members of Yabloko were excluded by the list, including publicist Andrei Piontkovsky and human rights activist Tatyana Kotlyar.

But the “apple tree” Natalya Evdokimova fulfilled Yavlinsky and left the “solidarity”. Soon she nominated her candidacy for the position of St. Petersburg Ombudsman. However, instead of supporting the party, which she seemed to prove her loyalty, received the opponent nominated by Yavlinsky and supported by “United Russia”, which eventually lost the vote. After this story, Evdokimov came out of Yabloko herself.

Maxim Reznik, the long -term leader of her St. Petersburg branch, left the party. After the successful elections in St. Petersburg, Yavlinsky completely defeated the local cell, expelling three of the six apple deputies of the city parliament and three dozen activists for the company.

It is obvious that Shein and Ponomarev will not be able to rely on support from the leadership of “Fair Russia”. For Mironov, they are “downed pilots”, who will gradually squeeze out of the party - about the same as Yavlinsky squeezed out front -end activists from Yabloko.

At one time, Yavlinsky told me a parable about the American prosecutor. Gangsters stole his son and demanded to close a number of criminal cases for his release. While the prosecutor showed fundamentality, the bandits retained the life of his son. But as soon as the prosecutor gave Slabin and did what they demanded of him, the bandits immediately sent his offspring to the next world.

Yavlinsky and Mironov relate to their intra -party opponents, like the same American gangsters. That's exactly why those who show fundamentality achieve success in politics - it is enough to recall the excluded from the "apple" Alexei Navalny. But those who sacrifice a reputation for the sake of party gingerbread almost always lose.

Therefore, for the future of the Gudkovs in politics, you can not worry. But Shein and Ponomarev, most likely, made a mistake.