Between Urnaya and Haribda

Funny for the Western public, the Russian problem "vote or not to vote?" Again at the stage of exacerbation. There are more and more supporters of the boycott , the opponents of the boycott are more convincing . Voter in thought. As often happens in our Fatherland, we are on the same side with our hearts on the other.

Generally speaking, existential torment in society on the topic of elections is the phenomenon in itself that is encouraged. This means that the situation is ambiguous and the possibilities for meaningful choice are still remaining. The meaning of participation in the elections can not be thought in stable democracies where the elections form power, and in totalitarian countries where the elections are empty formality. Unfortunately, we have not the first and, fortunately, not the second. We are in an indistinct historical situation, when the democratic choice of some is encountered on the conservative resistance of others. What will come of it, God news. But no matter what ultimately comes out, a reasonable person living in Moscow needs to decide what he will do on September 8.

One recipe is forever and for everyone and, probably, there will be no long time. Today, participation in the elections can be called either an absolute evil or an absolute good. We are far from absolute assessments. But more than enough relative. In other words, there are many pluses and many minuses. Their ratio is dictated by a personal choice for each specific voter.

The serious advantages of participation in the elections include the uniqueness of the Moscow situation: it seems that for the first time in many years almost all polling stations will be under the control of independent observers. This will allow you to obtain real and accurate data on the election results even before official information is announced. Moscow society will look at itself in the election mirror, see its political reflection and understand what it is. This is important even regardless of who takes the mayor’s chair. I believe, for example, that in this way the myth of the serious influence in the company's society will be destroyed.

Another plus is that, by falsifying the results of the vote, the authorities will be before the risk of repeating the events of December 2011, when tens of thousands of people went to the streets to protest against falsifications. If, under the threat of mass protests, the Kremlin now does not decide on the usual deception, then he will have to give up a little power.

Another more, more theoretical, rather than a practical plus of participation in the elections, is that society supports the institution of elections as such, not allowing it to atrophy from inaction. In addition, this does not allow lovers of authoritarianism to be hypocritical to say that Russia is not ready for democracy.

There are, however, the disadvantages. The most significant is that we legitimize the participation in the current elections, to put it mildly, an imperfect electoral system. We agree for the sake of political dividends to participate in elections that obviously do not meet modern ideas about democratic electoral law. In fact, we agree with arbitrariness.

The next minus is a continuation of the previous one. If there is no such miracle as a velvet revolution or triumphal victory of the opposition candidate, then the elections will contribute to strengthen the regime, preserve the imperfect electoral system and add legitimacy in the eyes of some part of society.

Another minus is that the opposition, playing according to the rules imposed on it by the Kremlin, lowers itself to the level of power and carries inevitable reputational losses. In the long run, this may have catastrophic consequences. It is worth it to turn back and recall how in the 90s, during the presidency of Boris Yeltsin, the sprouts of the democratic opposition were reliably destroyed by the immoderate thirst for democrats at all costs to participate in power.

Against the backdrop of a fundamental choice "vote or not to vote?" The identities of the candidates are fading into the background. Nevertheless, there is a reason for thoughts. There are only two sane candidates for the position of mayor - Sergey Mitrokhin and Alexei Navalny. To each of them, any democrat has a bunch of complaints. As a rule, completely fair. If we chose a king for ourselves, then not one of them would have come. But we choose the mayor, and anyone will fit. The reason for this is quite simple - the border between acceptable candidates and unacceptable lies in their relation to the change of power. Everything else is also important, but not in the first place. It seems that neither Mitrokhin nor Navalny usurp power by abandoning honest elections. This is their main difference from all other candidates and the party in power. Therefore, for those who decide to participate in the elections, there is no significant difference for which two of them to vote. At least in the first round. And in the second, if it happens, this question will disappear by itself.

Russian society was very often confronted with the need to vote for the smaller of two evils. It was disgusting and worthy of boycott. Today in the Moscow city elections the situation is different. Opposition candidates, of course, are not very good. One was bogged down in dubious agreements with the authorities, the other was stained with nationalist rhetoric. However, in the military language, we and these candidates are not in one trench, but on one side of the front. Therefore, if one of them becomes the mayor or the reason for the velvet revolution, it will be quite good. And if we are mistaken in them, then Moscow will survive it.