The strength of the "Apple" party

Lev Schlosberg and Sergey Mitrokhin - about the intra -party discussion on the eve of the election of the chairman of the Democratic Party "Yabloko"

The congress of the Democratic Party "Yabloko" will be held on December 19–20 in Moscow. 164 of the delegate will elect a new party leadership-the chairman of the party, members of the political committee and the bureau, the control and audit commission and party arbitration. It is expected that the political committee will invite the congress to introduce an amendment to the charter of the party, which limits the deadline for the chairman at the post with two 4-year periods. If this amendment is adopted, then neither the current chairman Sergey Mitrokhin, nor the leader and founder of the party Grigory Yavlinsky, will be able to be elected to the highest party posts. At the same time, Sergei Mitrokhin himself had already stated that he did not agree with the proposed amendment, and announced his intention to run for chairmen.

On the eve of the congress, one of the candidates for this post, Lev Schlosberg, chairman of the Pskov regional branch of the Yabloko party, and until recently, the deputy of the Pskov Regional Assembly, made an open letter in which he indicated that the chairman’s competitive elections became a large test for the “apple” - both the political and psychological, since the first history of the Yabloko party was on the eve of the congress He cannot say with confidence who will become the chairman.

- Why do you think that these elections, this congress became a test for the "apple"? What is the main meaning of your message?

People have something to discuss. If the party’s activities were meaningless, no one would discuss anything

- This message is based on that intra -party discussion, very tense, which is on December 4, when the political committee openly announced a list of candidates for the post of chairman of the party for public discussion. The discussion goes both inside the party and in society. The discussion turned out to be very painful. Many people are criticized extremely harshly, expressing an opinion about certain options for the outcome of the elections and, accordingly, the influence of this outcome on the fate of the party and the fate of Russia. Opinions appeared ultimate, sharp. People split. The discussion goes on the verge of a foul. And in places, excuse me, behind the facet of the foul. I see this, because I read something, somewhere I even participated in something, expressed my opinion. Where questions were asked directly to me, I had to answer these questions, simply due to the publicity of this situation. I believe that this discussion should make the party stronger, not weaker. She should show that the Democratic Party is able to hold open competitive elections of the party chairman, is capable of not destroying, but to intensify. But for this you need to create a certain tuning fork. I, having read some discussions, mainly, of course, in social networks, but not only, I realized that in some discussions there is a high level of aggression, when people do not want to listen to each other, hear each other, put forward ultimatums, accusations, express undeserved, unjust, cruel, not based on reliable information. This is what inevitably happens in any public discussion. It just happened in the "apple" that this is the first competitive electoral cycle inside the party. It was always clear before the congress of the party who would win the election of the chairman. Yabloko had several such congresses. And everyone knew - now there will be Yavlinsky. Then he left, handed the post to Mitrokhin. And even at the congress, where Mitrokhin was elected, it was initially clear that he would win both Popov and Reznik. There was also a competition, but the participants in these elections themselves - both Popov and Reznik - knew that most of the congress for Mitrokhin would vote on the recommendation of the outgoing chairman of Yavlinsky. Now the situation is different. And now the real competition in the elections led to the fact that the ethical standards of the intra -party and public discussion were in some discussions, in my opinion, are questioned. Party ethics are above all. You may not agree with the majority and the minority, but you must remain within the framework of human relations, human conversation.

- This fierce intra -party discussion, which you are talking about, shows the worst side of the "apple"?

- The strongest! People have something to discuss. If the party’s activities were meaningless, no one would discuss anything. People would not have been worried about who will be the chairman. If there is no sense, and there is no prospect of bringing the party to the necessary level of political work and to come to the success of the elections, then no one needs the position of chairman of this party. And whoever takes it is not interested in anyone and does not cause either public interest or discussion. Therefore, this caused a serious all -Russian public discussion. She went beyond the scope of the party instantly, literally on the very first day.

- Do you advocate an amendment to the charter that limits the deadline for the chairman at your post?

- This is a question for discussion at the congress. To do this, collect 2/3 of the vote of the congress. I believe that in this situation it is advisable to make an “Yabloko” decision that is not in the European political tradition. Neither in the UK, nor in France, nor in Germany there is a tradition of restricting political terms for the chairmen of the party. Because democracy is stable, its mechanisms work, and parties are able to optimize on their own. If the party is at an ineffective politician at the head of the party, then the party will replace it in order to successfully speak in the elections. Accordingly, this issue is not relevant for European countries. They have a self -regulatory political system. For Russia, which is in a situation of obvious political stagnation, the Democratic Party must declare the initiative to limit the powers of the highest official and the replacement of the head within the party. To make it clear to society that when we win the elections, we will do the same in the country as at ourselves. Not two in a row, as it is crafty recorded in the Constitution of Russia, but two terms and a point. Here you need to set an example. At the congress I will vote for this amendment, regardless of how it limits the rights of specific elections participants that will take place at the congress.

- Speaking specifically about the Yabloko party, how important is the difference between the leader and the party chairman? Does this form of existence of the leadership complicate all its activities?

- There is no position of leader. The party’s charter has one senior official - the chairman of the party. There is nothing more in the charter of the party. There is a party chairman, there is a political committee, there is a bureau, there is a federal council - this is a representation of the regions, an advisory body, and there is a congress. "Yabloko" has no position of the party leader.

The question of the unification of democrats in Russia is not a matter of uniting elites. This is a matter of unification of the company around the political party to which people will trust their representative office in parliament

- But you are one of the candidates for the post of chairman of the party. If you lead her, will you do precisely by party reconstruction?

- This is inevitable. Only for this it is necessary for at least two years. The cycle of regional party governing bodies is two years, the general party - 4 years. Therefore, now for the party chairman the number one task will be the maximum consolidation of not only the party, but also the company, civil society in Russia, in the elections to the State Duma. This will be an absolutely priority and initial task. The situation of apple reform is a minimum of two -year process, and, given the difference in the terms of powers of regional branches, the need to restructure work in many large regions that need a strengthening that need help so as not to spoil the work, and to make it better, this is more effective - this is about 3 years. As a matter of fact, the first term of the party chairman will largely go to strengthen the party itself.

- September 18 next year, elections to the State Duma of Russia are coming. What changes, in your opinion, the "apple" should approach this date?

- I do not think that the party’s program as such will change. I think that the party should formulate a wide civilian platform in the process of preparing for elections to the State Duma and combine the maximum number of voters of Russia around this platform. Our interaction vector should be directly on society, not to the political elite, which is weak, small and does not correspond to public requests, but to society itself. The question of the unification of democrats in Russia is not a matter of uniting elites. This is a matter of unification of the society around the political party that people will trust their representative office in parliament.

- Could you name for the voter in 2016 the main trump card of the party, which will distinguish it from everyone else?

“I can do this at the party congress.” This will be a separate performance at the congress. I will not announce it to the congress.

The current chairman of the Yabloko party , Sergei Mitrokhin, considers the amendment to limit the deadlines for the stay in this post unnecessary:

- I do not support this amendment. I voted against her at a meeting of the political committee. I believe that this is an artificial restriction. Comparison with the post of president of the post of chairman of the party is far -fetched, since the president is a person who has great power. Of course, she needs such a tough time restriction. The party chairman is not so much power as work. Yes, this, of course, is a certain status, but this is primarily work. And the party chairman leaves at the moment when the party believes that he begins to work poorly, to work worse. And then there are elections on a competitive basis. And this chairman terminates his powers. If you artificially limit it, it turns out that he is a strong contender for this post, has a chance to preserve it, but he is artificially sewn from this struggle, reduce the level of competition in the struggle for the post of chairman, which means the quality of work of the next chairman is reduced. Because not the strongest, not the most experienced occupies this post. And all this is very dangerous to do on the eve of the election. Because the election is tough. The most suitable candidate should lead to the elections, from the point of view of his energy, opinions, effort, etc. And it turns out that if someone is artificially sewn, then such a person may not become a chairman. In this sense, I believe that this is completely far -fetched. Unlike the state, the party does not exist in order to realize the existing power, but in order to come to power. And if the party itself sets up some obstacles on this path, some barriers, it means that it reduces its chances of coming to power. That's all. Therefore, I will defend my point of view at the congress. And my forecast is that the congress will not support this amendment.

• 

  Andrey Sharogradsky

  International Radio Offer Freedom. Author and host of the information and analytical digest, podcast "Time of Freedom"

• 

  Alexander GOSTEV

  The editor of the RS information service, international observer, author and editor of the heading and podcast "Atlas of the World"

  Gosteva@rferl.org