"The chances of winning now worsened"

Participants in the democratic coalition explain why she fell apart

Late in the evening of April 27, opposition politicians Alexei Navalny and Vladimir Milov left the democratic coalition, which was supposed to take part in the September elections to the State Duma. Navalny and his supporters are dissatisfied with the fact that the leader of the Parnassus party (on the basis of this coalition registered in the party’s Ministry of Justice) Mikhail Kasyanov refused to compete with other candidates for intra -party primaries. The Parnassus itself claims that Kasyanov’s first place in the list is the result of the agreements of all members of the coalition, and the decision of Navalny to leave the coalition is dictated by a demonstration on the air of the “Casyanov Day” broadcast. Medusa found out from representatives of political forces that were part of the democratic coalition, as they relate to the collapse of the unification.

Aleksey Navalny, who left the coalition, explained that the decision of the coalition to put Kasyanov with the first number of the list and rid him of the primaries procedure is an error. “You can’t deceive anyone here, it is clear that the first number is the most important thing that is in the election campaign, and we are faced with a complete lack of interest in the primaries. Anyone can make a mistake, it is important to recognize it and fix it, ”he wrote on his blog (he ignored the request of Medusa about the comment). At a meeting of the Council of the Democratic Coalition on April 27, according to Navalny, four of its five members (Libertarians, the December 5 party, the Party of Progress and “Democratic Choice”) said that “they consider it necessary to return to the original plan: the primaries for the entire list without benefits and privileges.” However, Parnassus blocked this decision (in the coalition they were made only by consensus). Parnassus also refused to accept the proposal of the December 5 party to allow the dispute about Kasyanov’s participation in the primaries by the vote of registered voters. “In this situation, we - a party of progress - do what we owe. We continue to consider Parnas to be our political ally, but we declare our non -participation in the party list, ”Navalny said.

Konstantin Merzlikin

Deputy Chairman of the Parnas party, the closest ally of Mikhail Kasyanov

A general sensation is, of course, regret. It seems to us that this is a big mistake [Navalny and Milov], since those reasons that are formulated in justification of this decision are extremely unconvincing. We are convinced that the agreements reached in the coalition in December must be carried out. We were guided by them until the last day and do not see that something such in the country had happened that would make us revise these agreements.

This whole story with a revision of the agreements began after the notorious film “Kasyanov Day”, and we were presented to us that his show, they say, changed the situation and therefore Kasyanov should confirm his legitimacy on the primaries or even leave the list and move aside. We consider such a reason insignificant and are absolutely convinced that voters expect from us an adequate reaction to such provocations by the authorities - demonstration of resistance, partnership and mutual support.

Such episodes should only consolidate us, especially since they relate not only to Kasyanov. Let me remind you that they soon showed an equally provocative film regarding Navalny. If you follow the logic, then he also had to make a deep impression on us and we would not have to sit next to Navalny now, since he is now perceived by many viewers as a CIA spy. We are convinced that one cannot be guided by the principle of "there is a provocation, we must react and throw our own."

At the same time, we believe that nothing fatal has happened yet, and for the most part, candidates, supported by the “demo” and the Party of Progress, do not intend to act from the elections, or from the elections. There is an opportunity to catch up. The release of Navalny from the political process, of course, reduces our resources, but we believe that he will change his mind and join in the work in accordance with the basic agreements that we consider as something unshakable and unchanged.

- Why not sacrifice this part of the agreements in order to maintain unity?

- No, this is impossible. In any other situation, it might be possible, but in a situation where it looks - and it is! - As a reaction to the provocations of power, it is completely impossible. In December, our colleagues from the Party of Progress and the Demos convinced their supporters that the decision was correct, that Kasyanov is the best of the former prime ministers, that he is a very promising candidate, that he is the only one except Navalny, an absolutely recognizable person. I ask them the question: "What happened?" They say: "Film." And since the film, all the more, no one should review anything, because in the eyes of people it looks like a deflection. Well, someone else will be the first number, but they will also show a film about him. And then?

- Publicly they say not about the film, but, for example, about the lack of interest in primaries.

- This is not the problem of Kasyanov, but our common problem. To argue that in connection with the show of the film, interest in primaries has decreased is at least a distortion. We very much hoped that Navalny and his colleagues use their media capabilities on the Internet and in other communicative environments to promote this story. Now it looks like this: "You could not do it, but I have nothing to do with it." Why? We are one team.

Yes, there are problems. But who said that they would not be? Someone thought there would be no pressure? Someone thought that there was no need to come up with new moves so that people believe and participate in the history of the primaries? All this was clear on the shore. And now [the actions of Navalny] look like a flight from the ship. They threw the oars and watch how we can handle it.

- If Navalny looks like this, then Kasyanov in the eyes of voters now looks like a person who is afraid to go to the primaries.

- There are voters who were not immediately satisfied with the decision about the first issue of Kasyanov. Navalny himself found arguments and convinced these people that this was a good solution. What has changed? Nothing!

- From the outside, in any case, it does not seem that Kasyanov and you made a maximum to prevent Navalny’s exit from the coalition.

- We are guided by the basic agreements that there is no reason to review. Creating a precedent is a harmful story for our common cause. Where are the guarantees that the day after tomorrow there will be no more condition or that it will not be necessary to reconsider something else? So we are not used to it. I may be a person of another warehouse, but if I gave some word, then I cannot refuse him for some unconvincing far-fetched reasons.

- It turns out that the agreements are more important than the common cause that you yourself are talking about.

- The fact is that the supremacy of the rules is a democratic value. There are rules. If there is no reason to cancel them, then we act on them. This is democracy, this is our value. What supremacy of law can we discuss in this regard? For ourselves, we came up with actually the legislation in which we acted, and now we say: “No, not. The error came out. Let's change. "

I do not need such elections that people who do not give a damn about the right, for agreements come to power. I am not ready to participate in this. If people gave a word, and now they use objectionable reasons to abandon it, then this is absolutely unacceptable. We cannot bend. I am even surprised why I should argue so much. For me, it is like twice two four. Gave the word - execute.

Denis Bilunov

Member of the Federal Coordination Council of the Unregistered Party December 5

This is all quite regrettable. [Deputy Chairman of Parnas] Ilya Yashin ( refused to comment - approx. Medusa) , which all began , was wrong. Another thing is that people tend to make mistakes, and it was necessary to somehow stop conflicts and look for a compromise. The leadership of Parnas in the person of Kasyanov and Merzlikin decided that any attempt to look for a compromise would mean weakness. This is a common point of view, but it is almost always erroneous.

The coalition, on the other hand, consists not only of Kasyanov and Navalny, and we, for our part, tried to find a compromise, but our significant efforts, unfortunately, were in vain. It seems to me that Kasyanov and Navalny simply decided for themselves that they did not need to be in partnership. I can only guess why.

I do not understand the rational motives of Navalny to torpedoing the coalition. Yashin, perhaps, had an emotional reaction, but Navalny was a pragmatic person, and I do not see a single sober argument in favor of what happened. On the contrary, he could cool the situation, but did not. What does he want in return? It is unlikely that a strategy for complete ignoring the elections can work as it was in the elections to the Moscow City Duma. If [in the party of progress] decided that this story is a failure and it is necessary to jump off it rather, then it looks inexpensive.

Speaking of rational motives, the film cannot be seriously considered at all. There is probably a problem with money, but this argument is weak, it is decided not by public scandals, but by negotiations. There are much more minuses to refuse elections than hypothetical advantages.

The Libertarian Party and - almost certainly - the party on December 5 will not take sharp movements. I personally think that the common position is as follows: we spent a year of life, money and strength - and why suddenly we should tell us the head to say that this is a mistake? No, this is stupidity. You can say as much as you like that it is not the most successful decision to set Kasyanov with the first number, but if you started to do some business and spent money, then we must come to the end.

The interest of candidates to run for single -mandate districts is preserved. Parnasu needs as many single -mandate as possible to go, and the candidates are interested in not collecting signatures.

In 2009, I spent a lot of time on the recovery of the [opposition policy of Harry] Kasparov with Boris Nemtsov, but even then I concluded that the conflicts were inevitable. This is not a feature of the liberal opposition - just due to circumstances, the opposition is more in sight, and the same things happen in system parties, but is subcutaneous. This is the nature of people.

Konstantin Yankauskas

Member of the Standing Committee of the Unregistered Party on December 5, the municipal deputy of the Zyuzino district, is going to run for the State Duma in the Cheremushkinsky single -mandate district in Moscow

I will not leave the coalition, because I want to win the elections in a single -mandate district where I can win and where we have already done a lot. It is very sad that the collapse occurred. We completely forgot about our supporters and voters, again brought the situation to the point that people have disappointedly write that the Democrats were again quarreled.

Yesterday there was a cunning situation when no one was able to find a compromise on any issue, even according to a candidate for CAO. Minorities of the type of party on December 5 or the Libertarian Party tried to look for a consensus solution, but it was not possible to find it, and Navalny and Milov decided to go out. I am very upset that everything was so over.

Now the parties will be rushed with charges. Yes, we have a crisis not so much because of the film, but due to how our campaign is conducted, how the regional headquarters work, how many people are recorded in primaries. This is actually due to the fact that the first place in the list was distributed by agreements, and the film became a detonator and a catalyst.

We agreed that Kasyanov would lead the list on the primaries and takes on political leadership. Merzlikin headed the headquarters, but the mistake is that we did not formalize the party’s responsibility for the work of the headquarters in any specific numbers. Could Kasyanov ride the regions more? Could probably. But these are internal questions, it is not interesting for people.

We expected that there would be a big responsibility for the result. When the conflict began, then, as Milov wrote correctly, an escalation began on the part of Parnassus. When it was already a question that Kasyanov and two more people will receive places in the federal list without primaries, [member of the Central Council of the Party of Progress] Leonid Volkov, Yashin and Milov, who claimed leading places, were upset.

It is upset that we quarreled again, and is upset by the situation with [lawyer of the Fund for the fight against corruption of love] Sobol ( in the Parnassus we decided to nominate a single -mandate according to the CAO of the historian Andrei Zubov, although Sables wanted to run there - and they refused to conduct separate primaries between them - approx. Medusa ), which fiddle for a month, was the best one -mandate, it was the best one -mandate. She really had work in the field, there was a fundraising.

In general, the discontent of the people by “United Russia” has not gone anywhere, we were left without Navalny, making a “EP” gift ourselves, but we will continue to cut for victory.

Love Sobol

Member of the Central Council of the Unregistered Party of Progress, lawyer of the Corruption Fund, is going to run for the State Duma in the Central One -member District in Moscow

I myself am dissatisfied with the [collapse of the coalition] and as a person who wants to see the opposition of united, strong and in leading positions, I believe that it was possible to find compromises - and it is very bad that they could not find them. I supported the coalition in all possible ways: I wrote posts, participated in the headquarters of the Kostroma campaign, gathered a team in CAO for a month. For me, this situation is uncomfortable and unpleasant.

Now the Party of Progress has prepared a statement that it does not participate in the coalition in the elections to the State Duma, but [does not interfere] to individual candidates to participate in elections in single -mandate districts in personal quality and negotiate independently with any parties. I will take this opportunity - and in personal quality, I will conduct such negotiations both with Parnassus and with any parties except United Russia.

I still claim the role of a single opposition candidate in CAO. I am ready for honest competition and ready to continue to cooperate with Parnas. With the decision of the party, I do not agree to refuse to carry out the primaries in the Central Administrative District. I understand the prerequisites for this decision, the situation came [to a dead end] for many reasons. I think that now Parnassus has the opportunity to change the solution. All bridges have not yet been burned, and I'm not going to burn them for sure. If Parnassus is ready to negotiate with me as with love Sobol, and not as a party of progress, I am ready to be the best candidate for this party.

The history of the Democialization was built on two principles - on the nomination on the base of Parnas and on the primaries in all controversial moments. It was because of this, due to honest competition, and not the approval of the candidate, I entered the coalition, and did not go to negotiate with Yabloko. The vast majority of supporters of the Party of Progress voted for primaries in all places of the list, taking into account the current situation.

I really want to become a single candidate. If Parnassus is not ready to nominate me under any conditions, I will conduct more dense negotiations with the Yabloko party. As far as I know, they do not yet have a publicly declared candidate for CAO.

Andrey Pivovarov

The co-chair of the St. Petersburg branch of the Parnassus party is going to run for the State Duma in the Krasnogvardeisky and Kalinin districts of St. Petersburg

Search for the guilty is a good process, but first of all this is a blow to everyone: who participates in the elections and who is not. [The collapse of the coalition] will drop us two to three years ago in terms of confidence of voters.

The propaganda film NTV should not affect the change in agreements. Using the Kremlin propaganda for the collapse of the coalition is wrong. The initial claim is a pornographic film, and all other grounds are the transfer of the dates of voting of the primaries, the conflict according to CAOs is secondary. They are used to justify the exit, because we knew that colleagues are going to go out before.

In St. Petersburg, at the regional level, we do not have a collapse of the coalition and all agreements are respected. Colleagues from the Party of Progress will be advanced on the Parnassus list. I am sure that the chances of winning now have worsened: the conflict on voters is valid, and if Navalny and colleagues do not campaign for the list, then this is a blow. Our list of elections to the Legislative Assembly of St. Petersburg has a chance to overcome a five percent barrier, but with a federal scandal, of course, they decrease.

The most important thing is that nothing ends in the elections to the State Duma, but how we will interact after them, it is incomprehensible. Previously, such a split in the coalition, so that people leave the coalition before the elections, accusing each other of disrupting the agreements.

Andrey Schalnev

The leader of the unregistered Libertarian Party, intends to run for the State Duma in the Sergiev Posad one-mandate district

The Libertarian party is not going to leave the coalition, because for us it is more important to participate in the elections to the State Duma in single -member districts - and we leave the freedom to our candidates in them.

I will also participate in the primaries, since for me this is primarily the obligation within the framework of agreements on participation in the campaign in single -mandate districts.

Мы тоже участвовали в предложении Касьянову разыграть на праймериз первое место в списке и других компромиссных вариантов, но он, к сожалению, не прислушался. Ситуация негативная и очень неприятная, и политическая ответственность за результат теперь лежит на «Парнасе». Касьянов мог хотя бы согласиться на праймериз по ЦАО. Это был бы компромиссный ход, который позволил бы избежать негатива. Впрочем, может, он еще сможет продемонстрировать результат на выборах и доказать, что был прав.

Что касается претензий к Касьянову, то когда мы все начинали и отдавали первое место в списке Касьянову, то ожидали, что «Парнас» будет более активно участвовать в избирательных процессах. Пока это участие находится не на таком высоком уровне, чтобы рассчитывать на серьезный результат, и это, наверное, одна из основных причин, почему разговор [о судьбе коалиции и праймериз] вновь возник в апреле.

Ilya Azar

Moscow