Translated material
Your voice
Your voice September 14, 2016, George Satarov 
WHAT DOES IT MEAN?
Eleanor Roosevelt in the United States was often more popular than his husband-president. And deserved. It was very shallow and energetic lady. The following saying is attributed to her: "Medial personalities are gossiping about people, middle people - about events, smart people - about ideas." Therefore, it touches me when one of the main arguments for refusing to participate in the votes in Russia uses certain negative qualities of political leaders, including supporting ones.
Let us realize the uncomplicated thought: there are no ideal politicians in nature. However, this applies not to politicians - any men and women too. And if on this basis we would refuse to enter into intimacy with the individuals of the opposite sex, then humanity would immediately die out. And it’s logical. Think for yourself: “Well, how am I to him (with her) will conceive a child if all his (her) shortcomings are transmitted to him!?” (We usually do not remember our own).
In this position there is another paint. The abstracter (we will call people refraining from participation in the elections) extremely highly appreciates its voice (which is usually a consequence of high self -esteem, often quite fair). Participation in the elections where he sacrifices this wealth is considered by him as a personal gift (during voting) to some policy (presidential candidate, party leader, etc.). And he (abstinant) naturally thinks whether this policy is worthy of his gift.
I answer at once: none of the politicians of your gift is worthy. But it should not be from this that it is not necessary to vote. And the reason is very simple: if we are not stupid people, then we understand: we do not vote for a specific politician, but for the possible we expected the possible consequences of our vote, for the changes that we all want. Only this is important. Please note: I emphasized the word "possible." I honestly admit the fact that the victory secured by your votes (about the meaning of the word we will talk later) your candidate (party) only creates an opportunity for the consequences, changes you need, but never guarantees them. But your mass abstinence guarantees the absence of the consequences you need (changes). I explain: a marriage with a person loved by a person does not guarantee a happy family life, but is only its prerequisite. For a happy family life, much more is needed, including your constant efforts. But if you refuse to marry (in the broad sense of the word), then you are definitely ensured by the lack of a happy family life. So, I hope, clearer.
In politics, as in life. Your vote is just an initial condition. To get the result you need, you need something else. But I will talk about this in the last article of this cycle. In the meantime, a resume: in order to reach the goal, you need to take the first step. Trite. But this does not cease to be the truth, which is often forgotten.
What does it mean to “win”?
I am convinced that my readers want the same as me. So that it was not ashamed of their citizenship. In order for any frostbitten cattle to be punished according to the law, as well as sophisticated prohibitive thieves, when they violate the laws in different ways, and that the innocent do not put in prison. So that it was possible without shame to root for their own at the Olympiads and world championships. So that honest elections are the norm, like an independent court. So that in order to get a good education it was not necessary to go abroad. That would not be deadly hopeless and scary to get sick and treat in your country. Simple and understandable things, of which I certainly listed not all.
Therefore, I am perplexed when active abstracts say: “What is the point of participating in these elections if victory is impossible!?” I am indignant, because behind this argument the position that takes the wall between the sages, who infuriated to the truth, and all the others - idiots whose saliva flows from the corner of the mouth. Here I am, for example, such an idiot, in their opinion.
But enough unproductive anger. Let's get back again to simple truths. What could be called an unconditional victory? Well, for example: an apple gains 35 percent (places!), Parnassus another 17, satellites from majority districts stretch to the winners. And in the Duma, the confident majority that can expand the country in the right direction! The point is not that this is unreal nonsense. Everything is much worse: such a victory is also only a condition for possible changes. After all, the skeptic will say (and I agree with him): “You, Mr. Satarov yourself said that there are no ideal politicians. And where are the guarantees that these winners also do not mean, and everything will remain in the old!? ” My answer is already known: “You want guarantees - sit at home. Nothing is guaranteed to change or get worse. ” And if not about guarantees, but about increasing chances (and this is the only possible in our lives), then this is to the last article.
None of the intelligent people, including Yavlinsky and Kasyanov, counts that the entering into the Duma of a small group of opposition will lead to a simultaneous “dream of dreams” that I listed at the beginning of the text. Let's reason differently. If you sit at home and contribute to the plans of the authorities to reduce the turnout and not to change anything in the Duma, then it will definitely not be better and with a high probability - worse ( see the article of Oreshkin in the new newspaper ). If we are realists, then we understand that the path to the dream is not easy and long. It has a lot of steps, and each next step, if he is on this path, is another victory. Your coming to the elections is the first victory: over your passivity and skepticism. A small group of your representatives in the Duma is the next victory.
And here you have (or surfaced from your memory) a very good objection, it is also an important argument in defense of abstinence.
What can they?
And so I say: "A small group of your representatives in the Duma is your next victory." And as if I hear in response from you: "What can they!?" And true, well, what can change in the adoption of laws a group of deputies of 20-30 people. Do not adopt laws with such a number of votes. Agree, rightly captured.
I'll start with another simple truth. Never (I emphasize-never!) Serious socio-political changes did not begin by the majority (I emphasize-did not begin). The minority of society began to change. And the possibility of such changes was determined by the quality of the minority, and not its number. I turn to those who remember how changes in the USSR began in the late eighties. Remember the interregional deputy group and compare it with the aggressive-listening majority of the Congress of People's Deputies (in the words of Yuri Afanasyev). What is called - feel the difference. The appearance at the congress of this minority - the first legal Soviet opposition after the war - was an important step towards the death of a dead end and destructive Bolshevik experiment on people and history.
And I remind you to forget: at the head of the giant political demonstrations of that time (not the Pervomaisky, of course), deputies from this minority went like a shield. And also about the quality: compare our rallies, at least the current and rallies to which the authorities drives obedient herds.
And now briefly about the fact that this handful of your representatives can and must do.
First: after a large break inside the Russian government, even a small, but public, legal and legitimate, law -protected core of a real political opposition, should appear and may appear. Its presence is an indispensable condition for the growth of street opposition and strengthening its authority. Finally, the spike between the opposition within the authorities and outside it sharply increases the chances of successful peaceful changes. This is not an opinion, but facts.
Second: this is the core of the opposition within the authorities can and should begin a change in the atmosphere in society (here are my own technologies that I will not write about here). After some time, people in the country should feel that other winds, “winds of change” blew. Nothing changes without this. This change in “political weather” will further lead to an increase in the number and authority of the opposition, including a public opposition within the authorities.
Third: these are decision -making, including rather important ones, inside the Duma. According to our Constitution (Article 125), to appeal to the Constitutional Court on the constitutionality of the norms of various laws, it is enough to make a group of deputies in 90 people. I claim that under certain conditions this is more than real. In particular, if what is already described in the first two points. I will return to the creation of such opportunities in the Duma. Without dwelling on other individual possibilities, I note the following important circumstance established by political science. The influence of the fraction in parliament is determined not so much by its size as the ability to chop the majority on important issues that cause a split among deputies. Below I will write why this is possible in the next Duma.
“All this is fine,” you say, “but not real. Our voices are just too few. Where will our faction come from in the Duma? ” Here we will deal with this in the next text.
Photo: Mikhail Postuev / TASS
| Print version |
-
Georgy Satarov -
Konstantin von Eggert: The victory of the Social Democrats in Germany is a good event for Putin. This party is known for its long -standing dialogue with Russia at all costs.
