Translated material
Your Voice-2
Your Voice-2 September 15, 2016, George Satarov 
And how many of us?
So we reached the next murderous objection: "There are too few of us." Here I have to apologize to the readers and warn that below I will use not so obvious considerations that higher.
The country is hypnotized by the widely replicated data of inadequate sociology. This is often not even the result of malicious intent, but simply insufficient qualifications. Here, for example, is the data of a sociological study of the Indem Foundation, which was carried out about a year ago. The questionnaire contained the question of the degree of trust of respondents to various institutions and characters, among whom was the current president. The result of the latter: “I completely trust” - 35.8%; “I rather trust” - 42.8%; “I rather not trust” - 13.4%; “I don't trust” at all ” - 5.5%; “I find it difficult to answer” - 2.5%. Typically, the first two percent are added and they call this amount the level of trust in the president. In this case, it is 78.6% - quite close to known numbers. But such summation is possible when public opinion is in a healthy state. Then the answers “completely trust” and “rather trust” can be interpreted as related intervals on some unavailable continuous scale of the degree of trust. In our case, this model does not work, which is caused by total and aggressive pressure on public opinion and the consciousness of citizens. In particular, a group of respondents who choose the answer “completely trust” has a distinct and understandable socio-political person. And and the second group of choosing the answer “rather trust” such a person, since the choice of this answer is due not to the degree of trust, but by a conformist flight from a frank answer.
In the field of interest of current political sociology, there are several such plots where the answer comes from a distorted public opinion. Therefore, the share of the ill -wishers of the current government cannot be estimated by the interest similar to the above. But this is exactly what we are offered, and we take it for a clean coin and build on these data our ideas about the situation in the country, about our fellow citizens, about the chances of influencing the situation, about the advisability of going to the elections and vote.
It is important to understand that public opinion does not degenerate total, but only in areas of total propaganda pressure. When citizens are asked about the plots to which the Kremlin propagandists are indifferent, we have high chances of getting more reliable (albeit somewhat shifted) results. For example, according to the last survey of the Levada Center, 32.5% of respondents believe that the country is moving in the wrong direction; more than 61% do not approve of the activities of the State Duma; 40% believe that Putin is responsible for the main problems of the country, including the increase in the cost of life; More than 37% evaluate the economic situation in the country as bad; More than 34% believe that Putin expresses the interests of security forces, and 28% - oligarchs. I stop. Please note that if the topic is not imposed by television, then the judgments on it are more adequate. And they could be completely adequate if the same plots were discussed freely with an equal representation of all points of view.
So, I argue that we, potentially ready to vote in the elections against this regime and for the possibility of changes in the country, are significantly more than imposed by inadequate sociology. I will still return to this plot. After we deal with moral problems.
Why, it’s a shame!
I mean the thesis that to go vote shamefully and immorally, since this is nothing more than participation in the game according to the rules of criminal power, which legitimes the regime and extends his life. In its most consistent expression, this position implies full escapism - the flight from everything related to politics, leaving for private life, self -improvement, etc. They often add: "Here will be honest elections, then I will go to vote." The question of how honest elections will appear, either remains unanswered, or causes a call to go to the barricades. An attempt to explain that this is exactly what the regime awaits, creating the National Guard and pumping the lion's part of our taxes into institutes of violence, causes anger that blocks further discussion. The same reaction is caused by a reminder of the obvious facts indicating the efforts of power to reduce the turnout in the elections in every way. Therefore, there is no one to ask further the question: “Is it moral to participate in such a game of power, thereby strengthening it and prolonging its prosperity?”
But this is not the main thing. The bottom line is that these justifications of the immorality of opposition politicians and citizens who intend to participate in the elections contain as obvious as the dishonest substitution of concepts. After all, the game of power is not in bad laws, but in constant practice of violation of their own laws and manipulating these laws under the cover of obedient courts. Or maybe one of the supporters of the position that I had disputed saw how any member of the “Yabloko” is put a pack of ballots into the ballot box or is one of the Parnassus organizing a “carousel” at the plots? With the same success, the dissidents of the 70s could be accused of strengthening the USSR with the help of their call "Fulfill your constitution!" For clarity: if the Putin regime, preserving the same incentive motives, would not have been constantly and universally acting constitution, we would live in another country, and this cycle of articles would not be needed.
If they tell me that it is impossible to honestly defeat this power, then I will not hesitate to answer: “Brad!” Only honestly and possible, because this is the first thing that should distinguish the opposition from the current government and create a contrast that is understandable to voters and expected by them.
And here the main trump card appears: “This power is the monster, the stizno, barking ...” (I do not continue, you were all at school.) “... and therefore it is impossible to win it. All the same, they will write in the protocol what they need. And now they still started the game in imitation of honest elections. And participating in this is already quite indecent. ”
There have never been and will never be absolutely effective repressive modes. The fate of all those who formed this. So it will be with this. But what will happen to the country and with many of us depends on what we will do now and what kind of prerequisites are in the regime itself. This will be a conversation in the next article. Let's talk about the game in honest elections and other consequences of the actions of the authorities.
And they will have an honest choice of?!
I hasten readers to reassure (and who to disappoint): they will not have honest elections. Honest elections do not come down to impeccable votes. They have little and honestly conducted election campaign (and it has not been visible for a long time). Honest elections begins with full political competition, which is honest year -round. And not two months at five years old. There is no such political competition at all. Honest elections are not only a counting of votes, but also an equal election campaign, which is not there either. We see this on persecution. detention of candidates - representatives of the opposition. “Then, what Ella Aleksandrovna’s escapades mean towards the members of her electoral vertical, violating their electoral laws?” The right question. Some political commentators, whose opinion I share, believe that Putin needs to present his future choice honest (I emphasize - imagine). Therefore, the current parliamentary elections for him are the rehearsal of the presidential, the testing ground for a new approach. Then the following question is logical: “Why does he need this?” Below is my answer to it.
It is usually believed that Putin built a vertical of power. This is only partially true, because Putin himself is the product of this vertical, firstly, that part that began to form before it, and, secondly, and even more so, that which majestically completed with his inspiring participation. After all, it is they who regularly restore it in their post with the help of specific methods known to all. You remember how Putin previously answered the complaints of subjects on his bridges with the people: “I gave an order two years ago, and they ...”. This is just about that. Putin was always important for this vertical, as he performed the most important function: he defended this vertical with his rating. But his policy of recent years, as well as the deepest economic crisis in which the country continues to fall, can cause the temptation of the vertical to change it to another performer of the same function. After all, they think, so far everything turned out perfectly.
I suspect that Putin is afraid of this opportunity. And in order to prevent her, he decided to clean his environment and relied on a more or less pure legitimacy - on the dependence on voters instead of depending on the vertical. Success in both directions contributes to the extension of his presidency, and creates a certain freedom to maneuver when choosing funds for leaving the crisis. Therefore, now the intention is relatively honest to calculate the voices (in the conditions of the absent preliminary political competition) is caused by the need to check the new approach to legitimation: both voters and vertical should believe that Putin is the president “by the will of the people”.
But, there is one harden. We all tend to exaggerate our ability to manage sociality. Therefore, there are always the so -called "unintentional consequences." These are unplanned effects of our solutions and actions, often contradicting our goals and intentions. And the more complicated the field of “management”, and society is the most difficult sphere, the more likely these unintentional consequences are more likely and larger. For example: what was the harmless thing - to change Putin and Medvedev on the results of the elections. But it was precisely the statement about this intention that the future tens of thousands in Bolotnaya raised to their feet and threw them into the ranks of observers (the first sphere of active expression of discontent). Today we will also see (and see already) the action of unintentional consequences, which can affect both the election results and the work of the future Duma.
And what will happen?
The question made in the heading is excited for me if someone is waiting for an exhaustive answer. For example, I don’t know how my efforts end, and how many people will respond to considerations like mine or Igor Yakovenko, or Boris Akunin, or Dmitry Oreshkin. But there are several circumstances regarding which plausible assumptions can be put forward, especially when they have already begun to be confirmed.
First. At the beginning of this year, two experts very respected by me, without saying a word, put forward the assumption that I share. Here we are talking about the unintentional consequences of the next changes in the election formula to the Duma - a return to the mixed system. At the beginning of this year, some of the political scientists I respected, expressed on this subject the following forecast, with which I then agreed, and which later found some confirmation. They argued that the leadership of the regions would take advantage of the return to the mixed electoral system to advance through the single -mandate districts of their people. The reason (from my point of view): the expectation of a political crisis, during which it was useful to have people in the Duma who could promote the interests of the regions at the federal level, which they were deprived of at the beginning of the first Putin presidency. For this, they received good compensation in the form of access to an unprecedented feeder. But now it is empty, and we must think about the future. People who win in single -mandate districts are not an obedient list of list. They feel more independent. And this is a serious reserve of significant changes and atmosphere in the Duma, and the layout of forces. The fact that this assumption about the strategy of the regional authorities is believable was confirmed by the results of the primaries of United Russia, which were lost by many status acting deputies, landed by their party to various regions.
Second. Many consider the “Growth Party” a spoiler created to take away the voices from the opposition. It doesn’t matter whether it is true or not. I'm not talking about that, but about what the consequence is. Many experts believe that they will take more votes from United Russia than from the opposition, receiving the voices of those who prefer to vote for those who support Putin, but do not like the current party in power. But it is important that there are many people who are unlikely to be built on a whistle who consider themselves quite worthy to be deputies, and using the intention of the authorities to create an imitation of the opposition than those who want to remain imitation. And this one is also a reserve of changes in the situation in the Duma.
And the third. This is my own fantasy regarding the game of power in an honest counting of votes. I suspect that voters are unhappy with the situation, but excited by the fact that they promised to calculate their voices, and not to shift them to anyone. This is a typical unintentional consequence. What will be its influence, it is very difficult to evaluate in advance. Typically, such voters are determined at the last moment.
I argue that the country has at least fifteen percent of voters from their total number, which are the potential electoral base of the opposition. I am also sure that there are about forty -five percent of the conformists that I wrote about earlier, of which a third are dissatisfied with the situation for various reasons, and which could vote in the elections against the authorities. In total - thirty percent. If two -thirds of them come, then this is twenty percent of voters or a third of those who came. If at least half gives his votes for the opposition (two parties), then there will be the result that many are waiting for. Moreover, this is a "assessment from below." But for this you have to get up and come. But if you can ensure this result, then it reminds us, only a condition for changes.
And then?
If I knew! But you can speculate about the two outcomes determined by the behavior of abstracts, to which I turn and some of my colleagues. After all, the results of the elections are an important signal that different social groups and their representatives then read and later turn into their personal strategies. Like a year and a half ago, I consider these parliamentary elections an important historical moment, a fork that determines the fate of the country and each of us. Here are two options.
The first is pessimistichskiye, the victory of abstinence. Bottom line: The opposition faction does not appear in the Duma. Consequences: The authorities receive a wide range of actions within the country, and outside it with all the ensuing consequences. Everything is available - to increase repressions and violence, go to Putin’s elections, grind teeth to the west, roll into kutups dissatisfied with hunger and loss of work, close the boundaries and the Internet. I am sure that there would be a surge in the flight of people and capital, although it seemed that there was nothing to run away. I will not risk saying that you can put an end to the country, but I am sure that many will think so inside and outside it.
The second is the optimistic, significant part of the abstracts goes to the polls, and the opposition fraction of the deputies supported by us appears in the Duma. Now I am returning readers to the third article of this cycle, in which I wrote that a small but close -knit group of deputies with the status of the faction can do in the Duma. And I hinted that this is not all. But I also constantly emphasized that all this only opens up opportunities (which is also a lot, of course). But they will be able to turn into tangible consequences only under one important condition. The voters who dragged the opposition into the Duma should not calm down on this, as it was still. The position “We voted for you, and now let's ourselves, make us good” - absolutely failure. Politicians will do what we need, if firstly, we will constantly keep them under control, and, secondly, to maintain the achievement of the goals we need by non-parliamentary political activity. The practice of democracies knows many legal ways of both of them. In order to do this, you do not need to constantly keep “under the bayonet” of all those who voted for the opposition. Two to three percent for regular activity, but the rest should feel in a constant mobilization reserve.
Those who read this mini-series from the very beginning may have remembered the words of Eleanor Roosevelt. I now want to return to them and give them my interpretation, appropriate, as it seems to me, in this situation. The current scientific ideas about the emergence of our species (sapiens, therefore) with its features (language, for example) distinguish the desire of people to cooperate to achieve common goals. It was this ability that ensured our form its unique competitive advantages. So. It is very difficult for us to unite, agreeing around whom to unite. It is almost just as difficult to unite around the best ways to act. This discussion around participation or non -participation in the election is an example. But it is easier to negotiate about ideas: in this case, the most common goals. (Well, it seems: if the tribe does not go hunting tomorrow and remains to sleep in the cave, then crane, we will die of hunger). The overwhelming number of participants in this dispute combines the goal: you need to change the situation. And there are only three options: the first is not to unite on a campaign on the polls and continue the barren dispute. Second: to unite in abstractness. Третий: объединиться, идти на выборы, помогать победить тем, кто ждет наши голоса, а после выборов жесточайшим образом контролировать своих избранников, не возвращаясь на печку, как обычно. Этот третий вариант – единственный, дающий нам шанс на будущее. История может прощать тех, кто промахивается, действуя, но не прощает тех, кто проигрывает бездействуя.
Photo: Yuri Smityuk / 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.
