Explosion or decay?

American experts - about the scenarios of the new political cycle in Russia

Can elections to the State Duma affect the reputation of Vladimir Putin in the United States? Will the legitimacy of the new Duma will undermine the presence of delegates from the annexed Crimea? Can elections bring the situation in the country to a boiling point? Are there any parallels between the elections in the USA and the elections in Russia?

Jeffrey Mankoff , a former councilor of the State Department, an employee of the Washington Center for Strategic and International Studies, Nina Khrushcheva , professor at New School University in New York, Eric Shiryaev , political scientist, professor of the George Mason University, and Dmitry Shlyapentoch , historian, historian, and historian, professor, professor, professor, professor. University of Indiana.

Unlike the Duma elections of 2011, the current elections to the State Duma are almost unnoticed by the American press, despite the fact that the Russian theme persistently holds on the first pages of American newspapers, thanks to the constantly emerging information about the new machinations of Russian hackers and the allegations of anonymous representatives of American intelligence services that they were behind Russian special services. Duma elections against such a background look like a relatively small plot in which there is no intrigue. Commentators have no doubt that the United Russia Party will prevail in the election and the Duma will retain its role as the right appendage of the Kremlin.

Nevertheless, those who write about the elections to the Duma invariably note the obvious, in the opinion, their peculiarity: the Russian authorities are concerned about how to give this elections the appearance of legitimacy. “Sterilism is the Kremlin’s strategy,” writes Economist magazine . “The elections will be considered successful if they are not rich in events ... The real drama is not what the results will be, but in the struggle around them. This campaign serves as a testing ground for much more important elections: the 2018 presidential election.”

Commentators noticed that the Kremlin is so convinced that he will achieve the elections of the elections he needed, and so counts on propaganda success, which even allowed opposition candidates to participate in them. According to commentators of the Bloomberg information service , "Putin’s control is so strong that even Khodorkovsky can take part in the elections." This, of course, is hyperbole. The authors have in mind several candidates supported by Khodorkovsky. USA Today writes that "Russian parliamentary elections give the hope of opposition."

According to Jeffrey Mankoff, the possibility of surprises, including unpleasant for the Kremlin, remains.

If you look not only at Russia, but also at other post -Soviet countries, the elections often bring the situation to the boiling point

- I do not think that these elections do not matter. Firstly, they can be called a preliminary rehearsal of the presidential election that should be held in 2018. In conditions when we do not have firm data on the true level of support by Russians of the Russian authorities, the current political and economic course, these elections can be considered as a tool for determining moods. There are various claims to the methodology of public opinion polls conducted in Russia. The fact that the most respectable sociological center of the country, the Levada Center, became the object of persecution of the authorities, was included in the category of "foreign agents" may indicate that the government did not like the conclusions that its experts came to. In the end, even if the election results are falsified, the Russian authorities will still receive accurate information about the mood of people, and this will allow them to make the necessary correction in accordance with public sentiments. Secondly, if you look not only at Russia, but also at other post-Soviet countries, the elections often bring the situation to the boiling point, even when everything you need is made to make them a completely predictable event, because it is impossible to predict the reaction of people to certain events. Take at least 2004, when the results of the presidential elections unexpected for many Ukrainians gave rise to protests, which led to the so -called "Orange Revolution". It can be assumed that these elections can turn into a problem for the Russian government, if, say, they will not be able to carry out according to the Kremlin script or will have to manipulate the results in the event of adverse results for it. In this case, the elections can become a catalyst for political changes.

- You say that the elections will give the Kremlin the opportunity to evaluate the level of support for power by the population. Well, what will these elections give opposition to those who observe them outside Russia if their results turn out to be fabricated?

- The problem for them is that they are forced to rely on the data that will be provided by the government, and only hope that they will be more or less careful. For third -party observers, the question of the reliability of the results will remain open, unless we witnesses numerous protests and speeches regarding the falsification of the results.

- How do you feel about Harry Kasparov’s call to the opposition to boycott these elections, refuse to participate in the new Duma, since in this way the opposition plays into Putin, who, according to Kasparov, is a tough authoritarian system?

- I believe that it all depends on how the parties assess the situation. If the democratic opposition believes that she did not have a real platform for representing her views, if she had the possibilities for maintaining a normal election campaign, if she believes that she does not receive the number of votes in the elections corresponding to her level of support in society, and she will not be able to influence the decisions taken by the Duma, then there really is no reason to take part in the elections.

- Some Western observers believe that the Kremlin expects that these elections will add legitimacy to the Russian authorities in the eyes of Russians and in the eyes of the world. Still, they look more democratic this time due to the fact that half of the candidates are not elected on party lists. Can they really add legitimacy to the Kremlin, which actually bothers, as I understand it, Kasparova?

- If these are clean elections, then yes, it is possible. But I strongly suspect that the Kremlin does not intend to hold honest elections. For the simple reason that such a course of events leaves the place of uncertainty, which is unacceptable for Vladimir Putin, who was obsessed with the idea of monitoring everything from the very beginning of his reign. If you release levers of control from your hands, then events can develop in an unpredictable direction.

- By the way, in Ukraine and in Europe they have already begun to say that the new Russian parliament will be illegal from the point of view of international law, since it will have deputies from Crimea annexed by Russia. A serious argument, from your point of view?

I think that in case of restoration of parliamentary ties between the Duma and the European Parliament, deputies from Crimea will be excluded from the programs of exchange of delegations and other joint events

- I think that in the case of restoring parliamentary ties between the Duma and the European Parliament, deputies from Crimea will be excluded from the programs for exchanging delegations and other joint events. But this fact is unlikely to play a noticeable role in relation to the Duma in the West. From the point of view of the West and the United States, the question of how democratic the political system that existed in Russia is much more important is much more important. No matter how much the Kremlin insists that the Russians themselves should resolve the issue of which system of government was created in their country, the United States will build their relations with Moscow and, depending on whether Russia has been reached on the path of movement towards democracy or not.

- Nina Khrushcheva, attention in the USA to the elections to the Russian Duma, one might say, is minimal. I remember that the past 2011 elections were much more attention, and their consequences - mass protests in Moscow and some other cities - became the reason for the violent discussions of the prospects for the democratic development of Russia. Today there is nothing like this either in the USA or, by the way, in Russia. Why?

“There are many reasons,” says Nina Khrushcheva . - But one of the main reasons, from my point of view, because there is no question about the authorities, the power is clearly the same. Even if the United Russia, which, in which some say, fall, of course, the Kremlin says, the ratings do not fall, it will still go where it is necessary. These parties-sweaters will share the majority with it in any case, so the Kremlin’s influence will still remain.

- Do you exclude surprises? My interlocutor Jeffrey Mankoff recalls, for example, that the Orange Revolution in Ukraine occurred in the wake of the election, or recall the protests of 2011, the impetus for which there were elections to the Duma?

And now the election of stagnation, from my point of view, that is, nothing will change, nothing will happen

- Of course, everything can be, but these are different elections. Because then the elections were still emotional, in Ukraine there were emotional elections, in 2011 the people, if you remember how evil was. And now the election of stagnation, from my point of view, that is, nothing will change, nothing will happen. United Russia fell, but the Communist Party, "Fair Russia" and so on, they will take voices. Moreover, this will give the Kremlin, amazingly cunning, to say that we are not a single -party, but we have a variety of parties, we share and rule at the same time. Putin needs legitimacy. He is an autocrat on the one hand, and on the other hand a technocrat. As a technocrat, he needs all those formulations. No wonder Lavrov, going abroad, instantly begins to motivate that it is illegally, then illegally. They need all these formulas. Speaking the language of stagnation, why the Soviet government needed these idiotic elections when there were 96 percent of the votes for Brezhnev and so on. They need them as a formula, they are going to live there forever, because they will live forever, they need to legitimize themselves. I watched regional slogans of elections - this is all “time, forward!”, That is, we need changes, the path only forward. It is necessary to pretend that this is not only legitimate, but also updated. That is, a completely formula of stagnation, when everything remains still, but slogans, formulations and attributes pretend that this is actually a democratic process, even if it is a bureaucratic vertical.

- So Harry Kasparov calls on the opposition: let's boycott the elections, deprive the authoritarian regime of Putin's visibility of legitimacy. Timely call?

We still allow the Kremlin to behave like that

- Kasparov is a very respected person. Kasparov loves to throw loud words, attract attention and so on. I am against loud formulas such as dictatorship, totalitarianism and so on. Still, we lived in the country of Stalin, we know what totalitarianism is. I think it didn’t get to that. I think that by 2024 we are going along this path. I agree to boycott the elections, I agree with this, I think they are so sluggish. I think that many people without the Kasparovsky aplombs will definitely boycott precisely because they do not matter. But on the third party, we know that our system is the best system in the world. Therefore, if you need votes for the LDPR, they will simply be put there. It turns out that it came to vote 90 percent of voters. Therefore, I think this system, even if the people do not go, and it will need to prove that it is legitimate, they will correct this system and show how it should. Again, what I agree with Kasparov if the whole country had not gone. When we had protests in 2011, 20 thousand - this is not enough. And 20 million would have come out, I think that the Kremlin would behave completely differently. Because we still allow the Kremlin to behave like that.

- Dmitry Shlyapentoch, Harry Kasparov claims that Vladimir Putin established complete authoritarianism in the country, who needs to be opposed by a boycott of elections to the Duma. Many who, apparently, do not agree with him, the logic of Lenin, who refused, as you know from the boycott of the second State Duma, in order to use it as a stand for revolutionary propaganda. What side are you on?

“Naturally, the authorities are more authoritarian than it was before,” says Dmitry Shlyapentoch , “simply because there are many indicators of this: the repressive side of the apparatus is sharply intensified in relation to people who are expressed or printed, put their statements on the Internet. There are a lot of evidence. And this is due to the fact that in financial terms the regime is becoming more and more incompetent. When there was a lot of oil, oil was expensive, there was a lot of money, the regime was more condescending. Now there is less and less money - this, of course, is worried, despite the numerous polls showing a fantastic rating. Putin is a reasonable person, understands that today the king is loved, and tomorrow he is in Yekaterinburg in the basement of executed, so there are ratings, people's love are very unstable. Therefore, a national guard is created, several hundred thousand people, obviously not to chase two revolutionaries-terrorists, but in case the rebellion of meaningless and merciless. As for the Duma, the Duma traditions in Russia were generally almost dead. There was only one case when the Duma tried, the parliament tried to play its own role - it was October 1993, when it was shot under the applause of the broad mass of liberal working people and the West. Naturally, it turns into an increasingly more fictitious organization. She was almost the same before.

- That is, do you think that the Duma elections are unlikely to contain intrigue and their results, by and large, I apologize for the word, are irrelevant?

The Duma will still lick the boot Vladimir Vladimirovich

- The story is multi -scenery. We can recall that in 1916, when there were mass defeats at the front, Milyukov performed, if I am not mistaken, with his speech, said: this is betrayal, treason. But in principle, the Duma played a zero role when the Petrograd garrison ceased to obey power, then the regime collapsed, and then the thought tried to lead this movement, intercept him. But everything went from below. If there is nothing from below, if the national guard begins to beat at the right time, and if this does not help, the Janissaries Kadyrov will appear, then the Duma will continue to lick the boots of Vladimir Vladimirovich.

- Professor Khrushchev, you, if I understand you correctly, do not see the ability to evolution in the system created by Vladimir Putin. In this case, how likely is her unexpected collapse?

This is a very Stalin formula when Stalin removed the tops and lifted young blood, then the system had the feeling that it was updated

- I think that already in this situation is not. As you know, conflicts are rarely resolved in Russia, they simply fall apart. That is, they go for so long that in the end they cease to exist, it is like an eternal repair. From my point of view, this is a stagnant system, I do not think that it will explode due to these elections, but 2018 can be very interesting, it can explode or it can rot for a long time until it rot completely, as it buried that previous stagnation. From my point of view, changes in the layout, who are close to the body, who departs from the body, who is dismissed, corruption affairs - the whole process of renewing people around, raising young and new, by the way, is very Stalin, I am not that I compare them, but this is a very Stalin formula when Stalin removed the tops and lifted young blood, then the system had a feeling that it was updated. These people are completely loyal to the main person, because otherwise they would not have risen. But in history, I do not know examples when, after 17 years of one person, this system suddenly woke up and began to reform.

- Professor Shiryaev, if you look at the evolution of Russian post -Soviet parliamentarism, what conclusion can you come to? The definition of the "failed experiment" suggests itself.

- Until 2018, nothing will change. I express the opinion of my colleagues who expressed private thoughts to me, ”says Eric Shiryaev. - Therefore, most likely, if we speak a dead end, then, probably, this is a dead end with a continuation, that is, a dead end with a turn can drive, make a circle and go back. Most likely, the opinion of most experts in the West is, and I follow him constantly, daily, that we cannot expect any changes, at least three years at least. Therefore, the answer, of course, will be: yes, there is nothing to be expected. Temporary impasse.

- Eric Shiryaev, the Russian Duma elections coincided with the American presidential election. Putin, as many American observers say, wants to present them to the Russians as a negative example, they say, look, supporters of Hillary Clinton drown her main competitor to Bernie Sanders, and in the Republican Party, a person who resembles Zhirinovsky’s behavior became a candidate. What kind of democracy is this. Что это, действительно, за демократия такая?

– Дело в том, что на поверхности, безусловно, это может выглядеть таким образом, Трамп очень часто ассоциируется с Жириновским у тех, кто понимает российскую и американскую политику. Сравнение в какой-то степени может быть правильное. Но многие не понимают американскую систему, которая сложилась, и которая не зависит в такой степени от личности руководителя, как она зависит во многих странах мира. Система сложилась, она сильная, она несдвигаемая, поэтому, кто бы ни был у власти, значительных перемен не произойдет. То, что Трамп обещает, если будет президентом, может быть, удастся ему сделать 10–20 процентов. Как Обама обещал 8 лет назад, что Америка будет изменена, она не изменилась в значительной степени, может быть, только изменилась эволюционно, но не изменилась революционно. Поэтому то, что Трамп обещает, – это хорошие предвыборные обещания, может быть, он даже победит, судя по сегодняшним данным, может, нет, но тем не менее реальных изменений в американском образе жизни, в доходах, в расходах, в бюджете, в политике, скорее всего, не произойдет. Поэтому говорить о каких-то параллелях, это поверхностные разговоры. Конечно, может быть, заголовки на веб-сайтах пойдут хорошие, но тем не менее, по сути, от личности, от индивидуальных качеств политика американская политика не изменится.

– И все-таки, профессор Ширяев, успех такого человека, как Трамп, поведение которого не только не вписывается в общепринятые понятия того, что собой представляет политический лидер, но и в элементарные понятия вежливости, – это признак слабости или силы американской политической системы, с вашей точки зрения?

– Я думаю, что всегда это сила системы. Потому что, скорее всего, появление Трампа — это поражение многих из нас, кто думал, что наши взгляды, наши позиции, наши точки зрения по поводу политики и по поводу классов, по поводу социальной системы в Америке правильные. Система позволила появиться человеку, который затронул струнку популизма, который очень серьезный в Америке сегодня среди рабочего класса, среди фермеров, среди даже интеллигентов, которые в опросах общественного мнения говорят, что не будут голосовать за Трампа, тем не менее будут за него голосовать, потому что понимают, что это для них важно. Для многих людей субъективно очень важно сейчас, как психологи говорят, принять такое решение на выборах, которое будет означать, что их голос не будет потерян. Каждому важно, чтобы его голосование было каким-то образом значимо. Поэтому часть населения отдает свои голоса за Трампа, потому что они смогут, по крайней мере, субъективно подумать, что да, каким-то образом мы повлияли на систему, которая изменится. У Хиллари Клинтон старая политика, предсказуемая, все измерено, поэтому, скорее всего, это не будет так эмоционально значимо, как выборы Трампа.

– Нина Хрущева, любопытно, что Кремль, как считают многие американские эксперты, использует необычную нынешнюю президентскую кампанию в США как доказательство преимущества своей собственной системы. Удачный прием?

– Вообще кандидатура Трампа, ее Путин не придумал – это все ноу-хау Америки. Если бы я была Путин и была из КГБ, не использовать это может только ленивый. Используется, естественно, не только Путиным в пропаганде. Тут даже придумывать не надо, он есть такой, какой он есть. Франция, Англия и Германия рвут на себе волосы, а страны, как Турция, как Россия, как Китай, они безумно счастливы, потому что если такой кандидат, то как Америка может по-прежнему серьезно говорить о том, что она лидер мира.

– Дональд Трамп – подарок Путину?

– Подарок всем. Он подарок Путину, подарок Китаю, раз у них есть свой Жириновский.

– Дмитрий Шляпентох, уместно ли по сути проведение неких параллелей между американскими и российскими выборами?

Трампизм гораздо глубже, гораздо шире и гораздо более укоренившийся феномен, чем сам Трамп

– Выборы, конечно, в России по большому счету ничего не значат. Выборы в Америке действительно значимы. Насчет того, что система американская делает невозможным авторитарное движение, начатое Трампом, и да, и нет. Во-первых, мы должны сказать следующее: отделить Трампа от движения, трампизм гораздо глубже, гораздо шире и гораздо более укоренившийся феномен, чем сам Трамп. Для миллионов людей реальность – это безработица, это переход на низкооплачиваемую работу, это огромная инфляция, которая совершенно никак и нигде не регистрируемая, у них инстинктивное желание авторитарного режима. Если правление Трампа будет сопровождено новым большим кризисом, просто сказать, что у нас все хорошо, что мы движемся к цифровой экономике, к экономике услуг, промышленность нам не нужна – это не поможет. В этих условиях Трамп с его авторитарными инстинктами, глубинным презрением к институтам, которое параллельно таким же глубинным презрением к ним со стороны массы, может двинуть Америку по совершенно не тому направлению, которое обещал Фрэнсис Фукуяма в 1989 году (в работе "Конец истории").

– Профессор Ширяев, возвращаясь к думским выборам, может ли практика их проведения и подсчета голосов, их результаты что-то добавить или убавить к имиджу Владимира Путина в США или он уже настолько подорван, что его невозможно, что называется, обелить?

– Мы провели с моими аспирантами небольшое исследование последних ста дней, каким образом пресса в США описывает Россию. В 90 процентах публикаций мнения очень отрицательные. Мнения отрицательные, интерес большой, потому что угроза воспринимается как серьезная. Один пример: мы в университете предлагали пять лет назад только один курс по российской политике, записывалось примерно 30 человек, предлагаем теперь два семестра, большой аншлаг, по 140 человек каждый семестр, то есть в пять раз возросло примерно количество желающих взять такие курсы. Поэтому, скорее всего, что бы в России ни произошло, мнение о России пока будет негативное, по крайней мере, месяцы, а может быть, годы вперед.

– Вы просто вторите российской пропаганде, которая утверждает, что американская пресса раздувает антироссийские настроения.

– Раздувать, может быть слишком эмоциональное слово, но, видимо, это общая реакция – разочарование и бессилие. Что бы мы ни делали, как бы ни старались, ничего не происходит. Пока мы находимся на нижней точке наших отношений, может быть, на самой нижней, к сожалению.