Translated material
Your voice is 3
Your voice- September 3 28, 2016, George Satarov 
And what was it?
After the past elections, this question is asked differently.
The first: “What was it? Exactly what we said: you can’t go to these elections and play according to the rules of this criminal power. ” This is the same thing as before the elections, when they, changing the investigation and reason, say something like: “It is pointless to go to the elections, because nothing will change!” And this is a logical crap, because nothing changes when no one goes to the polls. And in this response such as “We said ...” there are no more intellectual feat than in the prediction, that in Moscow it will be rains in the fall. But more on this below.
Second: "What was it !!! ???". With unreasonable horror. My short preliminary answer is: "These were the most dull elections in the history of the elections in Russia." Such an assessment can be disputed, you can look for more dull elections, for example in Soviet times. But the final emotional assessment has the right to depend on previous expectations. And of course it was difficult to imagine, for example, before the elections and, especially, until the day of voting, the result attributed to United Russia. This dullness extended to the mood of voters in the range from boredom to a feeling of hopelessness; She appeared in predictable, familiar to lulling the actions of the opposition; And, of course, in an inexpressive election campaign to disappear.
In the interval between these two intonations - a whole range of diverse and often not idle curiosity. To "What was it?" add “why?”, “What does this mean?”, “What is it fraught with?” and other questions. All this is fraught with your voices and your without name, with the actions of the authorities and the opposition, the past and the future. In the next few posts, I will try to describe my idea of possible answers to such questions.
Everything was decided much earlier
The dullness of the elections, aggravated by their result, is just the most likely development of events. The most likely voters, power, opposition behaved. All this was easy to foresee, which many did, and someone actively contributed. And this is boring infinite. Only unexpected events change the situation. And very rarely it is possible to create them. Since January, together with several very worthy people, I tried to create such an event - the formation of a single election list of apple and Parnassus. The meaning of the idea is reflected in the appeal of a group of public figures to the leaders of the opposition democratic parties, which was published in late February in the Novaya Gazeta ). After some time, the authors of the appeal authorized three respected people - Svetlana Ganushkin, Vyacheslav Bakhmina and Yuri Jibladze - negotiate with the parties to contribute to the implementation of the design.
All the initiators of this idea perfectly understood that achieving the desired result is extremely difficult. But in the same way, everyone suggested that success could lead to a turning point in public moods and a significant increase in the chances of passing the United opposition to the Duma. The most important thing here is a change in public mood. Only this incredible event could become a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for success precisely because of its unlikely. After all, it would mean that the leaders and members of the parties take out mutual distrust, old mutual grievances and begin to act together for an important goal and for voters.
As readers know, our idea has failed. For Parnassus, one of the difficult barriers was an apple demand to recognize Yavlinsky as a common candidate in the presidential election during the merger of the parties on the basis of apple. But it is interesting that at a meeting of the Parnassus political council, when the question was voted to take the first bringing step, the voices were divided equally, which was interpreted as a refusal of action. Later, some members of the political council called me who did not get to the meeting, and said that they would vote for an appeal to the apple. The coalition created with the participation of Parnas could still influence the situation. But she fell apart after the “strawberries” on NTV due to the fact that Kasyanov did not want to abandon her exclusive status, which allowed him not to participate in the primaries.
After that, everything was over. The defeat of both parties was a foregone conclusion before the election campaign, even without fraud with ballots and other sweet pranks of the authorities. As you know, my readers, in my series, I continued, like that frog in milk, to do something, to agitate for activity. But this is just a habit not to give up. Excuse me, if I instilled hope in someone and upset me with disappointment. Let's just remember what you need to do what it should, although this does not always lead to success. Otherwise, there will never be success.
So why!? (1)
The easiest way to write off crushing lesions of the apple and Parnassus to the abomination of power. And it is true - the latter was stolen. Quite indecent. But it would be interesting to understand that they did not make the parties so that they could steal excess, not the last. Are there any other causes of defeat. Or differently: what is the own contribution of the parties to their defeat?
Let's start with the first almost objective reason, poorly recognized by the candidates: our trap (emphasize - our) mixed electoral system. It allows the candidate to be at the same time on the list of the party, and move in a single -member district. And this suits everyone: “We include strong ones in the top of the list and move them in the districts. They win there, and their other eagles occupy their places in the list. ” This is the logic of those who can and are going to win (understanding by winning the receipt of places in the Duma). This is the logic of those who are able to organizationally and financially provide their victory. According to the same logic, two parties for which we voted. The trap consists in the fact that how soberly you (moving in the Duma and on the list and in the district) did not evaluate your chances in both games, it is difficult for you to conduct both campaigns with complete dedication. Especially - to win with the margin in case of theft.
The first objective reason is associated with the first - poor budgets. Especially among candidates in districts. Even Gudkov with his all -Russian fame of money was not enough at the end. But this reason is objective very conditional. Evgenia Albats rightly writes in the last notebook of New Times that she received requests for donations from Trump and Clinton, and not a single one from ours! Trump with Clinton does not have my mail, so I received nothing from them. And he also did not receive from ours, neither by mail, nor Facebook, nor personally. Why do you think the billionaire Trump is asking for donations? He does not have enough money? Nonsense! He creates a joint -stock company. He involves, he breeds the accomplices. Anyone who sacrificed the heels of dollars to his campaign is more likely to come and vote for him. Clear and hedgehog.
So, our techno did not know about it? Why did the parties not ask for money from their potential voters? Here is my answer: because they are very conscientious. They were not going to win. They knew in advance what they would lose. They knew that the strategy they chosen doom them to defeat. They did not have a strategy with decent chances of winning. They did not look for such a strategy. They were not going to win, and therefore did not ask for money. Either because it is conscientious, or by virtue of laziness. Doesn't matter. For clarity: these assumptions relate to the leaders of both parties.
You have the right to ask where I got such fantasies. I answer. Even at the very early stage of the implementation of the venture with a single list of two parties described in the previous post, I was surprised to find in the process of discussing with the leadership of Parnas that they did not believe in a decent result exceeding five percent. This was not mentioned openly, but easily decrypted according to indirect evidence. A little later, this impression was confirmed by one of my partners on the indicated venture, who contacted the leadership of both parties, and made the same impression from these contacts from both sides.
But then the following question arises: why participate in the elections, if you do not count on success?
So why!? (2)
In the previous post, I argued that the leaders of Parnassus and Apple did not imply a result that provides them with the parties to the Duma, which, of course, gives rise to the question: why participate in the elections if you do not count on success? Indeed, in this case, the Olympic motto: “The main thing is not victory, but participation” does not serve as an excuse.
I answer. This is no longer a question of indirect evidence, but about direct rivers that give the hierarchy of the values of party leaders. I'm talking about Parnassus. The main value: “my party project” and, of course, “my place in it”, which does not speak directly, but easily guesses the actions and decisions made. In this hierarchy of values, voters are completely absent; country; Dramatic, critical situation. And to preserve the “project” and its place in it, the process and control over it are more important than the result.
I will take the courage to assume that exactly the same applies to the highest leadership of the apple. I can’t confirm this by the direct words of Yavlinsky, because I have not communicated with him for a long time, but all his actions in the voice, in unison, scream about the same. They have been shouting for a quarter of a century. It is curious that from very authoritative people in the apple and respected people, as well as from people simply very aware of the situation in the party, I heard the same thing: “Grigory Alekseevich is not very important these elections (this is about the Duma). He aimed at the presidential. ”
Let's see what his attitude to the presidential election is. At one in the morning of September 19, when the party’s result was no longer in doubt, Grigory Alekseevich said the following at a press conference. “Our party will take an active part in what will be called the presidential election.” He also said, continuing the topic of the presidential election that “fifteen percent should have their own candidate ,” September 20, 2016 is the date of my viewing). He said to himself that he intends to advance if the party does not mind (I quote in meaning).
So, we have the right to conclude that Yavlinsky does not consider these presidential elections as something serious: this is just a show that someone will call the presidential election. It is not clear why it should have a representative of some fifteen percent, which are divided into two unequal categories. Most, as the current elections showed, does not need representativeness, because, too, like Grigory Alekseevich, it treats them, to put it mildly, is not serious. And a smaller part in the representative office needs, but I would like to have a different attitude to the elections from its representative, since it considers the elections the last opportunity to peacefully change the situation in the country. And here it is clear that the apple leader does not think about any victory in these elections, because he evaluates his electorate at 15 percent (which is, of course, with a clear exaggeration). Again: The main thing is participation.
So why!? (3)
I can judge, first of all, from my personal bell tower - as an ordinary person who was going to go to the polls, who made his political choice and therefore, naturally, paying attention to the election activity of those whom he was going to vote in advance. Of course, this is only one of the positions with which such an assessment is possible, and the least common, which is confirmed by both sociological data and election results. There is a second position that is much more important, since much more widespread - the position of a person has not yet been determined and even not yet decided, he needs to be determined or not, since he is not sure whether he will go to the polls and in general whether to think about it. This is the position of dissatisfied conformists that I wrote about earlier, who have not yet decided whether it is worth using their votes in order to somehow try to solve their problems. I approved and claim that there are at least 20 percent of the total number of voters.
Now a few words about the basics of electoral technology (in the normal interpretation of this concept). Here is the most important postulate: “The main efforts of your campaign should not be aimed at your supporters or your opponents. They must be concentrated on fluctuating, on the undemanded. Here is your main resource of voting. ” I argue that the campaigns of both democratic opposition parties and the campaigns of candidates from these parties, the traces of which were me (interested, I emphasize) were noticeable, were in advance in advance, because they shone with a complete lack of fantasy that attracts people, followed the path of the least resistance, repeated the recently made mistakes and contradicted the basic principles of election technology. These are typical campaigns of people with a deep sense of doom (which could overwhelm not only politicians, but also their political technologists).
Let's start with parties. I practically did not see their own activity on the Internet, although I am an active user of those zones that should have been covered by this activity. The parties, more precisely, we saw their leaders in a very small number on television battles. According to TNS, the maximum audience of transmission with the debate ( I watched the data in the interval from August 22 to September 9 ), did not exceed 1,600 thousand spectators - about one tenth of the non -conformist audience. For comparison: the number of votes set for the Yabloko slightly exceeded (according to official figures) a million. This means that the television mods passed almost in vain for the opposition, since they were mainly watched by those who had previously intended to go to the elections and vote for someone from the opposition and who did it, as they intended.
I will return to technology. What I say will seem elementary. It is pointless to participate in the television battles, if you do not first attract your main audience on them - fluctuating (you do not need to invite supporters). And this is special efforts. The apple did nothing for this. Parnassus stopped half the way, starting with a scandalous (moderately) statement about Putin's resignation, but did not turn this scandal into a media (at least on the Internet) event that could lure the fluctuating on the debates.
This is all the more regrettable, since the opposition candidates were undoubtedly a cut above their opponents. First of all, this applies to Yavlinsky, who even managed to slightly reduce his inherent note of condescension in communication with the audience.
In harsh conditions, in which there were two parties (especially Parnassus), the bet on television fabric is natural. But then the campaign was supposed to consist of two unequal parts. The first, most important part of the campaign, was supposed to pull the fluctuating on a television tank, creating an intrigue. The second - actually a television department - was to end with an appeal: “Well, you have seen everything yourself. Now it’s clear that we must go and vote for us. Or do you want to stay with these morons? ”
Both parties could help a lot of creative people from among their supporters to create an intriguing show with a continuation from the debate. But all that we saw is the usual appeals of support from a group of good people. If desired, the main series of the season could be made from the debate. What happened, you saw yourself.
And now?
I am aware that the crimes of the authorities in these elections were not inferior in scale to the previous ones and certainly surpassed in impudence. But is it reasonable to assume that by writing off the defeats to the lead abominations of power, we not only doom ourselves to further defeats, but simply confuse the causes and investigation in places? After all, power is disgusting to the extent to which society allows it. The weaker the opposition and, as a result, is more passive, the power is to be greater than the power. And the fact that the democratic opposition weakened before the elections and did not try to intensify is undoubtedly.
The root of the problem is that at least biologically, generations in opposition policy are biologically. And this enters into a tragic contradiction with the irreplaceability of leaders (regardless of their various qualities). Insisting on the change of politicians in the leadership of the country, seeing the negative consequences of the lack of political rotation in the authorities, they forget about the negative consequences of their own irremovability. And the longer they sit in their places, the more they turn parties into their personal “project”, forgetting about both voters and the country.
The new generation of the opposition has already nominated many bright personalities. Dmitry Gudkov and Lev Schlossberg are only the most famous examples. I attribute them to the new generation not by age, but by the main quality that distinguishes them from the previous generation. They are able to work in a difficult situation for a common goal, and not for themselves. And there are many such new and capable of cooperation in Moscow and in the regions. They, as I suppose, will unite. This can happen on the basis of one of the parties (with a change in leadership) or without the use of their legal status, which is technically harder. (In the latter case, both parties will quietly die or will be intercepted by spoilers, as it happened in our time, which will only delay the death). Similar ideas have already been voiced (for example, Vladislav Inozemtsev on Snob).
Они не будут бояться отсутствия финансирования, поскольку смогут привлекать деньги краудфандингом, и поскольку со сменой поколения политиков будет происходить и смена поколения их «инвесторов», которые в состоянии понять, что финансировать пора не устаревшие бренды, а новые идеи и проекты. Наконец, многие из нового поколения политиков, куда вольется и новое поколение активной части гражданского общества, знают на собственном опыте, как много можно сделать своей головой и своими руками, не создавая большие фонды.
Только времени очень мало.
Оригинал опубликован в ФБ автора
Photo: Valery Matytsin / 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.
