A quarter of a century of successors

How we stopped being afraid of "red-brown"

The voting results that took place in September in the regions of Russia are not interested in the fact that in just several cases throughout the huge country, United Russia lost to other spoilers, loyal Kremlin. All talk about increasing the competitiveness of the political system, and even about the coming “dawn of liberation”, so far look premature and in the existing context can cause only a bitter smile.

Something new, however, begins to manifest itself, and this is recorded by personal observations: my friends from among the Russian liberals ceased to be afraid of victory in the “red-brown” elections. Perhaps for the first time from the 92nd year, i.e. For almost all of our post-Soviet political history, the possibility of the victory of the Communist Party and the LDPR at least in some elections in the liberal camp is perceived not so much as a threat, but rather even as a chance. Not everyone, of course, but the change is fundamental and important: the possibility of any change of power as a result of the elections recognized by legitimate elections than maintaining this power at all costs, even if we defeat ourselves, but someone else.

It looks with a striking contrast with the events of a quarter -century ago. Then, in September 1993, President Yeltsin by his decree dismissed the Supreme Council, which actually led him to power and endowed with additional powers. As a result of a two -week confrontation on October 3–4, bloody clashes occurred in Moscow, and riot police and the military made a brutal reprisal against those predominantly unarmed people who, participating in spontaneous street actions, tried to protest against the poverty of market reforms that brought them to the poverty. And what is the democratic intelligentsia? Without trembling with any muscle on the face, with rare exceptions, those who claimed the role of the conscience of the nation unequivocally supported the Kremlin and security forces, the commandant hour and cleansing.

The loud literary names of the signatories of the “Letters of the 42nd”, published by the Izvestia newspaper (in those days, of course, Skremlinskaya) in support of the execution of the House of Soviets in Moscow, it is better not to bring here. Fortunately, some of them subsequently abandoned their signatures. Someone even stated that he did not sign anything, accusing the organizers of a clearly custom action of the organizers of the organizers. Those who are still not ashamed of their signatures still could well respond with emotional words from a night television monologue of a talented performer of tragicomic episodes in Ryazanov’s films: “We are threatened with terrible things - the Communists will come again!”

The hysteria and fear of others for years picked the liberal intelligentsia to power and its multi -way games.

Nobody here, of course, justifies those madmen from the White House who decided to play the “people's revolution”, letting the militants with the “Motorola” arrange riots with shooting, capture the metropolitan city hall and make an enchanting attempt to storm the Ostankino assault on meaninglessness and bloody consequences. But still, the most sad thing is that the genuine supporters of democratic values ​​in the then crawling corpse of the communism of Russia crawled out of the decaying corpse of the communism. Three of the number of few - dissidents Vladimir Maksimov, Andrey Sinyavsky and Peter Egides.

Unlike the popular Soviet film actress and members of the Writers' Union, accustomed to the privileges of the Little Fund, they knew in their own skin what political repressions and the punitive system in the USSR were. Their first question for the triumphant majority was simple: "Which part of the nation will again go into the executioners and Vertukhai?" Against the backdrop of universal intelligent glee, only these three called on Yeltsin to resign, because "at least both sides are to blame for the conflict with the Supreme Council, and perhaps the one who has more power is more to blame." They reminded his colleagues in the literary workshop: "The pathological fear of an objectionable word is Stalinism." But their letter, published in Russia, remained unheated.

And now 25 years have passed. Neither red nor brown to power came. But the power itself, replaced only on the monarchical principle of transferring the throne to the “successor”, but not as a result of a competitive political struggle, embodied a lot of what Makashov and Barkashov could have applauded amicably. One sovereign power is worth it! Plus, low inflation and a deficiency budget, as a Gaidar with Chubais dreamed. But ordinary citizens are not clear how much money is in the country and how it is distributed: neither deputies, nor, of ordinary citizens, do not have control over public finances. The Supreme Council, indeed, was not a parliament, but can an organ that still does not have the opportunity to form the government and control it?

And even the trouble: the liberal intelligentsia to the court is no longer called.

Not anything. The people of the king and love so much-for geopolitical victories and the promise that “as in the 90s” will not be. Smart talk about democracy was required when Yeltsin asked Clinton loans to organize voting for himself, his beloved, in the 96th year. Now there is definitely money to withhold the authorities, the sovereignty has been restored, he is an autocracy, unshakable, as always, for the time being. So “red-brown” you can definitely not be afraid.