Do not go there!

Why Russians can not participate in the "Festival of Democracy" with a pure soul

When a few days ago, Yuri Samodurov shared with me by considerations regarding the desirability of the boycott of the approaching parliamentary elections, I myself was inclined to the same idea - although I perfectly imagined how unacceptable it seemed to most active opponents of the current Russian authorities. The text we published on the Echo of Moscow website expectedly collected a lot of responses, and most often critical.

I respect all the opinions expressed and I repeat that I expressed only my personal point of view, which, of course, can be erroneous. However, I want to make a few comments.

First of all, it is worth saying that almost all critical reviews of my approach came from supporters of a “smart vote”, developed by Alexei Navalny. Meanwhile, last year, Alexei Anatolyevich clearly spoke out for the boycott of the referendum to amend the Constitution, offering the formula "We participate in the elections, we do not participate in non -goods and fakes." The referendum, in his opinion, was made, firstly, the initial adoption of the amendments by the State Duma, which is why it became unnecessary, and, secondly, the vote “in tent”, which opened the possibilities of total falsifications. Navalny then brought as an analogy the prepared elections in Belarus, to which was not admitted as candidate Sergey Tikhanovsky, and agreed with his position, which consisted of a “parody of the elections” in a boycott. At the same time, the Yabloko party called on the referendum at the same time (representatives of the party clarify that it was about the illegality and redundancy of the referendum, since the decision to change the constitution was already made by parliament. - Ed. ) .

Now the positions of the supporters of Navalny and the Yabloko party have changed diametrically. But the list of candidates is to the same extent envied by the presidential administration,

How were constitutional amendments last year; voting is stretched for three days; Invented methods of electronic will; the removal of candidates occurs with complete neglect of the law; The agitation of applicants that are objectionable to the authorities is broken by any methods.

The referendum on the Constitution respected supporters of Navalny and Yabloko called an illegal event. I am ready to agree with them. However, the current elections are held according to the rules, no less “illegal”. Art. 32 of the Constitution suggests that any Russian citizen has the right to be elected to representative authorities - but now this right is limited by the presence of a residence permit in another country, introduced by retroactively “involvement” in extremist organizations and a lot of other circumstances (moreover, paragraph 3 of article 32 clearly says that they do not have the right to bargain and citizens convicted by the sentence convicted by the sentence convicted of the sentence convicted of the sentence convicted court). Art. 31 of the Constitution guarantees freedom of assembly - but almost any election event of candidates objectionable to the authorities is declared a rally that, contrasting the Constitution, should be held on a permissive basis. Art. 29 in paragraph 4 indicates the freedom of obtaining and disseminating information - but in preparation for the elections, this right is violated at every step. The list can be continued -

And I am perplexed why last year dear colleagues played for the boycott of the “illegal” procedure, and today they participate in it with undisguised enthusiasm?

Moreover, as I already noted, the “illegal” referendum on the constitution was the only vote in Putin’s Russia, in which the question was raised as “yes” or “no”. Navalny, and not only he alone, said that the question of “relying” Putin’s terms was voting, and it was also difficult to disagree with them. However, it is much easier to choose from “yes” or “no” than to understand the mass of parties and candidates, almost all of which are loyal to the authorities - and then why was it necessary to call to the boycott “simple” and rather symbolic vote last year and get involved in much more “complex” and does not have any real significance in this? In this case, I do not at all claim, as some of the authors of our joint statement that the tactics of the boycott can lead to regime collapse; It is generally impossible to change it through the elections now, in my opinion, but I simply express my personal position of rejection of what can be called the words of the bulk pattern last year: “Malage and fake”.

“Smart voting” is a good idea, but only if there is an acceptable alternative to a certain “obvious evil”. Now there is no such alternative: Orthodox Stalinists from the Communist Party, combatants from Fair Russia and the Imperials from the LDPR cannot personally be considered to me for me, and the “Yabloko” (for which I voted several times, including in 2016), in my opinion, made almost everything depending on it, so as not to go to the Duma according to the federal list. It is possible that in a number of single -mandate districts the struggle between worthy candidates and representatives of the Party of Power will be tied, but it does not seem to me that these somewhat purely private cases are sufficient to legitimize participation in the national shyra rush.

Finally, I agree with those critics who say that the “boycott” is indistinguishable from simple non-participation (and such as it becomes a rule: if in 2007 63.8%of voters voted in the Duma elections, then in 2011-60.2%, and in 2016-only 47.9%). But this external similarity can and should be more likely to develop the methods and forms of a boycott more visible and obvious to citizens than justifying participation in the action, the chances of success in which (if you consider it not a success to receive one deputy chair, and at least the minimum impact on the decision made) are completely absent.

I have no illusions-since 2013 I repeat both in Russia and abroad that our current political regime will live until the end of the 2020s,

- And I am sure that our condition that we observe now is not the “threshold of the end”, but rather a “mature” stage that designed an extremely comprehensive mechanism of dominance over the country. Not only in 2021, but 2024, nothing significant in the country will change, and the system of “elections” from the same parties will finally become a habit. And it seems to me that in order to appear at least a minimal chance to change, you need to try to leave the Tunnel created by the authorities. It is possible that in its current form of the tactics of a boycott and non -optimal - but, in my personal opinion, it is better than the next invention of hopes, which is clearly not destined to come true.

The editors may not share the author’s opinion.