Five opposition mistakes that led us to defeat

From the editorial office
This text was written by Leonid Gozman in a special reception No. 2 in Moscow at a time when no one knew whether he could leave the country after the next arrest for 15 days and maintain freedom and life. Gozman flew out of Russia on the night of September 29, a few hours after the end of the arrest, probably just because no one had time to receive an order about his new detention at that time. We publish prison notes a policy dedicated to the Russian opposition and the future of the country.

Prison is a great place for reflection. Especially when, as I am now, you don’t know how many days or years you have to sit, and in general, will you ever come out of here?

So why did we not succeed? We are an active-opposition segment of a society that has achieved democracy, law and the European path. It didn't work out!

Moreover. Our forces are defeated. The organizers of the protests and many activists are either in prison or in exile, as well as the most reputable opposition ideologists and journalists. Russia, of course, will be free, but when and how it happens, it is not clear.

Why did it happen? Many see the reason in the properties of our people themselves - slaves, they say, do not need freedom. Horde, they say, Ivan the Terrible. And also in the fact that Russia, due to its size, religion, climate, must have some special, suitable for it and, of course, not a democratic political structure.

Such arguments are at least as many years as there is a dispute between Slavophiles and Westerners. However, talking about how much we differ from them (they live according to the law, and we are true) go back to the first millennium.

However, not a single evidence that Russian (Russian) people do not need freedom, but, on the contrary, a whip is needed, no one brought like that. But the course and consequences of the great reforms of Alexander, economic behavior during the NEP period, rapid development in the nineties and the successes of all waves of Russian emigration immutally indicate that our person is just as adapted to the conditions of freedom, behaves in this context as adequately as any other.

Talks about geography, climate, religion and others are not at all withstanding critics. Democracy in cold Finland, in huge Canada, in Orthodox Greece and not Christian India proves that there is no reason to explain our failure fundamentally uncontrolled natural or historical factors.

In general, the tendency to exaggerate its specialty, the difference from others, is most often connected with the desire to explain its lag in a uninhabited way.

Our defeat, they say, is a consequence of the actions of objectively opposing forces.

Here we must pay tribute to the authorities. We underestimated either themselves or the strength of the system. In an effort to maintain a position, in the fight against any threats, including from the democratic opposition, they were inventive, decisive and consistent, neglecting, naturally, both morality and law. (Interestingly, in all other areas - in the economy, in international politics - they are extremely ineffective).

But our task is not to analyze them, but, first of all, our actions, to understand whether our responsibility for the situation in which the country and we all found themselves?

Talking about the actions of the opposition, in general, is quite difficult. The democratic opposition consists of a huge number of very different people. Someone is united around the leader-Navalny, someone enters small organizations, there are, and there are many of them, loners, following only their moral feeling. Accordingly, people who are obviously belonging to a democratic camp often often behave directly opposite. For example, some of the opposition participated in the elections, and part - condemned them for this and called on the elections to ignore. Such a "scatter" is natural. Oppositionists do not go in line, they are united only by the desire for freedom and rejection of the existing system. Otherwise, they are different.

The point of view is very common, according to which everything would be different if the opposition could unite. I am not against the unification, but I do not see that it would change? In the nineties and at the beginning of the zero and DVR (ATP), and Yabloko had their own factions in the Duma, it was not relevant to unite, but coordination. And then both fractions disappeared, but the structure of Navalny appeared. The existing small parties and groups that did not want to join it could, of course, unite among themselves, but this would not have changed anything. Yes, there were very worthy people, but all of them did not possess the hundredths of that political influence - and it can be measured by the number of people whom the political structure can bring to the street - which was possessed by Navalny and his team. Competitions for the lack of association are an attempt to explain the difficult problem of the causes of defeat by simple, not very significant factors, for which, moreover, you personally do not answer - they, politicians, could not agree.

But the real opposition errors that had tragic consequences are, in my opinion, in the psychological sphere. These are mistakes in the perception of people and the country, not the elaboration of the image of the desired future and much more.

Without pretending to be full, I will note only some of them.

1. Emotions without political action

Many of us accepted the fact of mass dissatisfaction with the regime, the fact of people to support the assessments of the system that we gave in our speeches at rallies and in the media, for a political victory.

They applauded us, agreed with us. Tens of millions of spectators watched Navalny's films, believing every word. The dedication of many oppositionists was admired by people far from politics. That is, a lot of citizens, at the level of emotions, supported the opposition, but this did not lead to political actions. The opponents of the system are everywhere, but this does not prevent many of them, disciplinedly vote for power.

The fact is that people who agree that what is happening in the country is terrible at the same time that it cannot be otherwise that this is the only order of things for Russia. Emotions directed against the authorities should have been supplemented by an effective refutation of these prejudices, a demonstration that another life in our country is possible. Unfortunately, such work was not carried out for the mass public, the problem was discussed only with experts. And without this, people, having looked at vivid performances, deteriorating the facts of corruption and arbitrariness, sympathizing with the victims, returned to the usual way of life. In justification of the opposition, it must be said that explanatory work in this case is infinitely complex and requires a very long time.

2. An error of representativeness

In social psychology, there is a concept - a mistake of representativeness. Each of us is inclined to consider our own experience more representative than it really is. People argue like this: I know Chekhov, two Czechs studied with me on the same course. The circle of communication of each of us, even those who are engaged in active political work, is inevitably limited and distorted compared to the country as a whole. We communicate with “our own” deeper and more intense than with “strangers”. This is clearly visible on social networks, where we, choosing “friends” and blocking particularly unpleasant figures, create an artificial reality that we sometimes take for the real one. Or at a rally, when it begins to seem to us that everything, the whole country thinks like us. In general, our idea of ​​society is distorted. This is natural and cannot be otherwise, but we must constantly make an amendment to this aberration of perception.

Unfortunately, people do this far from always, which affects the quality of political work. An example is a fairly common idea that some things do not need to be pronounced-"everyone understands everything." Or the opposite in meaning, but existing simultaneously: "It is pointless to speak, they, still, are not able to understand anything."

3. The sin of pride

Unfortunately, arrogant, unfortunately, is widespread in the opposition environment, arrogant in relation to people who do not share our views or simply not ready to participate in an active struggle (though this is more characteristic of oppositions of writing, and not acting). The point is not only about insulting nicknames, such as quilted jackets, and many others that I do not want to repeat. It’s a real look at people from top to bottom, in the feeling that we, like the progressors of the Strugatsky, do good not with them, but for them. This is arrogance, even when it does not express itself directly, “breaks the screen”, causing natural rejection.

There is a denunciation and requirements from us, but there is no sympathy for the same as us, but deceived, fraught with propaganda, powerless and dependent. And if people do not see sympathy, they reject everything they say,

No matter how correct, fair and truthful it is. If we want us to hear us, to be believed, we must speak with a fundamentally different installation. Now the love of fellow citizens does not come from us - not for the ideal, as they will become in the future, but to the real ones living with us in the same entrance. And it turns out according to the apostle Paul: "If I speak human or angelic languages, but I have no love ..."

4.

We rightly accuse the power of having no image of the future, looking for him in the past. But our “desired future” is not well spelled out, in many ways it is only based on the denial of today's disgraces. There will be no falsification of elections, arbitrariness and torture, political persecution, there will be no terrifying corruption, there will be no confrontation between the civilized world and fraternity with dictators. And what will happen? This is stated deaf and not enough.

Yes, there will be a real federation. Excellent, what else? Will we be for the integrity of the country within its current borders or will we be ready to exit individual territories from the Russian Federation? Will Russia be a consistently secular state and what will be the role of the Church? Will Orthodoxy have formally fixed advantages? Will the Russian people preserve the status of a state -forming one? Will we strive in the EU and NATO? What will be the position of Tatarstan, Bashkiria, Yakutia and other republics? And a lot of other questions that are almost no answers and which are not even posed.

5. Dragon electorate with whom we live

And most importantly. Speaking about that Russia that we want to see, we usually do not pay attention to the fact that our fellow citizens in it will be not only those with whom we went out into the street, but also tens of millions of not just those who have voted for “United Russia”, but sincerely supporting the war and Putin’s policy, in general. Tens of millions of people convinced that Crimea is ours, and the West, led by the States, wishes our death, forcing us to defend ourselves. It's not about criminals who should bear punishment, but about ordinary people who, due to not too high intelligence, poor education, passivity, addiction, life in the depleted information environment, accepted such an inadequate picture of the world. And this picture of the world will not automatically and dramatically only from the fact that lies and hatred will cease to pour from the screens and normal discussions will appear. The base of faith in totalitarian phantoms is deep and serious.

These people will have the right to vote in honest and transparent elections, they will teach children in schools and teach at universities, they, in the end, will educate their own children. And this is a base for coming to power - legal, in the elections - a new dragon. They will call him, they need him.

This is not only a Russian problem. With the desire of some citizens to dictatorship and restriction of freedom, quite democratic countries are also faced. Not by themselves, but by the will of millions, Trump, Le Pen appeared, an alternative to Germany and many others - it is impossible to explain all this with Russian hackers or dirty money from Russia. Democracy, freedom, and life itself is always under threat - a constant, daily struggle is required to preserve them. This decay and decay occur by themselves, and life is only contrary to the laws of thermodynamics and universal desire for entropy

After the regime falls, the country's responsible citizens will be faced not only by the task of building normal institutions on the ruins of autocracy, but also another, no less complicated - dialogue (and reconciliation!) With those who were the system of support for the system, their conviction is that the guarantee of their well -being is not a new dragon, even more intelligent and kind, but freedom and law.

But the dialogue will be effective only if we talk to them, not from above, but on equal terms, not from the position of mentors, but as with our own - the same as we, but deceived and deceived. And this dialogue will also be complicated by the fact that many of them hate us, see in us, and not at all in Putin, the reason for their misfortunes. But he, still, is necessary. And you need to start it not once later, but right now. Although it is difficult!

***

At this stage, we lost. But if we understand and analyze our own mistakes, then there is a chance that those who follow us, which should be stronger than us, do not repeat them and win. And Russia will be free.

*09/22/2022

Moscow. Special receiver # 2*