Translated material
In search of rusty grab
To the discussion of the political manifesto, which was the series "Traitors"
18+. This material (information) was produced, distributed and (or) sent by foreign agent Vishnevsky Boris Lazarevich or concerns the activities of the foreign agent Vishnevsky Boris Lazarevich.
Continuing the discussion of the series “Traitors”, begun by Vladimir Pastukhov* , I remind the readers of Novaya Gazeta to my last year's controversy with an article published in August 2023 on behalf of Alexei Navalny, which is actually strongly firmly connected with this series.
In fact-because in the series the idea is developing that the causes of what was happening in the country in the 90s and the emergence of an authoritarian political system lie exclusively in the plane of corruption.
Stylistically - because it is built on the same rhetoric of the excitement of hatred of “traitors”, who has already been sentenced and who is not and should not be mercy. Which, we note, is very related to the authors of the series with Putin propagandists, who also love to talk about “traitors” (including “dug in the 90s”), stigmatize and nurture to a shameful pillar ...
The first of the theses is not even a simplified picture of what happened in the 90s, this is a seriously distorted (unimportant, intentionally or unknowing) picture, with a change in places of causes and consequences.
The second thesis - I will quote my colleague on the “apple” of Leo Schlosberg* - “wakes up anger and hatred in humiliated and insulted people and forms an atmosphere of civil war in the country”. Which, in my opinion, is not just unacceptable - monstrous and dangerous.
Neither one nor the other is at all surprising - the authors of the series do the only thing they can: they are looking for thieves.
As in that joke about a student who has learned only one question about fleas for the exam: they say, the fish lives in water, she, of course, does not have wool, but if she had it, then fleas would certainly have ...
So they explain what is happening in the 90s with the desire of the “liberal reformers” to be enriched as much as possible. At the same time, raising a degree of class rage to the "traitors."
An honest conversation about the reforms of the 90s-with the awareness of the causes of what happened, the extraction of lessons and, most importantly, an understanding that it is necessary to prevent repetition is absolutely necessary. But not the way we are offered by lovers of simple schemes and simple conclusions, confident that the louder the voice of the conviction, the better the guilt has been proved.
... Let's start with the thesis, today recognized by many (although not by everyone: I know a lot of those who until now continue to believe that everything would be fine, do not come after the “good Yeltsin” “bad Putin”). Namely: from the fact that the Putin’s political system is a direct continuation of the Yeltsin, and all its key features (except for criminalization of dissent and the transfer of part of the political authority) originates in the 90s.
This is served by the authors of the series as a revelation that has descended on them, but it causes nothing but grin. “Yabloko” says all the “Putin” years about this, and the reforms of the 90s and my colleagues criticized back in the 90s. Moreover, the “Yabloko” arose as a batch of protest against these, from our point of view, anti -human reforms.
And on the other side of the barricades, then our recent associates in the democratic movement turned out to be. With the principle of “reform is more important than democracy”, with a bet on persons, and not on institutions, and the concentration of power in the hands of the president: at first it was a “democratic choice of Russia”, and then the ATP.
So, to pretend that the authors of the series “investigated” something previously unknown to anyone-it means to sin strongly against the truth.
But the point is not only this.
The fact is that, as already mentioned, their causes and investigation are confused.
Not corruption led to the destruction of democracy in the 90s, but the destruction of democracy (mainly parliamentarism, honest elections and the change in power) created a nutrient medium for the heyday of corruption.
... Professor Vladimir Gelman - one of the deepest and professional researchers of the political system of post -Soviet Russia (I note, I note, my political activity in Leningrad in 1990 as a member of the city election commission, delegated by the Leningrad Popular Front) - rightly remarks that “the extraction of rents and corruption, which has become the main goal and main content of state governance (“ unavailable rule ”), - These are the symptoms of the disease. And the reasons are that the ruling groups systematically and successfully eradicated the electoral democracy, which involves the change of power as a result of the elections. ” Remembering the frank phrase of Anatoly Sobchak, said in 1990: "We are now in power-this is democracy."
Corruption, quite comparable with the Russian, according to Gelman, was observed in many post -communist countries (I note: not only in post -communist). But the change of power as a result of elections in these countries does not allow dangerous diseases to become incurable. In Russia, Gelman states, the question of free elections as a tool for restrictions on corruption in the 90s was almost not raised by anyone, and in the 2000s it was removed from the agenda seriously and for a long time ...
About how democratic institutions were destroyed in the 90s, thousands of articles and dozens of books were written (including me, including in Novaya Gazeta).
About how Boris Yeltsin and his entourage were carried out by the “only true”, from their point of view, economic reforms that worsened the situation of most citizens.
The fact that the implementation of these reforms in the conditions of democracy was impossible - simply because the reformers would be guaranteed to be removed from the authorities in the immediate elections (as, we note, more than once happened in the countries of Eastern Europe and not only - no catastrophe has happened).
About how the “liberalization of prices” was carried out in the absence of a real private sector and competition, which caused 2600 percent inflation.
The parliament was first discredited about how, in the name of “starting the hands of the President”, and then in 1993 was dispersed by the parliament, which did not agree with the economic reforms. And the constitution was adopted, which secured the autocratic structure, in which the president’s hands were almost completely unleashed.
About how the “best people of the city” were endowed with property (including at the notorious “mortal auctions”), then to help their benefactors maintain power.
About how in 1996, in order to prevent the change of power, free and honest elections were actually destroyed.
And about how to preserve this political system, it was precisely such a “successor” as Vladimir Putin.
... Corruption (and monstrous) in this system, of course, was.
But it was, as already mentioned, the investigation, and not the cause.
Corruption restriction tools are known: independent parliament conducting investigations of officials, free media writing about the abuses found, and a fair court, for this punishing.
Where all this is, there is also corruption - but it does not turn into a nationwide and insoluble problem.
And when all this is suppressed or destroyed, what is surprised at the scope of corruption?
At the same time, President Boris Yeltsin personally was not correctly corrupt: he was not interested in property, he was only interested in the power that he sought to preserve at all costs.
You can, of course, endlessly tell (how the authors of the series do this) about its two apartments on the autumn street, but does this explain what happened then? If there were no events of 1993 and 1996 that destroyed parliamentarism and free elections, he could forgive any “apartment issue”. And if he lived in a five -story Khrushchev, but the indicated events would have taken place, then no modest housing conditions would justify him ...
Were the figures from his government and his environment corrupt?
It is quite possible: in a system where one signature of “your man” could be made with a billionaire (for example, by planting a “gas” or “oil” pipe), and untouchable for law enforcement agencies, the temptations to get benefits from making such decisions were not only great, but also safe.
But to say that the beneficiaries of the 90s “betrayed democracy” or “stole victory” means to deliberately replace the foundation of the discussion.
By the way, about corruption and popular films about palaces and yachts: we did not know before them what they steal in the country? This was absolutely not a revelation for citizens, a revelation would be an investigation that Minister X or Governor Igrek lives on one salary.
Dozens of millions watched the film about the palace? And where, let me ask, then take these tens of millions? Went in 2021 to vote for a change in the political course in the country and for peace?
The part did not go at all, and some, according to calls, including the authors of the series, went “smartly” to vote for the Communists and Socialist -Revolutionaries. I recommend that they see how they vote in the State Duma now. Including a deputy of Chep, about whom the same authors, I remember, made an investigation about real estate of his family abroad. Modestly not mentioning, as offered to support him in the elections ...
So, to extract lessons from the 90s does not mean to penetrate with hatred of “traitors” or to give out the long-known facts and theses for the revelation.
To extract lessons from the 90s means to prevent the revival of the same system.
Because if new persons integrate into this system, they will very quickly engage in endowing the estates and “feeding” of their friends and associates.
And the fact that the dragon used to take away earlier will be - as in the immortal play by Eugene Schwartz - again to take the “Best People of the City”.
PS
When the text has already been written, a message came about the second part of the "series" - about the security auctions and elections of 1996.
Again, many articles were written about this in Novaya Gazeta.
About how to prevent the coming to the power of the communist opposition, a system was built that did not let any opposition to power.
About how easily many “masters of culture” turned into call leaders, and many media into the propaganda departments of Yeltsin’s headquarters (and after without complexes they turned into the same propaganda departments with his successor).
About how such “reformers”, like Chubais, kept saying: “Every voice thrown for Yavlinsky works for Zyuganov.”
About how citizens clearly showed: whatever their preferences were, they will not allow them to change their power.
And about how then they convinced “to choose with my heart” and “prevent the communist revenge” - and three years later the revenge came from a completely different side ...
Either these articles are unknown to the authors of the series, or they do not fit into their concept of pioneers-the essence of events does not change almost 30 years ago.
These events do not need “investigations” (because there are no previously unknown facts) and not in the exposure of “traitors” who “stole the victory”.
They need to comprehend what non -Bolshevism leads to and the principle "the end justifies the means."
In order not to step on the new political round again on the same rake.