Кто владеет информацией,
владеет миром

Associate Opposition Should Include Everyone but for the Thieves

Associate Opposition Should Include Everyone but for the Thieves
Baranov Anatoly 20.12.2006

According to the results of "Marsh of Dissidents" which became, probably, the last large mass action of the leaving year, it’s already possible to sum up conclusions. Actually, there’s no results. Therefore the totals are not so good …

Actually, "Other Russia" has tried to carry out certain consolidation of a protest kernel around rather politically correct and quite common appeals – there are a lot of those who are not consent but there’s no need to agree with each other. It is required to agree only with one thing - it is impossible to live like this (I am sorry, the slogan is of Govoruhin who demonstrates on his own example – it’s possible to live like this and it’s possible to live not badly).

However, opposition generally speaking didn’t consolidate under flags of "Other Russia", though the progress of the movement is obvious – there were approximately four thousand people who came that time. For Moscow the number is not big but for "Other Russia" it is a record.

If to speak about an absolute record of a year, it’s, certainly, a meeting and marsh of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation in Moscow from the same Triumphal Square up to Theatrical Square on November, 7th. Despite of the working day, bad weather and gloomy enough surroundings of an event, approximately 15 thousand totally came. It’s serious for the party, not serious for the revolution. If only there were fivefold…

And the same scenario from the part of the authorities - to allow to gather but do not allow to pass.

Communists managed to pass, but it was not easy to understand the reason why militiamen in a cordon made efforts, having linked their hands, not letting people walk freely on sidewalk of Tverskaya Street. It was possible to think that they had the Kremlin and personally Putin, fragile, as an easter egg which should be protected from careless steps of crowd, behind them.

But there was no-thing behind militian "chain".

"What’s the reason of staying like this? Make a step backward”, I said.

They only kecked and kept silent in answer. Difficult. Held. What for? They must!

On November, 4th "Russian March" passed. To be more precisely - did not pass. The pictuer was the same - to die in the last ditch and not let pass. And, naturally, round-ups, preventive arrests, mass-media in which well-known political scientists with open eyes tell horrors in which they trust themselves.

Now about the helicopter. Flights above cities and especially above Moscow are strictly forbidden – the reason is clear. Especially, certainly, the flights of helicopters – being most dangerous transport, without paying attention to the condition and quality of assembly.

It happened that once I flied on extreme need from Zhukovsky to Hodinka and not by the helicopter but by small-size plane where the risk in every respect is little - and from the point of view of probability of an incident as well as from the point of view of possible destructions from falling. But, first of all, the pilot at a steering wheel was very experienced investigator of the Russian Federation and the Hero of Russia and, secondly, were given a passagenf above MKAD and Stroginskaya bottomland, far from residential buildings and places of the big congestion of people.

For the last years in Russia there were cases of accidents with 2 governors, multitude of high-rank military men (including the whole staff of grouping of the Russian border troops in Tajikistan), as to the simple citizens – their number is not possible to calculate.

For confirmation of the said - at once two cases this Saturday: as a result of accident with sport plane Jak-18T in Vsevolozhsk area of Leningrad region three persons died, "Interfax" informed. The plane blew up in the air above stadium of the settlement Nizhnie Oselky 25 kmfrom St.-Petersburg. Besides in Voskresensky Region of the Moscow area the double seat helicopter broke, the representative of Management of information of the Ministry of Emergency Measures of Russia informed "Interfax". The helicopter of foreign manufacture fell to the field near the settlement Gorodische around 1.15 p.m. The pilot and the passenger died.

Is it not enough? Is it not enough, I ask?

It is clear that to take enormous risk and to allow to lift the helicopter above the center of Moscow, moreover directly above a greater congestion of people is possible only in some exclusive, extreme circumstances - because otherwise it’s a crime, i.e. the matter within jurisdiction (I hope, the lawyers in the ranks of opposition will notice this moment).

It is also clear that the reason was - "extremism".

But how were authorities going to fight extremism by means of the helicopter? Using rocket impact? Aim bombing? Landing of troops?

So, such things are done by authorities only in conditions of big fright - and so that to show, say, we are so afraid, that are ready to go on any crime, on any victims. As in 1993.

It’s also proved by other, less significant things – for example, by provoking crushes, nervousness in crowd and so on. For example, what positive problem can be solved in a crowd of 30-40 cynologists with dogs? Whether people will be, in case of occurrence of a crush, be crippled or flattened out facing heavy techniques which far-sightedly blocked possible ways for rescue of people? Why for "the sake of safety" should they drive law-enforcement forces prevailing in number protesters in 2-3 times.

Citizens are evidently, in as much as possible accessible form shown - there is no such crime which the authority for the sake of preservation of power is not ready to commit.

So what are they afraid of then?

Certainly, a lesson on Majdan and "Revolution of Roses" were evident but today opposition has few chances to be united - owing to the efforts of authority and mass-media. Besides protest potential of a society is essentially lower than, say, 2 years ago when it seemed – it just about to begin.

Nothing began. Decayed. It’s not possible to enter revolution on pensioner’s hump

It was then supposed that introduction of the new Housing code and a number of others for that moment ready to the introduction of absolutely inhuman legislative initiatives of the authority would stir up a great bulk of citizens - workers, supporters, a basis of a society.

It didn’t stir up. Though conflicts around Housing Cooperative, dot building, different resettlements became usual, ordinary matter which even newspapers ceased to react to as to something outstanding.

But no serious consolidated protest of all offended and abused is possible. Everyone dies alone and in small groups. And that is, certainly, a fault of opposition - meanwhile, we propose people nothing except for the bulletin for voting. And the bulletin we offer with words: "Certainly, we shall lose but introduce a pair of people, they will cry and  you, comrades, will receive pleasure from it".

It is clear how citizens treat such "defenders".

Also citizens, and not without bases, suspect system opposition in confederacy with authority. Because during long-term moamings about national disasters, they suitably paunched while the number of disasters didn’t decrease.

It is paradoxical but fact - today opposition, all and in parts, should be justified before citizens for long-term absence of result. It’s not the authority that should be justified – the one that has a gun is right. While opposition should show evidently that it – is what it wants to show.

I believe, society has the right to wait from opposition unification. Not for "opportunism" but for the protection of its, a society, interests. Interests of the opposition in this case – is a second question because the voter (citizen) is almost the same who would cry in this or that level of Duma in minority for his interests.

Citizens have the right to wait from opposition serious steps to capture authority in the country. Or, at least, for example, in a number of regions. Today the powers of legislative assemblies are very great and the significance of local elections is also very big. But it is necessary to w-i-n and not only to get an increment of 2 percent or of 1-2-3 deputy chairs. None from opposition parties existing today has chances to receive overwhelming majority even in the most tweedy subject of Federation. But together – they have.

Let's return to the experience of mass actions of the last autumn.

Would we receive Majdan if the participants of "Russian March", demonstration on November, 7th and "March of Dissidents" would act simultaneously?

I think, no. Because Majdan - is not only (and not so much) a crowd on the square in the center of the capital but conscious work of joint for the sake of getting of authority political forces. Without this condition it’s simply just a crowd of people. Surkov wants to take one of these days to Moscow 100 thousand of “Nashy’. And what of it? Is it a real support of authority or simply business?

It’s clear that it’s business.

If to take into account that frequently participants of different marches and processions are same people (for example, AKM and NBP on November, 7th and "March of Dissidents" as well as former “rodintsy" in “Russian March" and in procession on November, 7th), then totally in the most favorable case we have today - 20 thousand people. “Extremists”, certainly, whom the authority are able to disperse, if the situation will demand it. Speaking the language of dialectical materialism 20 thousand on a background of 10 million of capital inhabitants - is not that quantity which gives new quality.

Does it mean that one should put up and keep silent?

Certainly, not. Moscow saw demonstrations more numerous than 100 thousand, at that in that times when there was no tendency to pay for the participation in mass actions.

However it shouldn’t be forgotten that all already twenty years' history of mass oppositional movement in Russia - is a continuous story of disappointments, betrayals and frank "chucks". Everyone needs to be washed for long after such history. And the more so, when you call under banners recent prime-minister with a tender nickname "Michael-two-percent" in environment of not less historical characters like Irina Khakamada - there was a time when Irina Mutsuovna received on elections in Orehovo-Zuevo more voices than anyone for the whole history of elections. She was trusted… And if now Khakamada will take a risk to appear before her Moscow voters from southern part of the capital?  

It’s possible now to appeal to opposition to unify. Even Belkovsky appeals though he has no reason. And what would he do if it really will unify and ask Stanislav Alexandrovich?

Unification of absolutely different opposition is possible and productive only in one case – it’s a unification for getting of power using peaceful means and has no other reason. There couldn’t be any other erosion of views and principles otherwise the result would be even less than any of composed separately.

But citizens should be explained why opposition wants to get power.

And the answer can be only one – to continue normally political struggle but already in conditions of more or less equal representation in legislative, executive and other branches of authority, without chekism and dictatorship of one pseudo-party. Constitutional majority of one party in any branch of authority should be forbidden legislatively.

Today associations happen – for example "Other Russia" suggests to get united around itself. That's it - around itself. Other participants of association are interesting to the main uniting force only as a mass.

The things are not better on patriotic flank – one idea is there a basis of association, the idea that is absolutely not comprehensible for many while for others it doesn’t reflect an essence of problems facing a society.

Even the Staff of protest actions of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, despite of all successes of this association - is all the same association around CPRF. A lot of political forces are ready to unify around the biggest oppositional party. At that there are a lot of such that unite with the only aim  - to refill on its account.  

If someone seems that the voter doesn’t see and feel all this, he is severely mistaken. For this reason any existing now above-party, at-party and even outside of-party association do not lead to any perceivable qualitative transition.

What kind of qualitative transition?

Very simple - trust to these associations from the part of mass, not politized voter. That effect which "Democratic Russia" managed to achieve once, for some moment united almost everybody, even communists. Or that effect which the Kremlin political scientists managed to achieve at creation of the party “Edinaya Russia” "for Putin”. In fact "ЕR" - is non-political party, it is a party of national hope which, alas, was not justified.

Today opposition can be united only on equal principles and it is necessary to say frankly that the victory on the elections at such association will be not a result but only the beginning - the beginning of the political nation, perhaps.

Behind those who will head association as behind Minin and Pozharsky should be no personal claims on participation in authority in the future. Those who unite political forces cannot in the nearest future come up as figurants in one of party lists. And especially – cannot appear figurants on presidential elections. It should be quite neutral figures, if not absolutely politically neutral then not enlisted in fractions, presidiums and committees. But at the same time having authority in political sphere.

Why so? Well, because inside of opposition there is no principle of division of authorities and such integration structure should act as the arbitrator whom they all could trust. Something like the constitutional meeting with the postponed powers – «on after a victory».

Cards are already distributed and space before deciding political events which will define destiny of the country has been already defined. It is possible to carry on marches, processions, meetings, captiously watching – they have 300 less and the banners are smaller…  But it won’t be interesting for anyone except for the core group which in electoral sense constitutes only some parts of percent.

We would like that opposition will receive on elections in Legislative Assembly already in March totally more than  “Edinaya Russia” and LDPR which has joined it.

We would like that different oppositional parties will be more or less equally represented in local parlaments, will take decisions only after having agreed with each other.

We would like that executive authority on places will be formed from those who represent citizens and not FSB, big bussiness or the Kremlin.

We don’t want to be deceived.

If such miracle would happen, then to the elections to the State Duma opposition will have positive experience of fair dialogue with citizens. It will be possible to make up coalition on federal elections on the same principles. And according to the results of the federal elections having received experience of constructive cooperation and integral structure which would have enough moral authority to exclude all possible variants of mutual «cases of chucks» that can be meet in oppositional policy quite often, it would be possible to define openly and publicly who could become the president of our unhappy country from opposition.

I read Delyagin’s version that success of Minin and Pozharsky as against of the number of their predecedors was defined by the fact they unitied not absolutely everybody but “everybody but for the thiefs”.

There is also other variant. It’s called Putin. Though some comrades pronounce different word but starting from the same letter…

In other::