The Russian Totalitarianism. Freedom here and now. Dmitrii Shusharin

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ abolishing elections in districts;

      • revision of criminal cases related to state asset-grabbing and political persecution of businessmen, public figures, scientists, laying the groundwork for the return of political emigrants to Russia;

      • independent investigation of terrorist acts, beginning with house bombings in 1999, political murders and mysterious deaths;

      • the beginning of a broad public discussion on the economic development of the country, the rejection of governmental management of the economy in favor of its effectiveness;

      • end of the clan system, cronyism and nepotism in personnel policy;

      • the restoration of the civilized party system, the termination of the merger of the state and the party of power, if necessary, its dissolution;

      • dissolution of youth organizations sponsored by the government;

      • development of a new concept of Russia’s foreign policy and its active and effective implementation;

      • administrative, military and judicial reforms, creation of new Armed Forces, new national security, defense and law enforcement agencies;

      • restoration of territorial integrity and a single legal space, actual, not formal approval of the constitutional order in the North Caucasus, real integration of the region into Russia.

      By the fall of 2008, a new item was added to the list: the repeal of Abkhazia and South Ossetia recognition, the revision of all policies in the post-Soviet space, and the rejection of imperial thinking.

      From the very beginning it was clear that such reforms would not be implemented by the political elite. The discussion of these issues had no chance either. Since all these demands – in total or separately – could be put forward if the authorities willingly decided to initiate something like thaw. That is, it would open a free discussion about the further development of the country. Would agree to an independent and transparent examination of its activities.

      It turned out to be something opposite and awkward – something like a waht. The present semblance of the opposition are the gleanings of this waht, the backwards thaw. In those odd four years the progressive public did not hide their readiness to serve the authorities, counting on benevolent and generous rewards. The game of change that was played revealed the most important problems not for the authorities, but for those who would like to improve and perfect the system. The essential problems of values, mentality and language.

      The language of power was intended to conceal the lack of freedom of expression and choice of topics, vocabulary, assessment of events and persons. It is not language that generates reality, no matter how spin masters try to convince us of this. And not reality is language. The free man is the master of both reality and language. But the choice in favor of cooperation with the authorities has deprived and keeps on depriving man of freedom, control over reality, and the possibility of choosing the language.

      When trying to play in a game of thaw it turned out that cooperation with the authorities means giving up civil loyalty. Hopes for a “historic chance”, for the creation of some “loyal majority” on which the president will rely, was the repetition of Gleb Pavlovsky’s “Putin majority”, especially since the idea was articulated by the man of his circle, Alexander Morozov:

      “Most of the Medvedev’s” we”, the well-intentioned renovators, are people who never seriously belonged to any opposition: they are non-oligarchic active people – entrepreneurs, lawyers, journalists, doctors, managers, etc. – who made it after 1998 default. At times they were not getting along with their local authority, at times were friends with them, but essentially they have been “loyal.” This is a part of the “loyal majority.”

      Note that the “political nation” is really impossible without a loyal majority. And the longer D. Shusharin fantasizes about the investigation of the 1999 bombings as the topic of the agenda, the more eloquent you, Marina, will discuss the issue of how to pull off lustration after the miraculous victory of Solidarity over the forces of evil, the further and further we will be keeping us away from the historical chance.”53

      The usual triviality, so characteristic of Pavlovsky and his entourage. “We”, “from below”, “agenda” – empty pathetic clichés. Although not quite ordinary. Against the backdrop of all this baloney about Medvedev’s thaw they betray themselves talking not about a deal or compromise (no one was even thinking to negotiate with them), but about the price of the power status, the fee for the right to kowtow. You are not allowed to discuss the past, the most recent past and the sources of legitimization of power. Just like at the turn of the sixties and seventies: if you want to get your ration, forget about the GULAG. The scale may be dissimilar, but the moral price is the same. There is no difference between the oblivion of slain millions or at least one killed. It’s called the same.

      Loyalists set themselves an unprecedented task: to build a society under the rule of the tandemocrats in which the distinction between good and evil is irrelevant, instead the priority is loyalty or disloyalty to power. Where there is no such social regulator as morality, not correlated with state expediency. There is no right either. And they called this return to barbarism modernization. Authoritarian, true, but still modernization.

      The target audience of these statements was obvious, and it did not go away. This is the part of society that is tired of Putin’s deadlock, but is not capable of active actions. These people believe in anything and will deceive themselves to the end, preferring their own dreams to reading the news line. They would never evaluate the known facts, wouldn’t notice the obvious, but they will be firmly convinced of the existence of something secret and bright.

      And these are not so-called ordinary people. These are intellectuals who are seriously regard this babble worthy of respect:

      “I urge everyone to be realistic. “Everything at once” is the principle of the revolution, and Medvedev is not a revolutionary at all, and it would be wrong to pressure him for revolutionary solutions. In any case for now. We must start in a bit by bit mode. From safe, out of harm’s way steps (to shield Medvedev from danger of losing power). The release of Bakhmina, a slight weakening of the repressive reaction to the opposition’s actions, the invitation of the opposition-minded people to the Human Rights Council, the resignation of the main Moscow policeman, the removal of Zyazikov – all this are, albeit small but positive signs of Medvedev’s moving not towards strengthening authoritarianism, but in the opposite direction.

      This does not mean that all problems will be solved in one day, they are not diminishing, but the task of the active part of society and the opposition is to pressure Medvedev, to formulate challenges that he will have to react to. Having embarked on this path of small incremental changes, sooner or later Medvedev will face systemic issues that require a radical overhaul of the current regime. And we must persistently urge Medvedev to follow this path and not turn off of it, so that he eventually he would reach the maximum goals.”54

      This meaningless nonsense is not even worth discussing – analyzing incantations doesn’t make sense. In the same line with this is the belief in the magical power of the Internet, where the best people will go, so that there, in an absolutely miraculous way, new technologies would give rise to fundamentally new social relations.

      For all that, the study of society was not encouraged. Since СКАЧАТЬ