Russia Needs deMedvedezation

Perhaps, the most charming and touching essence in the world - is the Russian liberal. I am speaking now not about neo-liberals in power but about classical avocates of democratic freedom and haters of murderous KGB, sheding tears above Khodorkovsky's sad destiny and dreaming about Kasparov's coming to power or, at the worst, of Yavlinsky's. There are a lot of such in Russia now especially among intelligency (mainly humanitarian one). There is something childly naïve in them and to listen to their babble - is pure pleasure. Sometimes it is possible to meet completely hilarious pearls. In such cases I recollect a statement of one five years' wise man: «I know how to make so that there was no war: it is necessary that all good people gather and kill all bad ones!»

That is our domestic liberal. He wants that everything was good - as at heart he is quite a good person. Though he doesn't think about the ways to this very "good": it's not children's / liberal's business.

But - out of the mouths of babes and sucklings. It's not, certainly, in the sense that ideas stated by that "baby" are always absolutely true. However they force to reflect on important things, remind of necessity to answer some questions.

The most popular among our liberals idea is as follows: «Medved - is bad, it is evil, it's suffocation of freedom. But we don't need any revolutions, as they are also evil». In brackets we shall notice that, perhaps, the most exact name for the order existing in modern Russia - not "dictatorship", not "principate", not "the state of successors", but namely "medved", it in the best way reflects the essence. To tell you the truth, liberal babies for some reason refer the date of a birth of this medved to the times of presidency of Vladimir Putin. Actually it arose in the autumn of 1993, after dispersal of the Supreme Soviet and liquidation of a post of vice-president (who - not taking into account personal qualities - all the same limited authority of the president, did not allow him to turn into the autocrat as in Ancient Rome each consul by the mere fact of his existence limited authority of other consul).

So, we don't need either medved or revolutions (actually the Communist Party of the Russian Federation has the same position, though it expresses it less consistently - therefore as an example I took the views of liberals). Here the well-known character of Moliere - monsieur Zhurden who did not want either verses or prose - is being recollected. However, in comparison with liberals this petty bourgeois in nobility looks as a man of great, deepest mind. In fact he was explained only once: "Everything that is not prose is verses and what is not verses, is prose". Only one time he was explained - and mister Zhurden got it!

Well, let's talk about a medved. Whether he feed on rigidly? Yes, it's impossible to feed on more rigidly. Whether it is possible to throw off it therefrom using lawful ways? It is interesting, how? All legal policy is being completely supervised by it, illegal, generally - too. What remains? Dissenters Marches? Good, certainly, thing but... The authority was not very afraid of meetings and demonstrations at the last decade, there is no way now. One more possible method - "national referendum" carried out in due time by the Communist Party of the Russian Federation. However the authority, having learned about its results, for some reason didn't dismay and didn't submit resignation with its full complement. It is paradoxical but it's fact.

Let's leave joking apart... Absolutely everything belong to these people in our country. Absolute power, impunity, the luxury accessible not to every king... Whether somebody seriously believe that they will refuse it without resistance - only because someone somewhere voted somehow?

So, it turns out: everything that is not revolution is medved and what is not medved is revolution. Curse, swear, spit but you won't go anywhere from this dilemma. It is possible that mister Zhurden would understand it - not from the first time but from the second. It's possible, of course, to dream and imagine - but in reality there are only these two opportunities (each of them, certainly - with set of variations).

With all inevitability the conclusion follows: everyone who opposes revolution (not some particular but revolution basically), thus works on consolidation of medved's position. Certainly, such position also has the right to exist - but all the same, stating antirevolutionary sights, it's necessary to understand to whose benefit you play.

What revolution we are talking about in today's Russia? About communistic? Probably, however in any case the first problem on the agenda is demedvedization of the country. You say there is no such word? It's true, there was no such word before - as there was no necessity for the phenomenon which corresponds to it. Now - there is one. 

It is possible to call such revolution bourgeois-democratic and in general it will be correct. In fact in practice democracy is not authority of people (till the time such authority hasn't existed) but opportunity of people to influence this authority, the state machinery. Now people in Russia don't have such opportunity - because we have medved.

The bitter truth is that authority will not allow even the slightest opportunity to influence itself - without revolution. Not for that it blitzed completely information space, not for that the CEC achieved masterly skill in art of calculation of voices, not for that cops learned how to transform any city in occupied one in few hours. Absolute power of bureaucracy established itself precisely during the last years in Russia - and bureaucracy is panic-stricken with everything that it cannot supervise completely and up to the end. It's afraid - and eliminate as consequence.

Whether this authority can make concessions? It is improbable. These people are taught that authority is only for serious people - and serious people maintain ground never and in nothing. In any case, now there is no in Russia such force that is capable to compel the Kremlin of compromise.

When it will appear - the matter, most likely, will end not in agreement but with falling of the Kremlin. And - in demedvedization of the country.