About Mayor’s Elections from the Future

I suggest to look at things with detachment for objective assessment of the one whom to prefer at elections of the Mayor of Moscow, to look at it from position of some educated person from the future: maximum alienation from passions, full sobriety of estimates, with fidelity to democratic values and condescension to us – to people of "a shady past".

So, let’s try. First of all: our task – to provide as much as possible freedom at minimization of harm to people, in other words - democracy via humanity. Therefore we won't support Sobyanin's paternalistic authoritarianism. We will accept his victory in the first round as a reality. Simply because majority in Moscow perfectly well understands that it loses from instability more, than gets from justice. Majority also understands very well that it lives in artificial slaveholding paradise.

Crash of the USSR providing relative sausage abundance of the capital and supporting huge number of pseudo-scientific and almost-engineer staff was at the beginning of the 90s compensated to Muscovites by flow of investments and Luzhkov's trade and construction boom. However today every establishment of economic justice will finish off abundance in Moscow because the capital won’t be able to compensate refusal of inflow of administrative rent by transformation it into the center of high technologies. Such future has been already stolen by the USA and Israel.

Our task is to give advice how to render maximum assistance to democracy at the elections.

Position "Boycott to False Elections" which united both democratic fundamentalists, supporters of Edward Veniaminovich and left thrown by recent “allies from Bolotnaya Square" for the sake of Navalny in peculiar "front of refusal" is still too big exotic for those who opened civil protest for himself just now. After all they went to opposition proceeding from two theses: a) only elections - way to democracy, b) local government – base of democracy.

Similar theses are welcomed by guests from Western Europe. Guests from Eastern Europe shouldn’t be bothered with such conversations though they could remind how Walesa and Havel came, how Ceausescu and Milosevic “retired”, how the Berlin wall was turned into a field of souvenirs …

Moral position of "front of refusal" is important in case of opening of historical alternative – too impudent falsification of elections, when its supporters will feel shock and start dancing in search of a new political coordinates. While existing number of political eremites is enough for preservation of a new protest as embryo. We recommend to pass "life school" to the rest, that they won’t blame themselves for the rest of their life – say, if we would have come to elections and thus would have provided peaceful change of the power …

However, it is possible to imagine how ten years later 45-year-old former active supporter of participation in those elections would argue with his 20-year-old child:

- Perhaps, if all would have come then to the elections and supported … (insert surname), the power would be updated peacefully and democratically and there will be nothing of the kind!

- No, dad (mom), if all of you wouldn’t have swallowed that cheap bait and wouldn’t have legitimated the mode by participation in such elections, THEN there will be nothing of the kind!

Liberal opposition was divided into admirers and opponents of Navalny. It’s impossible to talk admirers round. As well as opponents. When a year ago I said that forgotten today Coordination Council of opposition was necessary only in order to “cook” new unifying oppositional ideology, I, generally, didn't think that that ideology would have character of Navalny’s cult. Though nearly two years ago, in the middle of December, 2011 I wrote about "Navalny’s Revolution".

I fondly thought that ideology of integrated opposition would remind social democracy which would become "average geometrical" of the left and liberal ideologies. Thus I spoke about possibility of appearance of variants in the form of "average algebraic". The last variant got realized in the form of national democratism being formed before our eyes.

At all respect to brothers Strugatsky and to liberal men of the sixties, we forgot their main prevention: fascism is revolution of small bourgeois, speaking today's politological slang – it’s Riot of middle class.

Century ago Augustus Bebel said with bitterness: "anti-Semitism is socialism of fools". It’s interesting what movement historians of the future will call “liberalism of fools” studying our days?

There are three sources and three components of Navalny’s ideology being formed before our eyes:

- neo-Stalin (left) idea to adjust economy by means of ruthless fight against corrupted officials and rich men approached to the power;

- liberal idea to implant civil control everywhere, as well as honest courts and fair elections;

- right idea of "public updating" through fight against "strangers".

There is quite sufficient number of supporters of Navalny to start powerful social movement, but it isn't enough to gain victory over Sobyanin. No one will force those who haven’t accept new doctrine to vote for Alexey Anatolyevich.

Where should they go, whose side to occupy.

Certainly, not of LDPR – it is impossible to encourage such absolutely kindergarten impudence.

About Levichev. The most ridiculous is that from the point of view of smooth evolutionary withdrawal from totalitarian Luzhkov's model, his board – with gradual increase in powers of regional councils and overcoming of terrible theft in the sphere of capital housing and communal services and building complex - would be the most rational choice. But for the scale of his personality, but for categorical imperative "don’t give hope to the informer" …

Mitrokhin. There is no growth potential. The oldest and most numerous Liberal party failed to head protest movement of 2011. Its candidate – simply diluted Navalny. Though he is honest person and tries his best, he worries a lot that first-throned will become "province of Central Asia". However, London didn't become Indian province and Paris - Algerian.

We also have communist Melnikov from the Moscow State University. Certainly, there are no any noticeable chances. Though he is moderate, the program is utopian but without fanaticism. Normal, extremely decent and extremely boring social democrat. Though if we understand that there’s no democracy with one pole, as there’s no such magnet, we have to understand – the more Melnikov's relative support, the stronger is social democratic alternative to Zyuganov in the CPRF.

Therefore the most perspective political investments – Navalny and Melnikov.

________________________________________

From editorial board: Political investments into Ivan Ivanovich Melnikov who is 63 years old can't be long-term in any way. Most likely we are present at political commemoration of the first deputy of Zyuganov who won’t be excused even for the slightest success of this campaign (the more so he won't be excused for failure). Melnikov's promotion was initiated by the Kremlin, contrary to Zyuganov's desire to put forward young sponsor of the party Kumin political investments into whom could really be perspective regardless of the results of voting. While the Kremlin needs legitimation of elections of Sobyanin, not promotion of new faces in opposition.

Investments into Navalny are really perspective, though are risky. However Navalny has been already invested a lot and it is very likely that it’s joint stock company. It is possible to get a job of medium-level manager or in the regional headquarter, though vacancies are promptly closing even there.

It is better to look closely at startups of this fall, probably, there are future Microsoft from policy among them...

А.B.

Send by mail

Print