Reorganization of Surkov-Putin

In the beginning of present selective cycle there was two-party model to which administration of the president in Russia obviously was looking for. The external reason is - an imitation of democratic process in the country, internal one - exploitation of the old principle "divide et impera" according to which two loyal to a political mode and economic structure groupings should struggle for access to the state feeding troughs, simulating for the population an opportunity of "making choice".

In the light of the given model formation of the second propresidential party "Fair Russia" which actually should finish emulation of the American model seemed to be natural: patriotism and unity (republicans) - Edinaya Russia, validity and social rate (democrats) - Fair Russia, other parties in that system obviously were not demanded. Why did then Putin make so inconsistent step within the limits of a system under construction - obviously supported Edinaya Russia? Probably, it is connected with incompleteness of formation of the second player - "Fair Russia" and appearance of the third player - the Communist Party of the Russian Federation.

Process of installation of the guided "democracy" in Russia passes rather critical point in which in case of the big electoral success players number two (FR) and number three (the Communist Party of the Russian Federation) in new parliament can receive totally more deputy places, than the basic player (Edinaya Russia). "Steam locomotive" president is - a device to tighten rather tiresome and already strongly compromised player number one up to a necessary level. On the other hand the same reason is being specified by the process of pushing off of the most bright and independent politicians (for example, Lebedev in Moscow) from the lists of "Fair Russia" as well as leapfrog with pensioners which makes the player number two (FR) very weak. Administration of the president, obviously, clearly understands risk it has in case when having received total superiority over the player number two and three, it has to stay the battle which can resulted in the collapse of all political system in the country.

However in fear for own political safety administration of the president has made rather short-sighted step as soon as having exposed on its party of a political board figures, it has opposed itself to authority (actually officials in authority make up supported Edinaya Russia), all other part of a board and everything that remains behind a board (first of all people and a heap of political forces which the authority has deprived of an opportunity of official game). Besides the president and its administration have incured all negative which has been accumulated in relation to Edinaya Russia.

In reality a narrowing of political maneuver firstly up to a field of three players (ЕR, FR, the Communist Party of the Russian Federation with one obviously not desirable player of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation) took place, that caused an overflow of political potential from the players remained off a field (Khovanskaya, Mitrofanov, etc.) to the player number two (FR), now administration narrowed the maneuver up to one player, actually having opposed itself to potential of the player number two (without saying about the player number three - the Communist Party of the Russian Federation). As a result the collapse of a system of competitiveness of elections within the limits of the political system (let it be even in three-party system with extra third) happened - population received an opportunity to make a choice - to support or not support the authority - instead of the choice between legitimate parts of the political system. That is authority itself put in the political choice of people what it wants to avoid, it raised the question on legitimacy of power, question of legitimacy of political system.

What does the given process show? First of all, that modern authority appeared unable to provide own political stability and safety. Even having counterbalanced for the present negative of Edinaya Russia, the present president and his environment (as it's it that is being represented as the main architect of a political system under construction at present in Russia) created an opportunity for political destruction in case of the loss by Edianaya Russia legitimacies at the population in the future, they themselves created and opposed potential capable of carrying out such process.

Who will take advantage of the consequences of a strategic mistake of an imperous grouping - time will show, though the ones who remained on a political board and especially those who remained behind its borders, one may not doubt, have their fingers itching. Within the limits of the received political system today the state becomes the unique resource player on a political floor as other players have no opportunity to realize the resource (financial or image one) and to convert it into a power resource.

Many of my colleagues-political technologies hastened to declare with bitter irony "Back in USSR", "one candidate - one choice". I dare to disagree with it. Yes, there was in the USSR such a principle, however, it provided stability while the system of the CPSU was comprehensive. Comprehensive in a sense that there were no other organized political forces and ideologies in the country, they dealt simply with derelicts - they were pushed out in vacuum outside the limits of system of the CPSU.

It was a strategic mistake, in a sense of stability of existence of that system of authority, to create an opportunity to be organized outside the system of the CPSU, by the end of the 80-th it already was not vacuum. An even greater mistake was evulsion of Boris Yeltsin into that zone who instead of isolation and political death outside the system of the CPSU became the centre of gravity and consolidations of everything that was accumulated there, the given process was imposed on a loss of legitimacy of the CPSU in people's opinion (as a result losing dry law, Chernobyl accident, mass deficit as well as informational aggression of different views on the state structure). The result - smash-up of a system, it's collapse.

What we have developed now - up to the smallest details repeats that situation, so it would be more correct to speak not "Васк in USSR" but "welcome to the end of 80th - the beginning of the 90-th". The country experiences reorganization of Surkov-Putin which threatens to end even worse, than reorganization of Yakovlev-Gorbachev. The more that officials of an epoch of Putin are the same as the ones at Gorbachev's epoch, only having grown old!

Send by mail

Print