“Orgy of democracy” — so the Minister of culture Vladimir Medinsky has described recently a fierce war that our Parliament Deputy Natalia Poklonskaya is waging against the not yet released film “Matilda”. Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, deviating from the instructions of specific names and people, spoke about the low level of culture even more clearly: “aggression, which is sometimes embodied in criminal acts”.
A scene from the movie “Matilda”.
I’m glad that the conflict directed by Alexei Uchitel and Deputy Natalia Poklonskaya two such prominent and respected politician was on the side of the Creator, and not on the side of a former Prosecutor. But I strongly disagree with their analysis of the causes of the conflict. The problem is not the Orgy of democracy and not even a low level of culture. The problem is the strange reluctance of the party, the formal leader of which is Dmitry Medvedev, to maintain in the ranks of its parliamentary faction of elementary discipline.
I do not advocate tying people’s deputies on hand and foot and turn them into a dummy, able only to declare the party program. Party discipline is a thing in Parliament is necessary. But sometimes the deputies should have the right to break it. In the conflict between his own conscience, his own deep political convictions and demands of the party’s victory needs to gain a conscience. In his famous dystopia “1984” George Orwell wrote: “If you’re in the minority, even a minority of one, it does not mean that you are insane. There is truth and there is untruth. And if you clung to the truth even against the whole world, you’re not insane.”
History has repeatedly proved the truth of Orwell. At the end of the 30-ies of XX century an absolute majority of deputies of the British Parliament from the ruling conservative party strongly supported the course of Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain to appease Hitler. Those few MPs who had declared disastrous such a course, openly persecuted, accused of anti-patriotism and the desire to plunge Europe into the abyss of bloody war, were called alarmists. For example, from a member of the house of Commons of the Duchess Otolski turned their own voters.
Wanting to prove that war is a course of Prime Minister Chamberlain, not his opponents, the rebellious Duchess refused in 1938 from seats in Parliament and tried again to win as an independent candidate. In an unprecedented aggressive campaign Duchess — incidentally, the first woman Minister in British history — doused with mud from head to toe. As mentioned above, once again become a member of Parliament the Duchess Alaska are unable. But next year all convinced it is right.
In short, I’m all for freedom of conscience, freedom of choice and a passionate fight for their own beliefs — but only if those private beliefs of the Deputy are not contrary to the basic constitutional principles of the Russian state. The basic law of the Russian Federation says: “In the Russian Federation ideological diversity is recognized. No ideology may be established as state or obligatory… Everyone is guaranteed freedom of thought and expression”.
Unlike the Deputy from “United Russia” Poklonsky I’m not a lawyer. But it is not necessary to be a lawyer to notice that the political demands of the people’s choice are in direct conflict with these constitutional rules. We propose a new state ideology in the form of the cult of the Emperor Nicholas II. We propose to limit the freedom of speech in relation to the figures of the last Russian Tsar. If it is not a violation of the Constitution, I do not know what violation of the Constitution.
And now the most interesting. Who do we have in the country is the guarantor of the Constitution? Know who is the President. And which party is in our country the party of the President? It’s no secret: the party “United Russia”. And who was listed as the head of the party “United Russia”? Dmitry Anatolyevich Medvedev — the Medvedev, who as if from outside, has opposed the persecution of the author, whose works have not been seen.
If Medvedev was an opposition politician or public figure, he would have the full moral right to comment on the situation. But Dmitry is in a different rank. He is the person individual who held power in the ruling party. He, along with his colleagues in party leadership is bound to initiate action against those members of our new leading and guiding force, who without respect relates to the Constitution.
And do not think that the phrase “measures of intra-party influence” or even “expulsion from the party” these words only from our Soviet past. In the UK at the fault of the deputies, without hesitation, temporarily or permanently expelled from the party ranks. It is called, however, not as at us, — “withdrawal of a whip” (literally “otdelyvanija stick”). But the essence remains the same. In respecting the freedom of conscience must coexist with intra-party discipline.
If the leaders of “United Russia” do not prevent the attempt of the Deputy Poklonskaya spur of the moment to “modernize” the Constitution, they automatically become her colleagues and associates. And this fully applies to such criticism of aggression and intolerance, Dmitry Medvedev. Actions are always louder and more convincing than the most beautiful words. The Chairman of “United Russia” is to remember it.