A key argument of the authorities against Navalny is that “he only criticize, and he offers nothing”. The thesis is as false as true. On the one hand, the opposition offers a lot of very specific things: a new migration policy to tax breaks for small businesses. On the other — the manner of delivery of the Bulk, really confrontational. Speaking about the need to increase health care costs, he could just describe the problem and propose a recipe for its solution, but it is not enough. Bulk necessarily in opposition to ordinary people to officials: “it’s a shame a purse to collect money for treatment of children, while officials openly buy their yachts and palaces.” Built on the antithesis of each item of its programme: “to Fight corruption and not to tolerate theft, Justice for all, not tyranny of the security forces,” “Economic development, not political isolation, Hospitals and roads, not the palaces of officials,” “Trust the people, not to solve all in Moscow.“
photo: Gennady Cherkasov
There are policies that unite people, and there are those, on the contrary, divide. First looking for the total; the second focus on differences, contrasting “them” to “us.” Bulk clearly belongs to the second type. Whether he came to power, to act in the role of peacemaker? Protest politicians it is not always possible. The most recent example is trump. Defeating the wave of protest, he continues to clash with journalists, governors, judges, actors, foreign leaders — in short, all who though something he doesn’t like. It should be understood that not like Trump easily. This type of policy not take offense to criticism or attack, but simply “not enthusiastic way of thinking”. Navalny is also constantly arguing with analysts, sociologists, journalists, lawyers who refuse to act “good”. Why he failed to unite with any of the other opposition leaders? Why not support going on elections of the mayor of Moscow Gudkov? Because, like trump, he is not able to dialogue on equal terms, he needs only the loyal fans. It must be borne in mind is that if America has strong institutional protection in the form of a system of checks and balances that trump will put in place, we have this. Through the efforts of the authorities, it is destroyed completely.
Protest activity imposes on the personality of its mark. Revolutionaries all over the world are discipline, single-mindedness, and intolerance for alternative points of view and a tendency to centralization. This is the most important negative feature of authoritarianism. Wrestlers with him he transforms into their likeness. 191 examining the transformation of the authoritarian regime, which operated between 1972 and 2003, Swedish researchers hadenius A., and J. Teorell came to the conclusion that only 23 percent of cases undemocratic regime was replaced by democracy. 77 per cent led to the replacement of one authoritarian to others. In principle, to be sure, not necessary to go into the wilds of science, it is sufficient to recall the names of Stalin and Mao Zedong, Pol Pot and Fidel Castro, Enver Hoxha and Josip Tito, Ayatollah Khomeini, Kim Il sung. They were once the leaders of the people’s struggle against oppressors.
Any revolution is a minority. Its most important characteristic — a sense of the importance of the mission and contempt for ordinary folk. For revolutionaries the majority of the herd, which must be driven in the direction of a bright future. In this sense, the revolutionaries are not much different from power. Here is a very it would be appropriate to recall the famous “you are not reflective, you distribute”.
Bulk hate the regime as a whole and each of its heads separately. To consolidate dissatisfied with intolerance in our country is just what you need. However, what happens with this hatred, when the enemy is defeated? Gone is she, if Navalny comes to power? History proves that usually the hatred of the revolutionary fanatic is not going away; it forces the owner to look for a new enemy in the camp of the allies of yesterday, among those not sufficiently devoted to the cause, in whom the sacred fire burns not as much as necessary. A taste for strong sensations does not allow revolutionary to do a chore. He needs the EPI. After the seizure of power by Robespierre found the enemy in Abere, Demulen, Dunton. Stalin — Trotsky, Kamenev, Bukharin. Mao Zedong — Liu Shaoqi, Peng Dehuai the Lin Biao. Who will be the next enemy of the Bulk, if not nor Medvedev, neither Usmanov nor Putin? Prokhorov? Kasyanov? Wolves?..
In addition to the question of how the victory of the revolution will help the democratization of Russia, no less urgent is the problem of the realism of the revolutionary scenario. Studied all cases the overthrow of regimes citizens that took place starting in 1900, American scientist Eric Cinovec found that peaceful protest achieves the goal twice as often than the protest using violence. As for the last decades, the chance to win non-violent resistance was even higher. In the 2000s, for example, it was almost seven times more effective than resistance by force. The logic is simple — the power of the state always has a head start, and if you give him this power to use, it will not fail to do it.
Governments fall apart when the people making decisions, no longer believe in the justice of the existing order. The most direct way to push them to this conclusion is to show that people are against. The more people protest, the better. According to Cinovec, no regime could not resist after the protests against him took part 3.5 per cent of the population. Here lies the crux — most are not ready to risk in the military actions of the opposition will not participate. Most goes to the streets only when he realizes that the protest is peaceful.
The most vulnerable spot of the script based on the street confrontation, is that it allows the authorities to update two themes — “threats of revenge of the 90s” and “American interference in internal Affairs.” Mass action is the most important marker of the era of “Yeltsin’s democracy” and the main evidence of subversive activities “agents of state Department”. As practice shows, the two specified argument contribute most to the consolidation of the people around the authorities. The tougher the opposition, the easier it is for the regime to mobilize a majority for their protection. We saw it during the presidential campaign of 2012. The rejection of a head-on confrontation pointless use of all these myths and lead to the erosion of the electoral base of the government. If it is not threatened, and to support them there is no need. The power of frightening the “return in 90-e”, in a situation when no signs of the 90s is not observed, seems inadequate. People will stop fearing the future, and this is a key prerequisite for the growth of demand for change.
In the democratization of Russia the Bulk plays a crucial role. Without it, the control of the authorities over the political space would be almost one hundred percent. Only the leader of this fanatical kind, like Navalny, will be able to Wake up in the country a truly mass protest movement. Without such leaders protest usually stays fragmented and local. However, paying tribute to the courage of the opposition, we must realize that the Bulk victory is a victory for young smarzowski dragon over the old. It is a victory of politics akin to the victory of Robespierre. It is because she: a) unwanted, b) unrealistic.
At the time, the gap between black and white population of South Africa was much deeper than that now separates our opposition from loyalists, however, the South Africans managed to end the apartheid regime in a peaceful way. The Russian opposition needs a leader like Mandela, who after 27 years in prison, had the wisdom pointedly refuse revenge representatives of the regime and to take a course on reconciliation. The opposition needs a leader, capable, like Mandela, not so much to act, how to listen and hear. True, our government needs a leader scale de Klerk. The one who will catch the Zeitgeist and begin to share with the opposition the government is not bringing the case before the revolution.