"If you disagree with the foreign policy of your country, you need to shut up and be silent"

The protest movement in Russia has gone from squares and streets to blogs. Yes, it is not particularly active there, being in obvious stagnation. Live on the Pravda video channel. Ru one of the leaders of the association "Other Russia" Sergei Yezhov told why he is in opposition to the government and what he considers good for the country.

Is the protest in Russia dead?

The opposition is often called the fifth column. what do you think about it? And why now the protest actually "merged"?

- You can not put an equal sign between the entire opposition and the fifth column. This concept has a negative connotation. Moreover, it is unpleasant if you do not consider yourself so. Now there has certainly been a certain division of the opposition regarding the foreign policy of the Russian state. I am absolutely convinced that everyone, even not necessarily opposition-minded, is obliged to express his dissatisfaction with the authorities on those issues where he does not agree with it. It is even a direct duty of a citizen in domestic politics. He must criticize the authorities if he does not agree, for example, with censorship, the abolition of benefits for veterans. It is the direct duty of the citizen to oppose the harmful initiatives of the authorities.

In foreign policy, even if a citizen does not agree with the government, he should not oppose the official position so as not to harm his country. Roughly speaking, you need to shut up and be silent.

It's like in sports. Foreign policy is like a national team. In the domestic championship, you can play or cheer for Dynamo, Zenit, Lokomotiv, and in international matches - only for the national team. This is where he was born, and there he came in handy. If you are called, then go and play, no matter what coach.

It must be admitted that, unfortunately or fortunately, we do not live under world anarchism. There is state borders. And it's no secret that there is a confrontation between states. It also goes between states. European Union between themselves. And many are trying to crush Russia, regardless of what kind of ideological views the person leads in this moment our country. We are always fighting. And so to criticize foreign policy of the state, based only on knowledge of what was read on Twitter or even on the Kremlin's website - this is fundamentally not true.

Because when we put a person in the presidency, we give him a complete monopoly on foreign policy. And he, the supreme power, may, must have and will definitely have secrets even from his citizens. And you, due to the limited information that is provided to you, cannot evaluate this. Therefore, here you need to take it with your eyes closed and not challenge the decisions, as the head coach of the national team.

In domestic politics, it is a completely different matter. There is no confrontation between citizens and authorities. Citizens and authorities must live in peace and harmony. The government must provide a comfortable life for citizens. Therefore, secrets are not allowed here. But they are, and I don't agree with that. I think that domestic politics should be as open as possible. Based on the information a person receives from Pravda. ru or other media, he should be able to form a complete opinion and make claims to the authorities or agree with it.

- By Ukrainian issue many quarreled because of different views on the topic. Was there also a serious split in the ranks of the opposition?

- Undoubtedly. Not only in the ranks of the opposition, it happened in the ranks of families. I sometimes argue with my wife about foreign policy. From the very beginning, I tried to speak carefully on these topics. In foreign policy, I try to adhere to my thesis - not to challenge the decisions of our state. For some, some unknown distant Ukrainian brother has become closer than a real neighbor. Again, someone receives information and believes in the liberal media, someone in the pro-government ones. They are ready to tear each other's throats.

It turns out that these people are doing with their own hands in our country exactly what everyone does not like in Ukraine. This is definitely unacceptable. Of course, for people who disagree with foreign policy, sometimes it is better to remain silent than to speak. Especially about things you don't understand. No one forces you to go and shout: "For the Motherland! For Putin!" It doesn't have to be done either. You can just be silent. Moreover, without sufficient information, no one can be sure of the truth of his opinion.

- How should the media work in an environment of conflict of opposing opinions? If a citizen should not criticize the foreign policy of the state, then should the media fully support it?

- This applies again to the media. I am not a supporter of the media purely informational plan. I am a supporter of the media that broadcast opinions. Again, my formula fits nicely into this situation as well. It seems normal to me when the media has its own political position. When he has his political position" New Newspaper" and Pravda.ru, let them be opposite. This is good. I think that this is correct, it should be so. Let everyone have their own position regarding domestic politics.

Sources of information and opinions should be different. This is a matter of internal culture. You can't act like the deputies banned the use of obscenities in literature and art. Of course, this is not good where it is inappropriate. But again, it is impossible to act by the method of prohibition. This is a matter of the internal culture of the publication, the author, the journalist, and, accordingly, their authority and demand by society follow from this. I think if any Russian media occupies an active anti-Russian position in foreign policy, it will, of course, exist, but in such a limited ghetto. I don't think anyone will be harmed by this.

- Question from the audience: "It turns out that the foreign policy of Yeltsin and Gorbachev also cannot be criticized?"

- When Gorbachev came, I was just born. It's hard for me to evaluate. Under Yeltsin, I was still small. But it seems to me that people who occupy, even in dishonest elections, such a responsible post as the president of the country, still roughly estimate what is now required and what the population wants. At that time, of course, we can talk about some kind of betrayal national interests Russia. But again, you can speak from the bell tower today. And on the other hand, all the environment that came to power then, and the majority of people themselves, wanted such a betrayal, they wanted to integrate. Because they did not understand what the national interests were.

Now, after the failure of these experiments, the majority already evaluate differently. There has been a reassessment of values. Maybe there will be a reassessment of the values ​​of today, and someone in 10 years will show me my today's video and say: "What the hell were you talking about." Much can only be understood from a distance. We all have periods of reassessment of values. At the age of 30, I will no longer go to seize the Ministry of Health, although I do not abandon what it was then. I and many people have a number of claims against Vladimir Putin.

You can blame him for the fact that after his resignation from the post of Minister of Health, Mikhail Zurabov was sent as ambassador to Ukraine. A very inefficient manager who failed the reforms. Obviously, this is a serious personnel error. Isn't this what led to such sad consequences in Ukraine? We missed the opportunity to peacefully manage the situation. Zurabov, probably, could be sent to some third-rate African country. And in such important countries as Ukraine, competent and authoritative people of Shoigu's level should be appointed as ambassadors. Then, I think, now there would be no hostilities and there would be no. And at the head of Ukraine there would be a person who would advocate rapprochement not with the European Union, but with Russia.

“Nevertheless, we have what is happening. What is the opposition doing now?

- Now, again, many opposition figures have fallen into a trap, because they have begun to do something other than their own. The business of the opposition is to appeal to the authorities on internal political, economic issues. This is her duty. Instead, all internal political issues are pushed aside. Nobody does it. In some regions, housing and communal services tariffs are rising in an unimaginable way. For example, in my native Ryazan. And the opposition is busy arguing about Ukraine. For this, there are special people who deal with this issue.

The opposition should deal with the organization of the political system within the country. And these topics were relegated, not even to the background, but to the third plan. This is the reason for the decline of the general opposition movement. But this is not only a problem for the opposition. This is a problem for the authorities too. Because the government will be more efficient if it has strong competitors. If the government is reasonable, then it will find ways to somehow resolve this split on the foreign policy issue and direct its critics in the right direction.

• Is politics a noble occupation or a "dirty business"?
• Why can't a society live normally without power?
• Are political parties useful?
• Can an ordinary citizen influence politics?

Sphere of politics. This topic provides insight into political life society. We hear the word "political" every day: a political organization, a political club. Newspapers and radio talk about politics, about political news. The word "political" means "related to politics, to the implementation of politics."

What is politics? This word Greek origin, and it meant the art of government, state affairs. And in our time, the word "politics" has become broader in its meaning. In previous topics, it was said that society has complex structure. Various relations develop between different social classes, large groups of people occupying a certain position in society, between nations and states. Politics is the activity associated with the relations between large social groups, social strata, nations. But you already know that these relationships cover various areas, such as the economy. Thus, between the feudal lord, who owns land, and the exploited landless peasant, there are economic relations. And if relations between social groups concern power, the state, then there are relations in the sphere of politics. This means that politics is participation in the affairs of the state: determining the form of the state, the tasks, the content of its activities. (You will get acquainted with the material on the state in the next paragraph.)

Recall how states arose in ancient world(Egypt, India, China, Greece, Rome) and in the Middle Ages. State power allowed slave owners and feudal lords to subjugate the masses of slaves and peasants to their will.

In different social groups, in accordance with their position, there arises a different attitude towards the state, towards the government. Hence the struggle for influence on state affairs. All this is the realm of politics.

Political power. When we talk about power in general, we understand it like this: someone exercises power, that is, rules, manages, gives orders, and someone obeys, carries out these orders. We encounter such relationships in life all the time: for example, between an officer and a soldier, a traffic police inspector and a car driver, a teacher and a student. Power in these cases is not unlimited, it is limited to strictly defined functions of an officer, inspector, teacher. But within the framework of these functions, each of the named employees has the right to give orders, orders, make demands, and the soldier, or the driver, or the student is obliged to obey these requirements. When necessary, those in power can apply sanctions (i.e., punish someone who does not follow orders, or perhaps reward them for following them in good faith).

Political power extends to the whole society, its orders, directives (guidelines), requirements do not apply to individuals, but to large social groups, to everyone living within the borders of a given state. In turn, all those to whom the demands of the authorities relate are obliged to fulfill them; those individuals or groups that rule have the opportunity to rely on the power of the state and, if necessary, to force submission to their will, using the courts, the police, the army. Of course, it is better if the rulers have authority, the population readily obeys their demands.

Political power plays a big role in any modern society. The tasks that it performs affect various spheres of social relations. It is the political power that governs society as a whole. It determines the main directions of the country's development, develops and adopts decisions aimed at eliminating urgent problems. The government exercises day-to-day management critical processes taking place in society. Among the tasks performed by the authorities is the maintenance of stability, the prevention of social upheavals that pose a threat to the life and well-being of citizens.

So, power is the most important element public organization. It allows you to force large masses people to perform certain tasks and decisions. Therefore, in society there is a struggle for power and its use for the implementation of a particular policy..

Political organizations. In an effort to influence state power each social group proceeds from its own interests. Of course, each person has personal interests, but large groups there are common, group interests. Let us recall the contradictions that capitalism gave rise to at the dawn of its development. If the workers are compelled to sell their labor power, then they are all interested in selling it more dearly, i.e., in getting more wages. The capitalists, on the other hand, sought to make large profits and, consequently, pay the workers less. In this case, the struggle between workers and capitalists is economic. But when the interests of the workers or capitalists want to be promoted, put into practice through state power, then the struggle between them passes into the realm of politics. Politics is the goals and means of achieving them, which are aimed at putting into practice the interests of large groups of people through the state.

Who expresses the interests of this or that social group? Who determines the goals and methods of struggle for the common interests of the people in this group? Can all the workers of the country, for example, get together and determine the tasks and methods of struggle for their interests? Or all capitalists? Obviously this is not possible. And not everyone wants to do it.

Active representatives of various social groups unite in political organizations expressing the interests of these groups and participating in political life. Various public associations, clubs, unions, mass movements set themselves certain goals and seek to influence the authorities in one way or another. Some of these movements solve limited problems and do not last long. Political parties play the largest role in the political struggle. How are they different from other organizations?

First of all, a political party strives not only to participate in political life, but also to gain power or participate in the exercise of power in order to achieve its goals using the possibilities of power.

Secondly, a political party, unlike temporary associations, sets itself long-term goals and exists for a fairly long period of time.

Thirdly, a political party has not only central, but also local organizations, i.e., as a rule, a clear organizational structure enshrined in the party charter.

Fourth, a political party, unlike political clubs and circles, seeks to create a mass support for itself, that is, to extend its influence to big number people, and achieve, as a rule, the support of voters in elections to representative bodies of power.

Fifth, a political party brings together people who have close views on social problems, united by a single thought about the state and social structure; ideas common to party members are usually presented in the party programme.

Parties substantiate political goals, develop ways of fighting for power, and strive to win the support of large masses of people.

Insofar as social groups diverse, their interests are also diverse. In those countries where there are conditions for the expression of these interests (ie, in democratic countries), there are not one, but several different political parties. At the same time, they compete with each other in the struggle for influence on voters.

When one party is in power, which pursues a certain policy (or, as they say, a political line), then other parties that disagree with this policy criticize the ruling party, being in opposition to it. They develop their own political line as a possible option instead of the one pursued by the authorities. By criticizing the policy of the ruling party and offering voters its own version of the policy, the opposition hopes to come to power in the next elections.

The activity in the country of several political parties competing for votes is called a multi-party system.

AT modern world in various countries exist a large number of political parties. Among the parties in the United States, two are especially influential - the Republican and the Democratic; there are also two leading parties in Great Britain: the Conservative and the Labor Party, the largest labor party in the country.

in our country at the beginning of the 20th century. There were also several parties. In the future, for many years there was only one party - the communist. At present, new political parties have emerged that seek to ensure that the people vote for their representatives in elections in order to influence the activities of government bodies through them.

The role of politics in society. Politics plays a big role in the development of society. Much depends on the policy pursued by the state, the government: better or worse will be the living conditions of various social groups, their well-being, whether the achievements of culture will become available to them, the degree of their freedom will increase or it will be completely eliminated.

There have been many governments in history whose policies have served the interests of a minority and infringe on the rights of the majority of people. A truly democratic state is called upon to take care of all social groups, to take into account the interests of all nations and nationalities. However, the methods, sequence, and pace of solving the problems facing society may be different. Therefore, political disputes and discussions arise: what social groups need priority assistance? What economic policy will bring the fastest improvement in the life of the people? How can the interests of some nationalities be taken into account without infringing on the interests of others? How to ensure the external security of the country?

The solution of these and many other questions in politics determines whether people will live better or worse in the future. Therefore, disputes over various issues politics, political struggle occupy a prominent place in the life of society and are reflected in the pages of newspapers, television screens, at rallies and meetings. Ultimately, supporters of various political decisions, different political organizations strive for the state to pursue a policy that meets their interests. Why? Because the state disposes of huge monetary and material resources, issues laws that are binding on all citizens, and has the power to stop the violation of the law.

Nowadays main question Russia's political life is a question of the ways and pace of renewal of all spheres of society's life, the sequence of transformations. Members of various parties and others political organizations are actively involved in political activities. They hold meetings and conferences to discuss their goals and objectives, which, in their opinion, would most fully reflect the interests of various social groups and the entire people, to determine ways to influence state policy, to resolve the issue of participation in the work of government bodies. Party members organize rallies and other public events; distribute print publications to explain their goals; nominate candidates for deputies of various government bodies and campaign for them, trying to get the support of the largest possible number of people; express their attitude towards the state and the government; collect signatures for appeals to state bodies.

Is politics everyone's business? What is necessary for successful political activity? Any business requires certain knowledge. Is it possible to imagine a doctor who does not know human anatomy and physiology, the science of diseases and methods of treatment? Or an engineer who does not know physics, mathematics, technology? It is clear that the first requirement for a person who wants to engage in political activity is knowledge of political life: social structure, political system, government policy, various political organizations, major events our days. The study of history, the course of social science, the study of the laws of their republic, the speeches of prominent political figures, books and articles by political scientists, reading newspapers and magazines, participation in public life. But knowledge alone is not enough. It is necessary to determine one's own attitude towards the positions of various political parties and other organizations. When a person joins a political organization, its goals become his personal goals. It is impossible to engage in social and political activity without being convinced that it will bring good to people, that society needs it. A confident person inspires confidence in himself from other people.

It is also necessary to develop in oneself the ability of political action, which includes: a) the ability to clearly and convincingly state one's views to other people, to listen and understand a different point of view, to understand the essence of the dispute, to defend one's convictions; b) the ability to independently navigate political information, collect and systematize material on a particular issue, correctly assess it; c) organizational skills, the ability to correctly distribute instructions, check their implementation. All these skills can be developed in practice, with active involvement in social and political life. Beliefs and political views of a person, knowledge and skills, experience of his participation in public life characterize his political culture. Politicians should become people of high general and political culture, purposeful and strong-willed, with organizational skills, and most importantly - sincerely striving for the public good, passionately wishing good to other people.

Basic concepts

• Politics, political power, political party, multi-party system.

Terms

• Political organization, opposition.

Questions for self-examination

1. What does the word "politics" mean? What role does politics play in society?
2. What is included in the scope of politics?
3. What are the signs of any power?
4. What are the main features political power?
5. Why do political organizations arise in society?
6. What is a political party? Why are political parties formed?
7. Under what conditions can a person consciously participate in political life?

Tasks

1. Consider whether there is a contradiction between the two statements: politics is the relationship between classes; politics is participation in the affairs of the state.

   Explain your answer.

2. Let us recall the time of Peter I, the main directions of the policy of his government. Whose interests did this policy express?
3. Two points of view were expressed in the discussion: every person can engage in politics; any person cannot be engaged in politics, but only one who has the qualities of a politician.

   What is your point of view? Argument it.

4. List the political parties that you know. Indicate what political goals they set for themselves and what is your attitude towards these goals. Explain your position.
5. name political events the last time, which made you happy and which upset you. Why?
6. Sometimes a person says: “I am out of politics! I'm not interested in politics!" Express your attitude to this position.
7. Gather newspaper coverage of political activities supreme bodies our state, various political organizations. Mark what you think is the most important in these materials. Why?

I option

1.The policy includes:

1) contacts between firms

3) conference of political scientists

4) theater tours abroad

2. The demands of political power extend to:

1) for all people living in the state

2) only for citizens of the state

3) only for adult citizens

4) only for members of the government and parliament

3. What applies to the actions of political power?

1) organizing a folk music festival

H) decision on the country's participation in an international peacekeeping action

4) conclusion of an agreement between employees and the administration of the enterprise

4. The legislative power of the Russian Federation belongs to:

1) prosecutor's office

2) Government

3) President

4) parliament

5. The features of any state include:

1) rule of law

2) the presence of a parliament

3) unitary state

4) the presence of public authority

6. Political party, unlike the state,

1) develops a political course

2) has a charter

3) expresses the interests of socially unprotected segments of the population

4) empowered to legislate

7. The concept of "fraction", "Duma committee" refers to the activities

2) executive authorities

3) the institute of presidency

4) judicial authorities

8. Are the following judgments about morality correct?

A) Moral norms are fixed in the laws and by-laws of the state.

B) Self-control of a person is the basis of the moral regulation of his behavior.

1) only A is true

2) only B is true

3) both statements are correct

4) both statements are wrong

9. Establish a correspondence between the concept and the branch of law: for each position of the first column, select the corresponding position from the second.

Concepts Branches of law

4) human life, his rights and freedoms

13. For human rights to become a reality, each of us must:

1) trust the government

2) fight criminals

3) fight against exploitation

4) respect the rights and freedoms of other people

14. The organization of the annual festival of folk art is a manifestation of the sphere of society:

1) environmental

2) political

3) social

4) spiritual

15. Regulation of human relations in terms of good and evil is a task

3) art

1) “Political ___________ allows, if necessary, to force large masses of people to perform certain tasks and decisions.”

2) “Being a citizen means enjoying certain rights and bearing the necessary __________________ in relation to your state.”

3) "Parties that disagree with the policies pursued by the ruling party, DIV_ADBLOCK52">

10. The constitution is called the fundamental law because

1) the president takes an oath on it

2) has the highest legal force

3) adopted by referendum

4) is a symbol of democracy

11. According to the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the main source of power in our country is:

1) Constitutional Court

2) President of the Russian Federation

3) the people of the Russian Federation

4) Federal Assembly

12. Compliance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights ensures:

1) protection of the civilian population during hostilities

2) providing medical care to prisoners

3) protection of the honor and dignity of a person

13. Freedom consists in the right of a person to do what

1) does not harm another person

2) contributes to the development of his business

3) limits the arbitrariness of his authorities

4) ensures its safety

14. What sphere of society is represented by religion, art and science?

1) environmental

2) political

3) social

4) spiritual

15. The rules "Do not steal", "Do not lie", "Honor the elders" are the norms:

1) art

16. What word is missing in the following phrases?

1) "The ruling persons or groups rely on the strength of _____________ and, if necessary, use the court, the police, the army."

2) “Citizenship is a stable political legal connection of a person with ________________.”

3) "The political regime in which there is a government of the people, elected by the people and for the people, is called ___________________."

4) "Appearance in in public places drunk is

Offense."

5) “A person who has not reached _______ years is recognized as a child.”

17. Which of the forms of territorial-state structure is not named in the scheme?

18. Name any five signs of a totalitarian state.

The political party is public association created by citizens on the basis of common political views in order to participate in government. Each party presents its political program, charter and symbolism. As a rule, any citizen of the state can join one or another party at will.

The party system of the country may be different. Thus, in the USSR there was only one (ruling) Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU). Moreover, her right to power was enshrined in law. In multi-party systems, two types of parties are usually distinguished: ruling parties (parties in power) and opposition parties. As a rule, the ruling party that supports the current government has the advantage in parliament. Opposition parties that disagree with the policy of the ruling power only partially limit it, but, as a rule, have no real chance of becoming the main ones in the state. This is exactly the situation that is currently observed in Russia. In some other states (England,) there are two (rarely more) political parties, almost equal in strength and significance.

United Russia- the ruling party, fully supporting the policies of the president and the government. It was created in 2001 by combining three parties: "Unity", "Fatherland" and "All Russia". At the moment it is the largest party in the country, with over a million members. This is explained not only by the political course of the party, but also by the support that authorities at all levels provide to its members. The chairman of the party is Boris Vyacheslavovich Gryzlov. Co-chairs - Luzhkov Yury Mikhailovich, Shoigu Sergey Kuzhugetovich, Shaimiev Mintimer Sharipovich. The symbol of the party is polar bear. Colors are white and blue.

Communist Party of the Russian Federation- a pronounced opposition party that expresses disagreement with the main directions of the policy of the current government. The course of the party basically coincides with the course of the CPSU, but takes into account the present situation in the country. Created in 1993 on the basis of the CPSU. At the moment it has about 550 thousand members. The head of the party is Gennady Andreevich Zyuganov. Party symbols hammer, sickle and book. Colors are red.

Fair Russia- a party that advocates the social and legal equality of citizens, the responsibility of the state to citizens and a greater degree of participation of the latter in governing the country. Supports the policy of President V.V. Putin. It was formed in 2006 by combining three parties: Rodina, the Russian Party of Pensioners and the Russian Party of Life. The symbol of the party is the Russian flag with a wide red stripe, on which there is an inscription: "Fair Russia", and below the inscription: "Motherland Pensioners Life".

LDPR(Liberal Democratic Party of Russia) is a radical party that advocates a strong state, to which the interests of all its citizens should be subordinated. LDPR stands for revival united state(empires) without division into national republics. Despite criticism of the situation in the country, it mainly supports the course of the president and government. Formed in 1989. The LDPR is popular mainly due to its leader Vladimir Volfovich Zhirinovsky, which is why political scientists often call it a one-man party. It is, in fact, its symbol. The colors are blue.

Some other registered parties in Russia:

• Agrarian Party
• Patriots of Russia
• Apple
• Union of Right Forces
• People's Will
• Democratic Party
• Russian Ecological Party The Greens
• Peace and Unity Party
• Socialist Party of Russia
• Russian Renaissance Party

Of course, there is opposition in the Russian Federation. But she is unable not only to fight for power, but even to lead some real protest movement. However, it is not safe to protest too loudly in Russia today...

For several years now, complete political silence has reigned in the Russian Federation. The country is not torn apart by party leaders, there are no massacres in the State Duma, “indignant people” are not brought to Red Square by buses, no one creates rescue committees and defense fronts. Because today in Russia there is simply no one to challenge the power of the current owners of the Kremlin.

Right and left of the throne

Of course, there is opposition in the Russian Federation. But she is unable not only to fight for power, but even to lead some real protest movement. However, protesting too loudly in Russia today is not safe: you can get hit in the back with a riot police baton and end up in a "monkey". But there is no reason to yell about the dominance of totalitarianism on this occasion, since the demonstrators are treated in exactly the same way (or even more severely) in most countries of the world. Including in the West, where they are so indignant at the "monopoly on power" that has arisen in Russia.

Indeed, the overwhelming, even constitutional majority (70%) of the votes in the State Duma belongs to the United Russia party, which is known as the “Kremlin” or “Putin” (now “Putin-Medvedev”). This is the main Russian party power, which has absorbed bureaucracy and business, which is more like a political club led from above, membership in which opens up prospects and gives "roof". Therefore, politically United Russia is even more passive than the CPSU of the Brezhnev era: the right connections rather than taking inappropriate initiative from below.

On the one hand, this makes the huge party easily manageable and disciplined, but on the other hand, it is easily vulnerable, since all its unity rests solely on the “vertical of power”, the top of which is concretized in the face of a small Kremlin team. If this team loses the elections, the party will simply crumble, just as Yeltsin's projects of the "party of power" once fell apart. And most of its members will immediately run over to the winners. But, again, there is simply no one to lose the election to the Putin-Medvedev team. Therefore, in the foreseeable future, the status of " United Russia"Nothing threatens - except perhaps for the "sovereign's fierce wrath."

And there is something to be angry about, since a long stay on Olympus, as you know, corrupts people. Just the other day, United Russia again failed to pass the law on the luxury tax. It is clear that the "United Russia" did not want to vote for a law directed against themselves, but after all, it was necessary to think about how society would perceive it! And although the party is still rescued by the image of Putin and Medvedev, but the attitude towards its small-town party bosses is becoming negative: in the last regional elections, United Russia lost in some places in the rating.

For such an opportunity, it is good to have a safety net in the form of an understudy, and such is the Just Russia party. In fact, the same party in power (headed by the Chairman of the Federation Council Sergei Mironov), but playing the role of a good-natured constructive opposition to United Russia - with a slight left bias towards concern for common people and more feigned patriotism. At one time, it was called an alternative project of the Kremlin - just in case the EP rating starts to fall.

This, however, did not happen, and the promotion of the SR did not have much success - it has the smallest faction in the State Duma (8.4%), and regularly loses to United Russia in local elections. Nevertheless, the party is trying to quickly respond to all sorts of manifestations of "social injustice", trying not so much to solve problems as to lead and chatter discontent, preventing it from growing beyond a certain framework.

But if "Fair Russia" imitates the left opposition, then the Liberal Democratic Party tries to appear as the opposition of the right - and also very, very "constructive". The scandalous antics and revelations of its permanent leader are a thing of the past, the party is no longer at war with the presidential team (as it was under Yeltsin), but supports it.

Now Vladimir Volfovich works more as a "mouthpiece for the Kremlin's revelations", voicing what it would be politically incorrect to say Russian President. And if he criticizes the authorities for something, then only for excessive gentleness or generosity. His faction (8.9%) was the only one that did not vote for the ratification of the Kharkiv agreements, since, according to Zhirinovsky, Ukraine, with its ever-changing power, should not be trusted. And here you can not disagree with him ...

Dying Guard

The peak of the popularity of the Communist Party came in 1996, when its leader Gennady Zyuganov almost won presidential elections. Many even wondered how he managed then to yield to Boris Yeltsin - sick and not drying out, who plunged the country into chaos of "market reforms" and monstrous corruption. Why did rumors arose that they allegedly “had a conversation” with Zyuganov, and he agreed to lose.

Be that as it may, but since then the Communist Party of the Russian Federation (the largest and only parliamentary communist party RF) began to lose ground. From election to election, she lost her rating, and after Vladimir Putin came to power, she began to slide into a marginal state. Today she has State Duma 57 votes (12.7%), but has virtually no effect on political processes In Russian federation. In fact, the party is also a club of people who are nostalgic for the USSR and are concerned about the size of their pensions.

A good indicator of the attitude of Russians towards the Communist Party is the comparison of the party's rating and the popularity of I. V. Stalin, whose activities were positively assessed by half of the respondents. It turns out that most of the supporters of the "glorious history" do not associate the current communists with the Soviet past!

In this, the Russian communists are very similar to their Ukrainian comrades. Them the main problem is that they do not have their own vision at all state development. In a sense, in general, in a complex way, and not just the issue of increasing social benefits and attitudes towards history. However, social standards began to rise even without them during Putin's presidency, and respect for own history Vladimir Vladimirovich demonstrated even more eloquently. And most importantly - not only spoke, but also did. So ten years ago, a significant part of the CPRF electorate simply flowed over to the new Kremlin team, which prudently understood that it was better to play along with the mood of the voters than to lose them.

The Communists could only grumble with displeasure, but within the framework of the law and decency. The events of 1993 played a big role in the passivity of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, when Yeltsin's left-wing opponents were first well beaten with batons during the May riots, and then completely shot down during the October Putsch. Since then, the communists preferred to act only by "constitutional methods", limiting themselves to harmless rallies and criticism of the authorities. And the story of the financing of the party by the billionaire (former) Khodorkovsky also probably played a role in pacifying the Communist Party.

In fact, criticism is the only political weapon Russian Communist Party. Even if it gives the impression that the Communists curse only what they were allowed to curse. However, criticism alone will not bring good dividends. Sometimes it was possible to raise the rating somewhat - for example, during the unpopular "monetization of benefits", but then it fell again. Deputies or mayors from the Communist Party of the Russian Federation defeated the representatives of United Russia, who had bothered voters in the regions, and then repeated their mistakes.

And then there was a slightly left-oriented "Fair Russia"! But the Communist Party is rescued by its political image: in the view of many Russians, the concept of the opposition is reduced to the two most famous "non-Putin" parties - the Communist Party of the Russian Federation and the Liberal Democratic Party. Two outlets where disgruntled voters pour out their angry protest votes during elections. The steam goes harmlessly into the whistle, and the authorities are quite satisfied with this. Therefore, participation in the elections of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation (as well as the Liberal Democratic Party) is beneficial for her, as a method of periodically relieving socio-political tension in the country.

Shadows of Forgotten Liberals

A Russian peasant angry at the authorities can vote for the communists or Zhirinovsky, but under no circumstances will he want to cast his vote for the “democrats”. Since 2003, when none of the parties of the “reformist team” of the 1990s entered the State Duma, they have practically disappeared from the political arena of Russia.

It was only in Ukraine that Boris Nemtsov was presented as one of the leaders of the Russian opposition: he was regularly invited to his program by Shuster, he was appointed by Viktor Yushchenko as his adviser. In the Russian Federation itself, by that time, Nemtsov had sunk to the level of a marginal politician, and in 2008 his Union of Right Forces (with a rating of 1%) completely dissolved itself. He merged with several, also dying "democratic" political forces into the Right Cause party, and Nemtsov went to the Solidarity movement. That is, on behalf of the Russian opposition, and often even on behalf of Russia, a person spoke who was trusted by only 1% of Russians!

The list of Russian "democratic" parties and movements, which often call themselves "right" and "people's", but, in fact, are liberal-bourgeois, is huge. Here are the ageless Yabloko, and the aforementioned Solidarity, which has absorbed almost fifty "prominent democrats" into its political council, and the Russian People's Democratic Union of former Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov. And a couple dozen more parties with big names, which then disintegrate, then unite, and then completely disappear somewhere. The same people sometimes belong to these parties at the same time.

This also includes such “ultra-oppositionists” as the oligarch Berezovsky, who escaped from Russia, the leader of the National Bolsheviks, Eduard Limonov, who periodically goes to jail, and the extravagant Valeria Novodvorskaya, who frightened away her few admirers with her violent hatred of everything Soviet (and Russian).

The combined ratings of all these liberals and Democrats are estimated to be below 5%. Basically, their supporters are pro-Western youth from nightclubs, people with non-traditional sexual orientation and other dissatisfied with Russian "obscurantism", the bourgeoisie yearning for the Yeltsin era. Not much! Even for their protests, they have to hire students, as it is difficult to find volunteers to fly under their flags even in big cities. However, this liberal opposition has taken the liberty of claiming that it is saving Russia from the “Kremlin regime”. To declare loudly, to the whole world - good, she always had good connections with the West.

Agree, it is very similar to the Ukrainian national patriots: a lot of noise and even more swagger and inflated conceit with a meager number! Solid leaders who can not decide which of them is the most important.

Their political decline was swift and was explained very simply: they are all "reformers" and "stars" of the 90s and had a direct hand in the then economic and political fall of Russia. The Yeltsin era, for which they all sigh sadly, for the vast majority of Russians was a decade of decline, poverty and humiliation, and no one wants to return to those times. Therefore, this part of the Russian opposition has no chance of revival. All they have to do is weep loudly over their “lost freedom” and complain to the West about the repressions. And no one, except the West, pities them.

At one time, Vladimir Putin immediately understood the mood of the people and took advantage of them to eliminate these "Yeltsin's people" - they were fired one by one, the liberal parties lost their administrative resources, which, on the contrary, began to work against them. Someone had to run away altogether, and some were even imprisoned. The reaction of the Russians was almost a solemn approval of the actions of the authorities. So, figuratively speaking, Putin carried out the will of the people.

Of course, not everyone left. Anatoly Chubais and Sergei Kiriyenko have joined in, the liberal Aleksey Kudrin is in charge of Russian finances, and his colleague German Gref from the post of minister economic development moved to the chair of the head of Sberbank. And it cannot be said that Putin (and now Medvedev) broke with the methods of the “Yeltsin” economy: just over the past ten years, a lot of liberal reforms have been carried out in it, especially with regard to “streamlining” and reducing budget spending. It’s just that the main point of the changes was that the reins of government and levers of influence, which in the 90s were in the hands of numerous “friends” and “nursers” of Boris Nikolayevich, are now firmly taken by the Kremlin. And everyone who disagrees with this was simply kicked in the neck.

Fear of Russians

One can sympathize with liberals deprived of power and hope, whose “marches” are regularly dispersed, but it should be noted that the “repressions” against them are of some kind of operetta character. The maximum will be dragged along the pavement by the collar, but soldered for 15 days. And the Russian government treats another category of opposition in a completely different way.

One of the main differences between Russia and Ukraine is that it is not only safe to be a Ukrainian nationalist on Nenka, it is even fashionable, and until recently it also gave a pass to politics. In the Russian Federation, being a Russian nationalist is fraught with danger, because you can easily end up behind bars.

You can shout “Russia for Caucasians!” until you are hoarse! (Indians, Arabs, Tajiks, Papuans), but if you exclaim "Russia for the Russians!", then you will be called a fascist and the authorities may be interested in you. Create a Koryak (Avar, Bashkir, Udmurd) national club - and you can even apply to the executive committee for budgetary assistance. But people in uniform will surely knock at the door under the sign of the Russian Club. If you emphasize that you were beaten and robbed not just by a bandit, but by a bandit with pronounced non-Russian features, you will be reminded of Article 282 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation "Inciting hatred on the basis of ethnic hatred."

These are the fruits of the “international” policy of the Russian authorities, which protects all races, peoples and nationalities living or arriving in the Russian Federation, but only for some reason except for the Russians themselves. It is very reminiscent of American liberalism, in its "political correctness" persecuting white Americans.

Of course, the idea was absolutely correct: to stop the risk of interethnic conflicts, which in the conditions of the Russian Federation can develop into separatism and local wars, and no one needs a new Chechnya. In this regard, those nationalist organizations that spoke unreasonably negatively about “foreigners” (carrying nonsense about racial superiority and other dregs), which “amuse themselves” with beating innocent passers-by, really should have been closed and attracted.

However, they wanted the best, but it turned out as always. Instead of fighting nationalism in general (not only Russian), not denying the existence of ethnic organized crime groups, recognizing high percent crime among migrants, the Russian authorities seem to have decided to confine themselves to demonstrative flogging of “Russian nationalists”. It got to the point that for a simple drunken fight with Caucasians or blacks, a Russian automatically begins to be attracted under the article for "ethnic hatred." And the savvy guests from the sunny South have already understood the peculiarities of the Russian national policy and in which case they begin to complain that “I was just walking, eating a cake, this one stuck to me, hit me, said: “Scroll home, black!”.

All this clearly does not contribute to the strengthening of international peace. Of course, it does not cause mass hostility either. Someone was robbed in an alley by Georgian "guest performers", and he is angry with all Caucasians, while someone has been friends with a Dagestan neighbor since childhood and considers all nationalists idiots.

The problem is that by such an inept "fight against fascism" the Russian authorities automatically drove not only Russian nationalists into opposition to themselves. Despite the fact that all these "Slavic" and "Aryan" clubs have divorced a lot, total number their members are small - and they mostly drink beer in the cellars. However, by persecuting “ideological Russians,” the Kremlin risks opposing itself to completely peaceful inhabitants who are passionate about Russian patriotism. And their number in Russia is constantly growing at the expense of young people. No wonder the direction of "Russian fantasy" is so popular with her.

Do not forget about the banal everyday xenophobia, which has nothing to do with any racial ideas. For example, the first lynchings of Negroes in the United States were carried out by the Irish of New York, who were simply angry that the freed "African Americans" pouring into the city were taking away their jobs. In the same way, the majority of Russian xenophobes have complaints about “come in large numbers” not at all because those dark hair or oversized noses.

This problem is exacerbated by the fact that the Russian authorities are trying to fight the very manifestation of discontent, and this only strengthens it, although it drives it "underground". It would also be absurd, say, to forbid people to be indignant at meager pensions or corruption. But if the discontent of pensioners is transformed into votes cast for the Communist Party of the Russian Federation or A Just Russia, then there is simply no mechanism for sublimating the discontent of the “nationally concerned” and xenophobes. After all, the Kremlin forbids even recognizing the existence of this problem, calling it far-fetched (fascists). And without this, it is impossible to create a harmless "vent", some kind of controlled and peaceful opposition party, which at least pretended to be "Russian patriots".

In this regard, Ukraine was more fortunate - we have VO "Svoboda" and Oleg Tyanybok, who, although not restrained in his language, speaks too incorrectly about other peoples, but absorbs all the negative emotions of domestic nationalists and, like a locomotive whistle, releasing it at their rallies in blue sky. They made a noise - and dispersed ...