Project "Navalny": where does the "second leg" of the ruling party come from?

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

Presidential election campaign begins in Russia. Officially, the elections are to be held a year later, in March 2018, but, according to persistent rumors, they are planned to be postponed to September of the current year and combine with the single voting day ».

However, these are already details. In this case, we are interested in one of the aspects of the campaign, namely the participation of a candidate from the "liberal opposition" in it. This figure, in all likelihood, should be the already well-known A. Navalny.

Navalny announced his participation in the elections personally. But you never know lawyers, bloggers, public figures who dream of promoting themselves with the help of such statements? In this case, everything is serious. Navalny's statements are commented on in the Kremlin, albeit not very clearly. Regional political strategists rush in orderly ranks to the local headquarters of Navalny, which indicates that considerable money is being invested in the project. Many groups in social networks were created in advance, which until now developed as “just opposition” and branded the “Putin regime”, which created a favorable reputation for them, and now, as if on command (however, why “how”?) They began to purposefully promote Navalny.

So that we are dealing with a pronounced special operation, when an ordinary, unremarkable lawyer and blogger ascends to the heights of Russian politics.

Navalny's promotion campaign is reminiscent of the situation in 1999, when the Unity bloc was also literally “unrolled” from scratch, or 2003 with the Rodina bloc, which were purely the fruits of political technologies. Only if then television played the main role, now social networks of the Internet are more actively used.

There is still no clarity with the legal side of the case: Navalny remains conditionally convicted in the case of Kirovles . In fact, whether he can run anywhere depends not on the law, but on the goodwill of the Kremlin leadership, or rather, on political expediency.… It is clear that if Navalny really posed some kind of threat to the system, they would quickly get rid of him. Or they would be jailed, and not get off with suspended sentences, or they would block the possibilities by other methods … This means that he is needed, firstly, alive, and secondly, at large, so that he can conduct political activities. Everyone understands this.

But there are different opinions as to why the regime needs it after all.

Official propaganda claims that Navalny and the liberals in general are "agents of Western influence." It would be strange to argue with this, especially since the liberals themselves not only do not hide, but in every possible way emphasize their Westernism. The point is different. This "agent" does not exist to overthrow the current Russian government, but, on the contrary, to protect its interests. Since the West already completely controls the Russian elite, and there is no point in changing it to someone else.

Let me remind you that the last attempt to come to power of the “national” bourgeoisie (and the bureaucracy associated with it) emerging in the course of the “reforms” of the 90s failed back in 1999. It was then that the Fatherland-All Russia bloc was defeated by the Unity bloc, behind which stood comprador oligarchic capital … After that, the "national capitalists" and bureaucrats decided not to "emerge" anymore and joined the ranks of the compradors on the sidelines … This was officially formalized by the creation of the United Russia party, which has been successfully realizing in Russia the interests of the globalist oligarchic elite of the West for 15 years.

And "conflicts", sanctions and so on are just a "public play" necessary to strengthen the positions of power within the country (which is well understood by the Western partners, thus playing along with the Kremlin).

One often hears in opposition circles: Navalny is no better than Putin, he just represents the interests of another part of the ruling oligarchic class, which has been “pushed away from the trough”. This view is wrong. If it were true, then it would be possible to “choose the lesser of two evils” (having carefully considered which of them in a particular situation is “lesser”).

Or the lesser evil is Putin, since he supposedly represents "national capital" and "Navalny" is transnational. Or vice versa. For example, the well-known publicist A. Nesmiyan (El Murid) writes: “The liberal opposition is evil, but the Putin regime is an absolute evil. The choice between them and two ways of the country's development is obvious. This means that for all the disgust (and this is not a figure of speech) towards liberal ideas and their personifying characters, purely tactically against the Putin regime, and before it collapses, you can and should contact, communicate, look for common points and interact. But only in this and only until the collapse of the current regime."

This statement is commented on by the editorial board of the Russian Socialism group in VKontakte: “In the parallel universe in which Nesmiyan lives, there are some“liberals”who are seriously fighting the Putin regime and have a chance to defeat it. Alas, in reality, there are no liberals who would seriously fight Putin. There is a purely theatrical crowd that the Putin regime releases before the elections in order to rally the electorate around itself with the specter of the "Russian Maidan" and the "Orange Revolution." The directors and key actors are well aware of their role as operetta villains in Putin's election performance. An ordinary demos may not understand their role, but this is not important: for 90% of the country's population, she with her Katz, Shats and Albats is still a deliberate scarecrow and an object of "five minutes of hatred" exactly according to Orwell. To cooperate in any way with this public means simply to take part in the role of a scarecrow in another Putin performance. "

There is nothing to add here. "Navalny" (I write in quotation marks, since in this case it is not the name of a specific person, but the designation of a political "project") really does not represent the "other group" of the ruling class, but the same, the Kremlin, which is still in power. He just has a special role - the role of a scarecrow.

There is another version of this version: "Navalny" as a mouthpiece for inter-clan showdowns within the Kremlin elite. This is also not true. Because of the "revelations" of Navalny, no one was imprisoned or even fired. Both "liberals" and "siloviki" are still in the government, and their ratio has not changed much over the past 15 years. Moreover, this very opposition of "liberals" and "siloviks" is a typical manipulation. As if a silovik cannot be a liberal and vice versa? "Clash of Clans" is the same performance for "pike vests" as the "Swamp Revolution".

It is clear, for example, that Navalny's latest exposing film about Medvedev will have no effect on Medvedev himself. Nobody even thinks of officially reacting to it. Anyway, does anyone in Russia doubt that our government is corrupt from head to toe? There are hardly any. So that the only thing for which "exposure" is needed is the promotion of Navalny himself, allegedly not afraid to "encroach" on the second person of the state.

Moreover, these “revelations” are a kind of “oncoming fire” (a maneuver used to extinguish fires). In our case, anyone who takes the liberty of exposing the corrupt essence of the current government is automatically enrolled in the ranks of the "orange", "swamp", etc., which makes exposing absolutely meaningless.

In addition, focusing on individual corruption cases distracts attention from the essential contradictions of the existing system. And the main issue today is the issue of property. Liberal "whistleblowers" do not speak out against private ownership of the means of production (which inevitably generates corruption). Their predominance in the information space leads to the fact that the issue of property is simply removed from the “agenda”. Instead of discussing capitalism and socialism as opposite types of social order, a choice is imposed between "good and bad capitalism." Which allows you to leave the system intact as such.

Another widespread version: the Kremlin needs Navalny to raise the voter turnout, which supposedly “strengthens the legitimacy” of Putin, who in this version has already been “elected” as the future president. The version is absolutely meaningless. There is no turnout threshold in the current legislation, and the elections will be recognized as valid with any number of voters. Until now, the Kremlin has done everything not to increase the turnout, but precisely to lower it, since this leads to a decrease in the share of votes for the opposition. Presidential elections are unlikely to be an exception.

And the notorious "meetings at Kirienko's", where the governors were supposedly tasked with securing 70% of the votes for Putin with a 70% turnout, is rather a distraction designed to convince the opposition voter that "everything has already been decided for him" and there is no need to go to the polls … It is the participation of the liberal candidate that is important, and not just participation, but successful - that is, his coming into second place.

There are also short-term tasks. If the voters of the liberal candidates, despite the ideological opposition, in the case of the second round can vote for the candidate from the communists, then the communist voter, on the contrary, in this case, in the majority, will not come to the polls, or will delete both of them, or even prefer to support Putin. Therefore, in recent years, experiments have been undertaken several times to promote liberal candidates. In 2012, it was Prokhorov, who managed to gain 8% from scratch and take third place. In the 2013 mayoral elections in Moscow, it was Navalny's turn: 27% had already voted for him, and he confidently took second place.

True, after this, well-known events took place in Ukraine, during which the liberals were greatly discredited due to their anti-Russian and huntophil position. At this time, they also helped the official Kremlin propaganda well. She had to pretend that she was fighting the junta and helping the people of Donbass, but it was inconvenient to declare this herself, and then liberals were released on the stage with the exposure of "Russian aggression." The majority of the Russian population understood this the way they wanted to understand, which resulted in an increase in Putin's rating (according to the principle "if this scum is against, then I am for").

It was decided to hold the elections in 2016 according to an "inertial" scenario and so far the liberals will not be allowed into the Duma. Perhaps, if not five or six liberal parties, but one went to the elections, she would have managed to overcome the 5% mark. But it would be naive to assume that they do not unite because of some "ambition" or "inability to negotiate," as political scientists assure us. Anyone could overcome ambitions for the sake of deputy mandates. It's just that "the time has not come yet."

But at the same time, dividing them into several small parties and not allowing them to pass the barrier, their lists were stuffed with personnel from the illiberal camp, whose task was to make sure that the voter's gag reflex in relation to parties of this direction disappeared in the future. These are, for example, the "nationalist" Maltsev in "Parnassus", Oksana Dmitrieva and her team in the "Party of Growth", a group of "democratic socialists" in "Yabloko", etc.

The main meaning of the liberals' failure to enter the Duma remained the same: they thereby ensured the preservation of the image of a “non-systemic opposition”. In contrast to the supposedly systemic "parliamentary parties". And under this notion united "United Russia" and the Communist Party, which in reality are at opposite ends of the political spectrum, but supposedly are equally responsible for what is happening in the country. This responsibility is assigned to “deputies in general” (at the same time it is shifted from the executive branch to the powerless “legislative” one).

At the same time, "non-parliamentary" parties, by the very fact of their absence from the Duma, appear in the role of opposition. Although, had the same Yabloko faction, it is unlikely that it would vote with the Communist Party of the Russian Federation on most issues - rather, on the contrary, it would unite with United Russia, at least on key socio-economic topics.

Propaganda does not even try to prove something, to justify it logically. Her method is simply to "hammer" one and the same thing day in and day out. For example, that “Putin is opposing the West,” that “the Communist Party of the Russian Federation is a systemic opposition, and Navalny is non-systemic,” and so on.

Nobody even thinks about what Navalny's “non-systematic nature” is. What is the difference between the course offered by the "opposition liberals" and the one Russia is following now (under the rule of the Kremlin liberals) - no one knows

In fact, the liberals simply parasitize on the opposition (let's already use this word in its true meaning), intercepting some slogans, engaging in “exposing” certain outrages that we are well aware of without them. For example, Yavlinsky heard somewhere clever words about “peripheral capitalism” (about which the supporters of the world-system theory have written a lot). And he began to argue in the spirit that capitalism in our country is “peripheral” means wrong, and we must follow the path of “correct capitalism” (as in the West). Without realizing (or, more likely, pretending) that capitalism is never right or wrong. Capitalism is an extensive system, a “centaur system”, which is based on the fact that there is a highly developed center and the periphery exploited by it, where all negative social phenomena are “pushed” into which it is impossible to get rid of them in the system as a whole.

Thus, liberal propaganda is based on manipulation of consciousness and mixing up the already known truth and outright stupidity. It is designed to pull opposition-minded voters away from the patriotic opposition and take them away from a niche that is safe for the authorities.

So, everything goes to the fact that there will be a candidate from the liberals in the presidential elections. Most likely, it will be Navalny. But there are other options: Navalny will still not be admitted to the elections, thereby creating an additional halo of persecution for him, and another person will become a presidential candidate with his support.… He may not be a professional politician. For example, it may be a cultural figure who sympathizes with the liberals (like Makarevich). His task is to gain at least 10% and take second place, bypassing the candidate from the Communist Party of the Russian Federation. After that, Navalny himself could be again promoted to the mayor of Moscow, and this time, perhaps, even arrange for his victory in these elections - to prepare for the next presidential one.

The main trump card of liberal candidates is novelty. The ruling elite is well aware that new faces attract voters. It was on this that both Prokhorov's campaign in 2012 and Navalny's in 2013 were built. It was due to the novelty that they went beyond the traditional liberal electorate (4-5%) and attracted an abstract opposition voter who could easily vote for the candidate from the Communist Party, if she also offered him a “new face”. If dubious politicians were able to achieve such success, all the more so some cultural figure with a relatively unblemished (as far as possible for a liberal) reputation is capable of.

Of course, he will not be able to win at this stage. But this is not necessary. He will play his role by creating the appearance of an alternative to Putin, which in the eyes of the majority is worse than Putin himself, and by securing the position of "party number 2" to the liberals.

In addition, one must understand that the more a liberal candidate gains, the easier it will be for the authorities to justify their socio-economic course. They say that they themselves wanted this, so get further privatization, an increase in the retirement age, the curtailment of social protection programs, the liquidation of rural schools and hospitals. Although it is understandable that those who vote for the liberals do it with the best of intentions, sincerely believing that they are voting against the course of the authorities.

Thus, as far as we can reconstruct the intention of the authorities, the presidential elections 2017-2018 are intended to become a milestone in the political system of Russia. Namely - the function of the liberals ceases to be the role of "horror stories" to strengthen Putin's power. Now they should openly become the second "party of power". Despite the fact that in fact they are, and not even the second, but the first and only (if we talk about the real impact on the ongoing processes behind the screen of "United Russia").

Of course, the success of the "project" will also depend on what the opposition can oppose, and above all the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, as its main force. In particular, will the party be able to nominate a "new face" for the presidency, that is, will the effect of novelty work not only for liberals, but also for genuinely oppositional forces? The near future will tell.

About two years ago I wrote an article entitled "Putin is like Moses in reverse", where I said the following:

“If the biblical Moses led the Jews through the desert for forty years in order to exterminate the slave spirit from them, then the historical role of Putin is the opposite … He also leads the Russian people through the desert, from one mirage to another, and will do this until the generation of people born and raised in the Soviet Union, having an idea of honor, conscience, social justice and patriotism, dies out, and will not be replaced there will come a generation ready for slavery, brought up by television and a modern school in a liberal or postmodern spirit. And with this generation it will be possible to do whatever you want, it has no ideological core and will no longer be able to offer resistance. "

It seems that by the mid-2020s the mission of the "anti-Moses" will be completed, after the beginning of perestroika, 40 years will have passed, and the "Soviet" generation will turn into a minority of the population. It is then that it will be possible to finish the "patriotic" performance and bring open Westernizers and enemies of everything Russian to power. Then it will be possible to impose on the finally atomized and degraded mass as president not only Navalny, but anyone in general.

Does this mean that Russia will be destroyed? Hardly so straight. The Western elite needs Russia - formally independent and pretending to be "great power". First, as a counterbalance to China and the Islamic world. Secondly, as a traditional horror story for its own electorate, allowing it to be kept in check. But at the same time it is absolutely controlled, which, however, it is now. One that can be thrown into the "furnace" at any moment, if there is no other way out.

If everything goes according to the conceived scenario, then from the mid-2020s we will have a classic two-party system. But not according to the European, "right-left" model. No, there should be no "left", no hints of socialism in this system. There will be "liberals" on the one hand and "conservatives" on the other. And the winner in a two-party system is always the one who needs it.… Another confirmation of this is the current "metamorphoses" of Trump, who came to power as an allegedly anti-systemic candidate, but began to pursue the course required by the ruling globalist elite, only with cosmetic amendments. And it is very strange that someone pinned their hopes on him.

In 2021, elections to the State Duma are coming, which, in all likelihood, will finally hold a faction of liberals, and not only hold, but also help them to take second place and become the "main opposition". And then - the presidential elections of 2024, to which Putin will no longer go because of his age. It was then that in a "fair fight" it would be possible to transfer power to the conditional "Navalny" for a while.

Probably, it will be the "liberals" who will be charged with making the most "unpopular" decisions. For example, President Navalny (again, no matter what his last name is) will give Japan the Kuriles, thereby completing the "joint development" begun by Putin in 2016. Will take Lenin out of the Mausoleum, "decommunize" the names of cities, possibly ban the Communist Party, etc. In this case, of course, the economic decline will intensify as the economy is ruled by the same sect of Gaidar's witnesses that is now. And then in the next elections "conservatives" will triumphantly return to power, headed by some Putin # 2. Of course, they will not return anything "back", but they will save face.

And then the cycle will start over. If, as already mentioned, there is no need to send Russia to the "furnace" as a spent stage, devoid of "extra" population and natural resources.