Posted 3 ноября 2021,, 11:48

Published 3 ноября 2021,, 11:48

Modified 24 декабря 2022,, 22:37

Updated 24 декабря 2022,, 22:37

Dmitry Mikhailichenko: "Power vector cuts off society from politics"

Dmitry Mikhailichenko: "Power vector cuts off society from politics"

3 ноября 2021, 11:48
Фото: Фото: bel.cultreg.ru
The overwhelming majority of Russian citizens, realizing the fatal hopelessness and inability to influence the situation, prefer to simply not think about it.
Сюжет
Power

It has been said for a long time that politics has disappeared in Russia. It was believed that before the annexation of Crimea, political life was still warm in society, but then the Russian authorities gradually tightened the regime, driving citizens into apathy. How it happened, writes political scientist, Doctor of Philosophy Dmitry Mikhailichenko in the popular channel "Kremlin Madness":

“The balance of power in Russian society is characterized by an increasing level of power and coercion, which, together with digitalization, means the over-dominance of the System over society.

Can we say that this compulsion is redundant? From the point of view of domestic policy, it is possible. The non-systemic opposition has been cleaned up a long time ago, the federal elections are not coming soon, and the transfer of power, in my opinion, is also not next year.

This is an example. Moderate oppositionists Dmitry Gudkov or Valery Rashkin do not pose any serious risks to the Sistema. And, nevertheless, one of them left Russia, and the other is discredited. The force vector unfolds and moves according to its own logic, but it strongly influences the political and managerial processes and the distribution of resources in the vertical of the System.

After the victory over the non-systemic opposition, the potential for force correction, which the System has accumulated, needs some new points of application. There can be many such points: adjusting performances in theaters for compliance with the repertoire of "moderately conservative ideology", increasing censorship in the media, targeted actions of pressure on institutions of social criticism, increasing self-censorship among bloggers, ending "sedition" in universities, preventing religious extremism in the environment of migrants from Central Asia, preventive actions to prevent separatism in the national republics, etc.

All of this, in fact, amplifies one very significant effect. The force vector cuts off society from politics, rapidly depoliticizes an already apolitical society and strengthens an indifferent perception of social and political realities, weakening the potential of public control.

Sociologically, this is characterized by a specific phenomenon that can be conventionally called civic quietism. Opinion polls show that, despite the socio-economic crisis and growing poverty, people react very badly to criticism and negativity. Residents, especially older people, often prefer not to know about political issues. It makes less sense to endlessly discuss the difficulties and unpopular decisions of the authorities. Even scolding the authorities is becoming less interesting, although in the Soviet-kitchen format this phenomenon is, of course, widespread.

Why it happens? Because people understand the fatal hopelessness, the inability to influence the situation and, as a result, prefer not to think about it. Fatalism (everything is predetermined) turns into Quietism (everything is predetermined, therefore, nothing needs to be done). This social background creates additional conditions for the degradation of social criticism. It becomes unnecessary, no matter how demanded by society, rejected by it.

If we stratify society by the level of its involvement in political life, we get the following picture:

1-2% - the ruling class and its clientele.

8-10% are active citizens who are still interested in politics (some of them dream of becoming the ruling class, and some want changes).

The rest are a depoliticized swamp. They don't need anything. If only left alone.

The development of power potentials in the future, quite possibly, will be aimed at structuring these 8-10% of citizens who have not yet lost interest in politics and are still trying to influence (so far) the decision-making by the authorities..."

However, not all political analysts agreed with Mikhailichenko. So, the expert of the NESHULMAN channel writes:

“But it seems to us that Dmitry Mikhailichenko greatly simplifies the structure of Russian society. We think that Russia is socially poorly studied and is chronically unexplored. Only a few people at least partially understand such a complex organism as Russia (for example, Gleb Pavlovsky).

As for the percentage ratios, what about the fact that in our last elections, according to official data, 30 million people voted for various opposition parties? This is no longer ten percent, but add to this a couple of percent of conscious boycottists, etc.

In addition, there are many examples when people quickly organize themselves and create political groups of influence. Shies, Kushtau, Far Eastern motorists, supporters of Sergei Furgal, anti-vaxxers.

“Swamp”, in the words of Mikhailichenko, lives quietly until they start sticking a stick there. And then a crocodile can get out of there and bite off his hands to the waist..."

An expert from the Razumny channel, for his part, believes that rumors about the death of domestic politics in Russia are exaggerated:

“The fact is that politics is a struggle for power, and this struggle will never be stopped. So is the struggle for resources. Yes, the mass media and the media, with the help of foreign agent status and other restrictions, are taught to self-censorship. But these tools of criticism will continue to be used for the war of compromising evidence and the struggle of elites for resources.

The war of clans and groups for power has not been canceled. Only, unlike political parties, these clans and groupings do not need the votes of the masses, they need resources and effective solutions that strengthen their positions and weaken everyone else.

Indeed, such a struggle is watched by the majority without much interest, since there is no one to sympathize with in this struggle..."

"