The setting for "sitting up" prevailed

Sergey Volkov, historian

On the eve of the new year, there was no shortage of decadent predictions regarding the coming triumph of darkness. This mood affected, as one could notice, some like-minded users, who suspected (apparently under the impression of the new package of prohibitive laws regarding "insults" and "disrespect") that soon "nothing at all could be said". However, I do not share this sentiment.

In fact, these innovations do not carry anything new, the "extremism" that has existed for a long time since the 282nd is quite enough, it is only about applied practice, and its possibilities are significantly limited by the ratio of "applicants" and objects of application. Yes, even if only "it was impossible to speak." Well, we can't - we won't. All the same, our (and anyone else's) "speaking" does not affect anything.

But watching it will be much more interesting, and for those who do not particularly like the "regime" - it will be much more fun. Because if something like this suddenly happens, it will become a sure sign of the proximity of a new "perestroika". Many still remember how, on the eve of the previous one, in the early 80s, the dying Redland suddenly became very concerned about establishing "order" and oppressing all the "wrong" - from dissidents to "violators of labor discipline" (people were taken to cafes, cinemas, baths, etc. .).

But it does not seem that the "regime" really showed an inclination to some kind of sharp movements, on the contrary, the predominant attitude, apparently, to "sitting out" (which promises to be the longer, the fewer such movements). At one time, some initiatives were outlined on particular aspects (from territorial division to party building), but they completely died out. It was decided to sit stupidly and do nothing, following the beaten track.

This is especially significant with games. Well, it is clear that there can be no real parties under Soviet rule (which, unlike socialism, has not gone anywhere) (even if they did arise, they would never be allowed), and there is one ruling SPRF - the Soviet Party of the Russian Federation (until 1991 it was called, if anyone remembers, "an indestructible bloc of communists and non-party") with 3-4 "platforms" inside (United Russia, the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, the Liberal Democratic Party, SR), distinguished by more or less soviet vigor.

At the same time, there was some understanding that the population was fed up with such a picture, and it would be necessary to depict, if the same, then more similar to the variety. Either divide the United Russia Party, or portray more believable "right-wing" and "national-patriotic" parties. Shouldn't Rodina be promoted again by the fall, shouldn't New People be admitted to the Duma (even the famous political scientist Minchenko was sent to this party, and there was talk that it would definitely pass). But ... they were scared even of that (well, how will the "new" ones have deviant ambitions). Even if the United Russia party is a little smaller, any of the other "platforms" will still have a "constitutional majority", and there will still be no one in the Duma except for "party members" in the SPRF.

But it’s much easier to experiment with parties than, let's say, to optimize territories, encroaching on the legacy of “Lenin’s nationality policy”, or impress the population with some kind of foreign policy “breakthrough”. So it is unlikely that we will be pleased with any significant surprises. By the way, here are the American "partners" too. It seems that the demoniac leftists have received absolute power in all branches, but after all, the canals will not establish socialism anyway; so, dirty tricks against opponents will be noted. It would be great if at least something was really "taken and divided".

Original is here.