Posted 12 августа 2021, 19:50
Published 12 августа 2021, 19:50
Modified 25 декабря 2022, 20:57
Updated 25 декабря 2022, 20:57
A little discussion about foreign agents and money in politics.
Politics and political activity are quite expensive and costly. But money of Russian origin, apart from government money, was almost non-existent in federal politics in the new century - with a few exceptions in the form of Prokhorov ten years ago and New People now. Navalny tried all the time of his vigorous activity to establish a system for collecting donations within the country, but from this, as we know, nothing really came of it either, and not only because of the opposition of the authorities - regardless of that, in general, they were not given to him very much. , for where from? People have no money.
Our system is structured like this: the overwhelming majority of citizens have money in general only for the most necessary things - food, clothing, housing, basic necessities, and this is just barely enough. For the same reason, by the way, we have a rather stunted private charity. Private business also has a little money - you will not clear up. Only the state has a lot of money that could be spent on all sorts of large-scale ambitious things, and this trend is growing from year to year: for example, over the past eight years, the economy in the country has not grown, and the consolidated state budget has grown significantly - not least thanks to Mishustin in his previous position, who built a much more efficient machine for pumping money out of the economy: taxes have always been high, they just were not always paid before, but now they generally pay like pretty ones. And also the expansion of state and near-state business in various spheres of life - the share of the public sector in our economy has been steadily growing all these years. It is clear that such a business will not spend money on politics without appropriate "approvals".
If we talk about the “systemic” policy, all these years the state corporation “Rosvyboi” has been forming in it - with the “directorate of a single customer”, for which about the entire political technology department is now working, with, again, very few exceptions. These include the policy of the regional and municipal level - there are still not uncommon people who have the ambition to get elected somewhere, and the resources to pay for it, and they go - including sometimes under the flag of the "party of power" when they manage to come to an agreement, but more often they are parties of the systemic opposition or, in general, by self-motives. But they are most often hit like that in the most vulnerable place - in the wallet. I personally know many examples when people with money tried to negotiate a nomination from the United Russia Party, could not because of "intra-elite conflicts" they themselves also received a lot of problems, but in general, if they were called back to the ranks of the "main party", and now they would gladly accept the invitation.
And they accept - already during this Duma campaign, many resource candidates who planned to go from opposition parties dropped out of the race precisely because they were called to good positions in the executive branch. And, by the way, I do not see this as a strategy to “bleed” the systemic opposition, the point is different. Through the eyes of administrators, our system of power is one continuous vacancy, every second one would be fired, but there is no one to replace. And then suddenly a man appears on the horizon with resources, political ambitions and no criminal trail (otherwise he would not have gone to the polls) - a great opportunity to plug some hole: go, buddy, a regional minister, mayor or vice-governor. Here, even without resources, if: in fact, let's remember how at one time the same Yabloko was plundered - Artemyev, Lukin, Yarovaya ... just with personnel in the system of seams, not enough fat to pickle people in the “opposition”.
What no one really cares about is that it is precisely in politics, in parties and in elections that there is enough money of precisely domestic and private origin. Once again: not that this is perceived as some kind of threat to the authorities; just and so little, and it looks like some kind of unnecessary, redundant luxury. Waste and inefficient use of resources. Let's come to an agreement somehow without all this, that's the logic.
The root of all this is a deep, internal misunderstanding of why all this is needed at all - competitive elections, a multi-party system, public politics. Why is it needed in an imitation version, mainly for external use - you see, we have everything like you, elections, parties, parliament - it was somehow clear even earlier, well, while we were trying to mow under a "normal country" and this sometimes through the stump-deck rolled. Now the OSCE does not even send observers to our Duma elections, such as covid, and it is clear to any European official that the elections will be unfair in advance, since Navalny and Sobol were not allowed in.
But my main question is - but not giving a damn about "them", of course, quotation marks are being opened, a biased and deeply anti-Russian propaganda position, quotation marks are being closed - we ourselves, inside the country, for some reason need a system that presupposes a real multi-party system, competitive elections, equal conditions for various political forces, the presence of independent and unbiased media, etc. etc.? Or enough of this sad matinee with "kipiai" in turnout and voting percentages for whom it is necessary, governors-"locomotives", carpet sweeping of even figures like the harmless Grudinin, a three-day-exit-electronic-with safe-packets of voting, and almost in the spring of a pre-announced the result in the form of preserving the "constitutional majority" for the crowd of actors-athletes-cosmonauts who have to sit in the Duma for the next five years and press buttons according to instructions given in advance?
I ask you to focus: it is very important, while thinking over the answer to this question, to abstract from the propaganda tinsel and stupid contexts like “for-against-power”. Let's imagine for a second, as a mental experiment, that there is no Putin and there is no EP, but there is “spherical Russia in a vacuum,” and we are designing a political system for it - which one will be better? One where there are parties, competition, open discussion and a result that is not predetermined in advance - or such as it is now: “the society of the spectacle,” which, moreover, remains almost completely without spectators?
Because if this is a necessary thing, and if at the same time we really do not want foreign money in it, then the question is where to find enough domestic money for it, and at the same time not from the “directorate of a single customer”. And if the performance is enough, then in general everything is normal, and there is no need to fuss.
Well, in the end, the adversaries will move to stir up some Maidan in our country, the decrepit generals will click or burn, Navalny will drive into the Kremlin right from the zone, riding on Yashin, and the "United Russia" sworn to him, renamed on this occasion to United Europe, will be in the same way an obedient "constitutional majority", no longer from actors and cosmonauts agreed in the AP, but from titled human rights defenders agreed directly at the embassy of a famous country, to vote for the legalization of gay marriages, the transfer of Crimea back to Ukraine and the introduction of the ubiquitous European standard and European-quality repair instead of the current "national projects". And there is no multi-party system, competition, free media, etc. no one will establish, for there was no need before, and now they have somehow forgotten the scale of the great historical upheavals. Well, that is, in fact, everything will remain as before.
I see, yes, what am I talking about?