Election Lessons: An Unbreakable Wall Grows Between Systemic and Non-Systemic Opposition

Alexey Chadayev, political ananlyst

A serious analysis of the tasks that the System was solving in these elections cannot bypass one, albeit not obvious at first glance, but having a huge impact on the situation.

As we all know, for a long time there has been a division of the opposition into the so-called. "Systemic" and "non-systemic". In the coordinates of the System itself, this division looks like this: the first is occupied by the AP, the second - by the Lubyanka.

Accordingly, there is a large and complex system of agreements with the systemic ones. They are allowed to vote and even allowed to win. Including those cases, unpleasant for the System, when an outright do not understand who, having caught a protest wave, becomes the governor of the region where Putin likes to spend his holidays. In general, they are allowed a lot; but there is one "Kashchey's door" - you cannot get involved with "abroad" and the fighters there against tyranny.

With non-systemic, the style of communication is simple: "special forces do not negotiate with terrorists." They are Enemies with a capital "B". An information war is being waged with them day and night, increasingly harsh laws are being adopted against them. Their leaders are personally pressed, imprisoned, squeezed out of the country. And any name, somehow connected with them, automatically receives a "wolf ticket" in any election, from whatever party it comes from. Moreover: even those who are not connected in any way, but who, in their misfortune, are included in the lists of the UG, the "systemic" ones receive a multiply increasing resistance - the Smart Voting should not win, therefore "nothing personal".

The same is true for “large forms”. With this I faced, as they say, "actively". The fact that the New People's votes pass the barrier and even with a small margin, we at the headquarters saw about a week and a half before the start of voting. But then there was the question - will they be allowed in or not. However, when imam-muhtasib Leonid, in the name of Ayatollah Alexey, issued a fatwa for the entire ummah to drown for the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, I relaxed. In such cases, the Kremlin is as consistent as Lenin. Therefore, he gave the following forecast: they will gnaw, of course, but they will let me in. So, when on the night of counting the whole headquarters sat at the screen and gritted their teeth watching the percentages creep down, I saved a bunch of nerve cells - you see, they will come in handy again.

How exactly does this “enemy must not pass” attitude work during the elections? Pavlovsky in recent interviews - first to Novaya Gazeta, and then to Dozhd - explained this mechanics well. He says there that the idea, which appeared even after the Ukrainian "orange revolution", that it is enough to bring to the square a significant number of people with good faces, and the regime will fall, is deeply mistaken and harmful. Maidans win only where and when by that time there is an opposition that sits in parliament and local authorities, and at the right time leads the process. There should not be a lot of them there - for the same Pashinyan, only nine deputies were enough; but they should be.

Roughly simplifying: as long as the political "street" does not have a significant stratum of supporters within the system of power, nothing threatens the regime.

And, accordingly, the fronda always has a better chance of success than the jaqueria.

It was all a saying. The tale is this.

The border between "systemic" and "non-systemic" oppositions has always been semi-transparent, easily permeable and often crossed in both directions. In this campaign, I see how the System is trying to build a much tougher barrier between them, the crossing of which is the whole business; roughly how to climb the Berlin Wall. Yavlinsky's denial of "navalism" is only the most noticeable of the episodes.

Moreover, the wall, unlike the Berlin one, seems to be built from two sides. It can be seen how, for example, Rashkin or Bondarenko or Katz are trying to signal to the “other side” something like “I am now yours” - and the other side responds with cold contempt. Even Max Shevchenko, who was the only participant in the debate on all the central buttons of the TV, drowned for the release of Navalny, Imam Leonid defiantly rolled past the UG.

Why this happens and what it means is still to be understood. "I'll think"…