Our authority “renewed” successfully to find out it has no real opposition. It got indignant, as the lack of opposition is not good! The imperial concern echoed in the pro-Kremlin’s party’s staffs. Rumours put it that now a question is being discussed there about who would take the trouble of “constructive criticism” in the new political season. There are two options: either molding something out of anything available or reanimation of something that existed before. But anyway the opposition must be! Really, why does Medvedev have to deal with stinging remarks during international summits he is going to take part in? 

Is real opposition needed by Russians?

The fact that 70 per cent was given for the Kremlin’s candidate at the past election does not prove that the real proportion of those content and discontent is 7 to 3. If we could count all those not voting, spoiling the vote ballot papers etc., we would get a different proportion. There also have been those who put a mark against the official successor’s name just because they didn’t see any alternative; they did it to maintain some kind of order we are used to. Some wishing to spoil Putin’s game gave their votes to anyone else and then those votes came to Zyuganov, Zhirinovsky or Bogdanov. Actually, those votes must have been classified as “against all” but such a box was removed farsightedly from the bulletins. Talking generally, today’s Russian discontent is of many faces.

Surely, many of us heard or even said during the campaigning period, “And who else? There’s no one.” Those discontent with the authority did not see in Medvedev’s rivals people able to articulate their dissatisfaction. But they didn’t see it either in those who were not allowed to run as presidential contenders. If there had been the names of Kasyanov, Kasparov, Limonov or anyone else from the discordant opposition in the ballot papers, they would undoubtedly have got only the votes of their faithful supporters and no more. There is no figure in our today’s political arena to meet the needs of the average displeasure and to be able to really oppose the administrative resource by the power, having a broad public support.        

Putin has real support. Having it he could have proposed anyone to be his successor, even his cousin-brother, a businessman, little known in Russia, and that man would have been able to easily come to the Kremlin.  

The reason for that is that the society is living through a “Yeltsin syndrome” now. The citizens, with the exception of the youngest among them, remember well what was happening at the first president, and they do not wish that to repeat. Any Putin’s opponent means uncertainty and probability for recurrence of the radical reforms. This is the chief, though not the only one, reason why political opposition, either left or right, is not needed by society at the moment. The authority that has usurped the power can be overcome only by people from the street. But today it’s only one or two thousands people that can really come out responding to the calling by today’s oppositionists. And this small number is easily handled by OMON forces that use the enforcement methods, sometimes looking on it as on a fun. 

But people don’t live blindfold. They see corruption flourish, new elite be well-fixed and be impudent and wild. They deal with self-complacent bosses who do not depend on population just like it was in soviet times. They feel with their pockets the inflation that is not as modest as it is painted by the Kremlin. Ask a question to anyone “Do you like what is happening around?” Majority of people would say they dislike it very much. What does that mean? That means that rejection of the opposition by the community wouldn’t be long, considering that such a rejection was artificially made by the controllable media painting “ours” in good tints and “those strangers” in bad perspective and in a contemptuous way. Of course, all that affects people’s frame of mind.   

The situation is paradoxical – majority is for and majority is against. It’s easy to see the reasons for electoral support for Putin. I shall repeat it is fed with discontenting memories of Yeltsin’s times. Looking at the first president, citizens recall their troubles caused by the first – that’s dirty cities turned into “flea markets”, paralyzed enterprises, lack of money and unemployment, the vouchers that ended in nothing, privatization out of which the population got nothing, raging crime, Chechen separatism and of course the West, that “wiped the ground with us”.     

But when Putin is so good why are we dealing with today’s discontent?

That’s a sheer phenomenon – this is related to troubles the Putin’s policy has caused! Have a private confident conversation with many people, and they will tell you much. They will tell you that local bosses, who depend on the Kremlin only, take bribes impudently and build palaces on that money. They will tell you how hypocritical the pension increases are, as they are eaten by inflation just in a one or two month period. They will tell you about bills for housing and communal services, the bills that make many face a choice – to pay or to starve. And everyone will tell you that nice addresses talking about caring about people’s interests have no confirmation in the real life. Our average man has never been more deprived of one’s rights than during last 25 years. What are common people afraid of most of all? They are afraid that some high ranking and wealthy master of this life can have an eye on their flat, house, plot or business.     

The paradox is not that current discontent with Putin is combined with people’s love for him. The matter is that discontent has no goal. Just exampling this, the other day I have had a conversation with an elderly woman from a province. I won’t give the name as local authorities are often featured with vindictiveness. So, I asked that woman “who did you vote for?” “I went for number 4 (in the ballot paper), that’s Medvedev”. “What did he attract you with?” “Putin and he raised our pensions”. “And are you feeling better now?” She answered with personified curses about those two. “And why did you vote for them?” “Who else could I have voted for? There’s no choice”.   

So opposition is not in demand. The easiest explanation for that might be lack of attractive ideas and charismatic leaders. But the reason is not that. The reason is that public discontent with the current situation only exists on the emotional everyday-life level and does not fit any of ideological systems. Hence, the today’s paradox is so amazing: unloved authority is so much loved while there’s no one behind oppositional leaders except most faithful followers with their eyes blazed with anticipation of battle.  

Repentance problem

The average Russian is featured with being disappointed: we supported Yeltsin and then began to hate him; we defended the White House and democracy and then realized to have participated in unbelievable mystification; we got to believe in privatization and market and remained with our poverty. The difference from typical French or German is that we today are guided with our yesterday’s troubles. Only Russian politics developed such a problem as repentance. Could you imagine American electors demanding Bush to put on a white sheet for fiasco by the Republicans in Vietnam, or Obama and Clinton to have had to offer an apology for errors made by the Democrats in Balkans?

The communists are required to repent more than others. Everyone – except the today’s youth who cannot tell apart Lenin from Ivan the Terrible - has one’s own reckonings to them; some for the slain Russian tsar and fall of the Russian empire; some for Stalin’s prison camps and repressions; some for destroyed virgin lands and flooded towns. And of course, the common blame is not yet forgotten kilometer-long lines and shortage of any kinds of goods.    

Why contemporary communists don’t renounce the heritage which makes an obvious obstacle in enlarging their electorate base? Well, if they did, then they would have to renounce all the achievements of the past epoch – from victory over fascism up to industrialization, space exploration and even sports winnings which are still our proud. And what would remain to be credited to them? Nothing. It is significant that all the bodies that branched off from the Communist Party and disavowed its historical heritage, just disappeared after a couple of political seasons. Today’s operators of the communist ideology are too shallow for making theoretical generalizing of the essence of contemporary world. The best they can do is a stamp of the foot - which is of no concern for the Kremlin – and intriguing about allegedly wonderful programs of the salvation “developed by the best minds – doctors of sciences, professors, academicians and experts in all the sectors of economy.”    

It’s not only the left wing for whom the problem of repentance for the past crimes and mistakes is actual. Probably, even more actual it is for the right. In the mean time, today’s liberal leaders avoid this problem persistently, considering it does not apply to them. They are wrong in that respect. Why Mikhail Kasyanov – in case he had been allowed to run for the presidency – wouldn’t have got many votes? Of course, he has been mudded by the Kremlin’s “painters” and that is one of the reasons. However, the main point is that he belonged to the Yeltsin’s elite and is responsible for all bad that was done then. Could he have found any real solution to this dilemma? No. If he had repented he would have lost his past. And now when he has not repented, he has lost his political future. So his dilemma is similar to that of Zyuganov.  

And what about SPS leader Nikita Belykh? Well, he finds himself in same situation. He may be reforming his party eternally, but as long as it is associated with the ideas of Gaidar and money of Chubais, he only will be able to count on the minor success allowed by the Kremlin. The explanations by the getting old “young reformers” about shock therapy, mortgage auctions, and paralysis of the home industry can only be good for an academic audience and even there they are unlikely to be met with enthusiasm. A real politician, not the one who just wants to enjoy running as presidential contender, if he wants to win or at least achieve the result giving him any perspective, he should understand the nature of the public discontent. Turning one’s back to the “strange” voters and considering the majority of the population to be marginal persons not accepting liberal values – all that is the shortest way to sectarianism and degradation. But would the today’s right leaders be capable of repentance? This is unlikely, as they are less of liberals and more of persons in ward by those whom they should dissociate themselves from, if they want to have political future.      

So, today’s leaders of the right and of the left are facing same issue of repentance that they are not able to solve. And without the solution found they have no chance to keep their parties up in the real politics. Is there a way out? The only one is leaving for the political B-list giving in the way for the new generation of oppositionists, not loaded with historical responsibility. Of course, the newcomers should be able to manage the party’s connections sponsors’ funds. If this doesn’t get done, Russia would have one-party system after two or three political seasons. And the voters wouldn’t even notice that.     

Crisis of charisma

Opposition is traditionally criticized for lack of concrete offers about most urgent and sharpest issues. In reality, the voters do not read the leaflets, let alone party programs, and do listen attentively to the campaigning speeches. Very few can tell what Medvedev’s program differs from that by his opponents. People only know that Medvedev is Putin’s friend, while the others are only acquaintances. And that’s enough for making a choice.    

Russian elections are featured with struggle of promises, not struggle of ideas. And the authority always gains a victory in this struggle. “In September we will index the pensions…till April we will froze the prices for basic food products…in August we will reduce the term of obligatory Army service…considering our experience we will specify the procedure of the use of “mother’s capital” (in accordance with her demographic program, Russia pays money for each newly born child)”. Could any opposition member promise anything like that? Of course, no. So the opposition candidates can only appeal to emotions. Everyone has its own style on that way: Zhirinovsky likes coming to blows; Zyuganov “embodies” all the best from our past; Kasyanov fights against OMON; Bogdanov symbolizes indistinctness; and Yavlinsky is associated with adherence to one’s principles. 

As for the Kremlin’s candidate, his part is very simple – just going around the country and speaking about politics as rare as possible, so that not to spoil the image of the candidate “judged by deeds, not by the words”. Just after the outcomes of the election were announced, Zyuganov stated that “If Medvedev had taken part in TV debates, I would have defeated him!” In that he was right. And it’s not because Zyuganov’s arguments are more convincing. It’s because on the level of elector’s emotions, Medvedev, not having opportunity just to publish his working schedule, would look less confidently against the background of his rivals so experienced in this genre of the home show-business.   

If we take a look not at the political stage, but at the auditorium, we would see the audience yawning from boredom and waiting for the curtain to fall. Spectators do not expect anything new. Why, for example, Yabloko has lost a considerable part of its traditional electorate? One may of course plead to the “Kremlin’s order” and to the competitors who adopted the Yabloko’s arguments, but that would be only partly true. The chief reason is that Yavlinsky, like most part of other political “long-livers”, has passed his peak of public expectations.      

What is charisma? This is ascription of some qualities to a personality which makes this personality admired and causes indisputable belief in its potential. The opposition leaders are experiencing an age-related crisis of charisma, because now only their ardent supporters believe and admire them. As for others, they would like new political and attractive stars to rise. This wish is natural, but unfortunately it is impossible to come true. Authority controls media so much that the voters would never hear about new political talents able to compete with it. They will be removed at the far approaches to the capital and allowed in will be only such “fighters against the regime” looking at whom the unsophisticated in politics citizens would be asking one another “Where did this man come from?”         

Authority engenders radicals

What does the regime do to exclude the possibility of appearance the figures whose authority in the big politics could be even a bit higher than that regime’s representatives? Guided with an old truth that “vicious tongues are worse than guns” it just creates with the help from the media the negative images impossible to get rid of, as it would take no less number of the opposition-oriented TV stations, and now there are none of them. Those images are created for everyone, just to be on the safe side, and are based not on obvious lies, but on half-truth. The images mentioned are as to follow. “Zyuganov is the man who is afraid of winning a victory. Zhirinovsky is an entertainment man working for the Kremlin’s money. Yavlinsky only can criticize and does not want to and cannot do anything else. Nemtsov is a political playboy and nothing else. Kasyanov has a nickname “Misha-two-percents” with all the possible consequences. Khakamada is a glamour lady, who has nothing to do and so politics is a kind of entertainment for her. Kasparov is the chess player crazy about politics. Limonov is the writer mad about politics either.”   

So that’s it, and the labeling has been done. The Kremlin is not afraid of today’s opposition leaders. Those who believe that barring the former prime minister from running in the election argues for the opposite, they are mistaken. The problem was not about Kasyanov. The matter was that a new group of new opposition leaders could have appeared during his campaign, able to fight the regime on the political ground. It’s exactly such people whom the Kremlin comprehends to deal with, and not those making riots in the streets fighting against OMON.        

The Kremlin, declaring the usefulness of the “constructive opposition”, is objectively interested in the lack of constructivism! The Russian society in its current state does not accept any radicalism. So if it still appears that would free the regime’s hands and people would approve of any strict measures not considering it to be excessive.  

The blind with rage radical is a false target by the authority concealing its main aim – the sane oppositionist. This is why all the best is done so that young people with a good political potential had no opportunity for its realization. They only have two choices – servicing to regime or joining the street. Those thinking independently go for the street. It is significant that their own radicals have appeared lately even in such “quiet” political organizations like Yabloko and SPS. They look rather discreet at the moment. But they will be growing. Some reckon they were planted there, but that’s not true. They appear and grow on their own, but the soil for them was well manured by the authority.      

Cloning the opposition

We have been watching lately another way of struggling with the opposition – that is cloning. What does it mean? If some political party begins to cause any inconvenience for the Kremlin, it allots appropriate funds and creates something alike with similar ideas and easier access to the voters. This results in that the clone takes a significant number of votes off the original and along with that the idea itself becomes perverted of opposing the authority.     

Do you remember December last year when Just Russia was struggling with United Russia? That was really ridiculous! The one had a slogan “We go for the President!” while the other “We are together with the President!” And how would you interpret the absurd formula by Mironov: “We stand for the President, but we are against monopoly for power by United Russia”? By the way, same impressions are made with the Civil Force by Mikhail Barshchevsky. What kind of “force” is it, who is it struggling with and why is it considered to be oppositional when its leader represents officially the Kremlin’s interests in the courts?      

Probably, in any other country such an undertaking would fail, but not here. Important thing for our authority is to have something looking like opposition, saying like against the regime and taking part in something looking like to be important. The Kremlin has done much lately to turn the country into a real police state. It’s easy to see that was done to exclude the “street factor” from the real struggle for power. Has this task been coped with? It has, to significant extent. At least, today no existing oppositional party is capable of organizing a serious pressure over president, government or parliament about any publicly important issue. They also cannot do it jointly, as they are substances with different political density and cannot be mixed into a homogenous form. Maybe that’s no trouble? Everyone might be getting strengthened with one’s own electorate. But there is one “but” here – that’s ambitions.           

Afterword

Electoral season is over and the new one is far ahead. Most of us are too busy now to reflect if we have or not opposition in the country. We shall remember about it when time has come to elect again. And then we shall complaint about having no choice and shall vote, unwillingly, for the person pointed out by president Medvedev.  

There is no cat in our political house; this is why it is more controlled by mice than by inhabitants.