Presented today, December 6, 2007, at the roundtable discussion "The Death of the Russian Opposition and the Possibilities for Its Revival. A New Opposition Discourse." A NEW OPPOSITION DISCOURSE. ** In the 2007 State Duma elections, the systemic opposition—represented by the Communist Party of the Russian Federation (KPRF), Yabloko, and the Union of Right Forces (SPS)—suffered a crushing defeat. Could it have been otherwise? No. By agreeing to play by the Kremlin’s rules on the Kremlin’s field, the systemic opposition made itself completely dependent on the whims and shifting moods of the presidential administration. Hopes that the Kremlin would “appreciate relative loyalty, also known as being systemic” and “allow them to get the maximum possible” did not materialize. And not for the first time. Putin’s team has once again shown that it feels no moral obligations whatsoever toward an opposition that voluntarily and consciously agreed to play a rigged game with the Kremlin. The current hysteria of His Majesty’s humiliated and insulted oppositionists is as inappropriate as it is absurd. It was already obvious a year ago that the Kremlin had no intention whatsoever of allowing Yabloko and SPS anywhere near the electoral threshold required to enter parliament. And the communists would be deliberately and demonstratively humiliated in order to push them toward a speedy merger with the Kremlin’s “left leg” and their dissolution into some new “social democratic” project of the authorities. The opposition parties had a chance to meet the test of 2007 with dignity: to declare an election boycott in September of this year and thereby delegitimize the entire Kremlin political construct. But the systemic opposition, in all its good intentions, failed to seize that chance. Now they are reaping the consequences. They are incapable even of accepting their humiliating defeat with dignity. Some are once again talking about how “millions voted” for them, while others threaten the Kremlin with refusing their parliamentary mandates, surely knowing full well that no such refusal will actually happen: they do not have the nerve. Unfortunately or fortunately, the presidential administration knows this as well. That is why it will no longer bargain with the “systemic opposition.” Ahead lie the presidential elections. The opposition could seriously challenge the current authorities in only one case: if it were to nominate one single candidate from all anti-Kremlin forces—leftist, liberal, and nationalist alike. But there is virtually no hope of that. Numerous contenders, showering one another with routine curses, are preparing to register as presidential candidates. And in doing so, they will once again legitimize and justify before the entire public and before the whole world the falsified “victory” of the Kremlin’s talentless designated successor. We can interpret the actions of the systemic opposition in only one way: as a betrayal of the country and its voters for the sake of preserving their comfortable commercial niche within the Kremlin political system. What is to be done? Only one thing: to build a qualitatively new opposition. The basic requirements for this real opposition are as follows. 1. Only a political force that truly stands categorically against the policies of Putin’s Kremlin and is prepared to offer an alternative path for the country’s development can call itself an opposition. 2. The opposition lives up to its name and purpose only when it wants and is prepared to fight for real power, rather than for handouts from the current authorities. 3. The goal of the opposition is the reorganization of the country; its main task is to take power. 4. To solve the main task and achieve the main goal, all opponents of the current regime and Putin’s course must unite, finding within themselves the strength to rise above ideological and personal differences. If that willingness does not exist, then it is pointless to speak of opposition as an occupation or a field of activity. In that case, it would be better to honestly retrain as building managers. 5. The victory of a real opposition is possible only on the condition that a political synthesis is achieved between the ideas of democracy, social justice, and nationalism. That is, through the formation of a united front of leftist and national-democratic forces. This front must be bound together by one great common goal. 6. A real opposition must reject the political culture of the late Soviet stagnation era. Its features are: intolerance of other positions, the obligatory search for enemies within one’s own ranks, inability to reach agreements, caste-mindedness, authoritarianism, and reverence for formal bureaucratic status. Unfortunately, almost all leaders of the old opposition are carriers of this culture. Whatever they try to build, it always turns into a pitiful imitation of the CPSU (Communist Party of the Soviet Union). 7. The party model of opposition has exhausted itself, because officially registered parties are in complete formal dependence on the Kremlin and the crooked “rules of the game” established by President Putin’s administration. Only a network-based structure that unites representatives of the overwhelming majority of parties and ideological currents can be successful in the struggle against the regime. As one of the pillars and foundations for a future successful opposition, we propose our network organization—the National Russian Liberation Movement “NAROD.” 8.** Anyone who wants a real change of regime and the establishment of a new government that is nationally and socially responsible and democratically oriented must recognize that a non-ideological union built on a network structure is necessary. Anyone who denies the need for unity in order to remove Putin’s kleptocracy from power and create a qualitatively new, responsible government is in fact playing into the hands of Putin and Co. and is merely pretending to be an oppositionist. A separate question is the political basis for uniting the real opposition. The NAROD movement is completely open to discussion on this issue. Here one cannot help but recall “The Other Russia,” whose original premise was absolutely correct—to unite the entire opposition. But today, unfortunately, it has strayed too far from its original design. We call on activists in Moscow and the regions from the KPRF, Yabloko, SPS, and other parties and political organizations who are genuinely opposition-minded, and who are tired of the ineffectiveness and conformism of their parties’ leaders, to support us and move toward creating a new opposition—the opposition of the future. The old models, which once allowed opposition “chieftains” to feel perfectly comfortable as well-oiled cogs in the machinery of power while shouting supposedly “radical” slogans, are a thing of the past. We truly need a different government. None of the people’s revolutions of the past seven years were, or could have been, victories for the old liberal oppositionists. The authoritarian, corruption-ridden regimes of Serbia, Ukraine, and other countries were removed from power by a new national-democratic elite, one not bound by old obligations and not burdened by old feuds and personal enmities. There is no chance of a comeback for the 1990s. The point of convergence for the new opposition must shift from the left-liberal flank to the national-democratic one. And we must come to understand that the only viable concept for a new government replacing Putin’s regime of temporary rulers is national democracy. We do not need bustle in the waiting rooms of Kremlin officials. What we need is the desire to create a new government and the will to win. And we invite everyone who wants the same. To win. For our sake, for the sake of our children, for the sake of Russia, existing in the inseparable unity of its present, future, and past. The Political Council of the NAROD Movement December 6, 2007