You’ve probably read this: The opposition will count its leaders this fall. Or this: The opposition headquarters will include liberals, leftists, and nationalists. Or maybe you’ve even seen the official press release:
On July 31, the working group of the protest action organizing committee formed the Central Election Committee and announced the start of the campaign to elect the Coordination Council of the Russian opposition. On October 7, for the first time in many years, Russia will hold free, democratic, nationwide elections to choose a representative body—the Coordination Council of the Russian opposition. All Russian citizens who register as voters for this Council may take part in the election, thereby identifying themselves as supporters of systemic change in the country—from an authoritarian regime to representative democracy, with a real separation of powers, government accountability to society, and its regular renewal through fair competition under transparent rules. Through free voting, it will be possible to show who personally represents the interests of those people who have taken part in protest actions in Russian cities since December 2011. It will make it possible to identify new people ready to run political campaigns, attract supporters, campaign publicly, and present a concrete program of action. http://leonwolf.livejournal.com/415677.html Let me try to explain briefly and clearly why this is necessary and why I am such an active supporter of holding these elections. What is the main question that comes up when preparing not just protest rallies, but any political campaign—the one that takes up 99% of the discussion time? Where should it be held? no When should it be held? no Will it be authorized or not? no What demands should be made? no The text of the resolution? no The main question is: who exactly are all these people sitting on the “organizing committee”?
Inside the organizing committee, it sounds like this: in exactly what composition are we making decisions, after all? Outside it, it sounds like this: who the hell are these random people making decisions on behalf of the opposition and the protest movement? Who authorized them? Who are you people, and who invited you? There is no answer to that question, because the answer “it just happened historically (read: “by accident”)” satisfies no one. It doesn’t satisfy me either. I don’t like it when, for example, my own authority is called into question—but on the other hand, no one ever gave me that authority. Think of any report about a rally, even a positive one. It always includes a line like: “I liked what was happening in the square, but I didn’t like what was happening on the stage,” or “there was an obvious enormous gap between those gathered and those speaking.” And what about the scandals that break out every single time over the speakers’ list? You could write novels about those intrigues. Before every organizing committee meeting, you have to hide because of questions like, “Alexei, couldn’t you arrange for me to be on the organizing committee too?” I’m sick of all this already. Everyone is sick of it. We call the authorities illegitimate because they falsified elections. But we ourselves haven’t had any elections at all. It’s been one continuous self-appointment. So let’s hold these elections. Let’s drop the utopia: we are not going to create a single unified party. It is ideologically impossible. I cannot imagine a party that includes both Udaltsov and Nemtsov. There will always be spoiler groups on the Kremlin payroll, sabotaging the process of party unification. So what we need is a formal body to govern an informal political protest movement. Yes, yes, the tired comparison with Poland’s “Solidarity” (the anti-communist trade union and social movement). Are there people in the streets? There are. Do they have political demands? They do. Then there also need to be elected people to articulate those demands and make decisions where necessary. The range of issues is broad: from the place and time of rallies to supporting particular candidates in elections at any level, or taking a position on certain events. For this body (let’s call it, for simplicity, the “Coordination Council” for now) to enjoy public trust, it must be elected 1) by everyone, and 2) honestly. That is why we need nationwide opposition elections. It’s called “democracy.” No other method of forming a governing body will work for us. A full 100,000 people at minimum should go and vote and choose 45 people they trust to sit on these organizing committees. That, and only that, will settle the question of who is popular and who is not, which ideology is dominant and which is marginal. We do not need any “round tables.” All trouble comes from them: obscure people making obscure decisions for obscure reasons on behalf of no one knows whom. I will never agree with this: The idea being advanced that the leaders of the protest movement should be determined through electoral procedures is a political mistake, since any competitive procedures contradict the principles of consolidation and the broadest possible representation of citizens’ interests within the protest movement. Artificially imposed competition will only split the protest movement, divide citizens, inflict serious damage on the protest movement, and undermine citizens’ trust in its leaders. This is a statement by the newly registered PARNAS party on the primaries. By the way, Nemtsov and Yashin came out strongly against that position and will take part in the elections. If the opposition says that “the use of electoral procedures is a mistake,” then what exactly is it accusing Putin of? He has exactly the same approach: fair elections will produce instability, blah blah blah. And our opposition looks so pathetic precisely because there is no competition. Half the people have been sitting there since the days of the CPSU Democratic Platform (a reformist faction within the late Soviet Communist Party), and it is impossible to smoke them out. Behind the speeches against opposition elections, I see only fear of finishing low in the rankings—or not placing at all. Cowardice, and nothing more. Nemtsov is running, after all; he isn’t afraid, even though he knows he has a solid group of opponents. Because that is what public politics is: if you want to sit on the presidium looking important, then go run in the election. And I’m not afraid either. Whatever place I get is the place I get. I’d rather be tenth somewhere the first nine are definitely better than me than be first somewhere people say, “what a madhouse.” If you don’t want to run in the election—goodbye, we’re throwing you overboard from the steamship of modernity. Such elections are the only chance for new, active people to prove themselves and take leading positions. Otherwise they will never break through the thick wall of “opposition apparatchiks,” who do nothing themselves and prevent others from doing anything too. Of course, there are plenty of wonderful citizens playing key roles in the movement who will not run in the election, because they simply have no use for it. They are not politicians; they have other professions. They do not need to confirm their legitimacy—but most people do. We will definitely hold these elections. We will definitely hold them fairly. We will definitely elect a legitimate Coordination Council. And finally, we will stop booing the speakers on stage, even if we do not like them. Because we ourselves elected them. You can read the frequently given answers specifically about the procedure here.