In the Moderate Circle

A question which answer, according to Alexander Skobov, was avoided by liberals at the Petersburg conference, would be inevitably raised again and again.

Vladimir Milov - one of the brightest "liberal politicians of new generation", as he unostentatiously characterizes himself. The brilliant professional, representative young gentleman with faultless manners and clear, precisely structured speech.

I would be proud, if such person was, for example, the Russian prime minister. Obviously, I am not alone. Frequency of his appearance in the program "Authority" prompts that some influential information - analytical group has staked seriously on him.

Nevertheless, as, unfortunately, not I with Eugeny Kiselyov appoint prime ministers yet, "moderate democrat" V.Milov is going all over again to create influential political force capable "to demand updating of a rate of authorities".

V.Milov's debate with "radical democrat" Alexander Ryklin seemed to me substantial contribution to discussion about creation of such party or movement taking place now in liberal camp.

I, for example, surely support idea of creation of national assembly as a platform for dialogue ripened long time ago between liberals and the left, who are being different people, as far as mechanism of its formation assumes, equally devoted to base democratic values.

At the same time I think that to declare today national assembly "alternative parliament" or "proto-parliament" would be premature and self-confident. Such definitions should be deserved somehow, that was completely fairly emphasized by V.Milov in the debate on grani-TV.

However a question on national assembly and its functions is eventually tactical. The part of the debate where opponents touched, possibly not wishing it, the most painful, in my opinion, item of the Russian liberalism was the most interesting.

A.Ryklin did not insist at all on declaration of assembly "alternative parliament" and V.Milov, who obviously didn't like the idea of assembly, had to search for some other arguments explaining what was it that bothered him and other moderate democrats so seriously.

"Well", - he resulted at last his deciding reason. "Imagine that this wide coalition will become successful and what we shall receive in that configuration which develops today? Unorganized democrats and army-like organized Limonov's followers?" "People who are easily ready to get into prison," - he added. That last quality of national Bolsheviks seemed to V.Milov the most suspicious and menacing.

I won't now get involved again into discussion about national bolsheviks who, by the way, were not dominating force at the Moscow conference of the left. It's important that Milov's argument - "What we shall receive?" - is not about assembly and not about national Bolsheviks, but about basic unavailability of moderate democrats to free elections without father like supervision of authoritative authority.

What does it mean "if wide coalition will become successful?" The basic general requirement of liberals and left today - carrying out of fair free elections. That is you should read: "Imagine that tomorrow there will be free elections. What shall we receive?"

As I assumed in "May Day Theses", it looks that moderate democrats who have appeared in the majority at Petersburg conference silently or not always silently adhere to a principle - the left never, under no circumstances should come to authority.

But if it so, then all pathos of liberal opposition to putin's mode blows up from within and becomes empty and false. What do we struggle for - for freedom of speech, for free elections, against shameless embezzlement of public funds of a ruling clique, against shouting social inequality as it was solemnly proclaimed by all "Committees 2008", "Civil Congresses" and "Other Russia"?

Or for a flat scale of surtax, market tools of control over inflation and first of all for non-admission of the left to authority believing that the main thing now is development of capitalism, while new generations of the got stronger Russian bourgeoisie will ripen sometime for political freedoms and then it will be possible to think of really free elections...

People feel this falseness, whether it's not principal cause of falling of popularity of liberals.

"Moderate democracy" involuntarily but inevitably, by virtue of its logic gets is closed with "sovereign democracy". Both of them mean simply that democratic elections should be moderately democratic.

That is the essence of that escaping definition of "moderation" which A.Ryklin tried to get so persistently from the opponent during all the discussion.

That will be already experts in the civilian like certain political sharper unexpectedly appeared as the savior of Fatherland of the first degree can argue about a degree of this moderation and whom and how will particularly be made moderate in election committees.

The liberals believing that in today's Russia rather free elections will lead to catastrophe are sincerely convinced that they proceed from the supreme interests of the country. We'll admit that they are right. Then they should cease to pull leg to themselves, people and mode by appeals to free elections, to declare fairly about their position as M.Gershenzon, A.Chubajs and L.Radzihovsky made, to declare themselves enemies and indefatigably work in authority and outside of ot over humanization and "updating of a rate" of a mode of sechins and аbramoviches, patrushevs and timchens, putins and deripasoks.

The tragedy of many liberals is that they perfectly see that catastrophe to which a ruling mode conducts the country but damnation of our postPeter history is over them - genetic collective metaphysical fear of educated in Europe liberal barin of muzhik with an axe (moreover ready to go in a jail!) who will come and cut not only barin but the whole country together with him.

The fear or the concern for destiny of Fatherland if you'd prefer it like that many generations of the Russian liberals used as the base for a road to a deepening of that not class even but anthropological split which arose in the Russian culture when our tsar - reformer cut through not a window but slightly opened narrow window leaf to Europe into which little head of "the Russian political elite" squeezed.