Democracy in the genre of melodrama
Dmitry TravinToday the individual forms of fighting for your pocket quite real, whereas forms of collective to the majority of citizens seem outright adventurism 0Twenty years ago, on 18 December 1989, the funeral of academician Andrei Dmitrievich Sakharov turned into a mass popular demonstration. This day was a peak of democratization of our country. A huge number of people out on the street in Moscow and in St. Petersburg. U.S. Ambassador Jack Matlock noted in his memoirs that he had noticed in the crowd even a lone figure of Marshal Sergei Akhromeeva of a man who clearly did not share the political views of Sakharov, but for some reason found it, probably, his duty to honor the memory of the Creator of the hydrogen bomb.Matlock drew attention to the fact that the camera up above a crowd of demonstrators. "Forgive us for what we were silent, when you are tormented". "Never again will we lose our courage to rise against the tyrants". "You indicated to us for debt of the Russian intelligentsia".Since then, democracy gradually went into decline. We often were silent, someone in the neighborhood did not torture. We have lost the courage to stand up for any other reason, except to take out of the fridge a new bottle of beer. Well, the question of the debt of the Russian intelligentsia was completely replaced by the question, what is the exchange rate tomorrow will be sold on the exchange of paper sovereign or corporate debt.Occasionally, of course, there were new highs, triggered by some events (as, for example, in August 1991), however, it was easy to see that the frustration was growing rapidly. Today to use people (even educated), the word "democracy" is not accepted. At the lecture the students can meet him with a choked chuckle. Which no other term - the market, competition, modernization, and, especially, profit and "loot" - this does not cause giggles. Democracy is associated not with the political system of the developed world, but rather with the relations with the attempt to flog naive, enthusiastic fools some ideological product used solely for their omolajivaniya.Why for 20 years we have evolved in this way?The standard explanation is that people are disillusioned with democracy. An alternative (and less popular) is that the people to democracy do not allow. I'm afraid both one and another point of view is very one-sided.In order to be disappointed in democracy, we must first understand at least the basics. But is this understanding that the Soviet people in 1989 was not. Democracy could not become really popular for only a year separating the beginning of the first relatively free election campaign (people's deputies) from the demonstration, held on the day of the funeral Sakharov. Democracy in such a short period of time could only captivate and intrigue.Well, as for today's restrictions on democracy, the restrictions were because 20 years ago. Pre-election meeting with specially brought to them "specialitatea" with neighboring plants could weed out unwanted Democrats cleaner than it does now the EC method handwriting analysis "wrong" signatures. And aggressive-obedient majority (the term Yuri Afanasiev) Congress of people's deputies was the clear prototype of our Uniform and Fair.But at the end of the 80s there was a desire to break down the barriers, whereas today we obediently follow in the footsteps laid by the Kremlin. So how can you interpret the events of that time?First, the "democracy" of a bygone era was the first truly mass show, which was offered to participate to the Soviet people. Hungry for spectacle people instantly responded to the call.It is interesting to note that preparations for the election to the First Congress of people's deputies was in fact in parallel with the display on TV the first series of foreign melodrama called "Slave Izaura". And enjoyed this "soap" as popular as "democracy".On this day series and different kind of show we dominate in spectacular row. Only Latin American "soap" changed domestic and democracy gave way to the "Dancing with the stars", "Factories of stars", "Ice age" and "the House-2". In these shows entertainment more. However, if the deputies adapt their interventions to the needs of the masses, they to this day, as the example of Vladimir Zhirinovsky, can compete with professionally concocted product.Second, the "democracy" of the era was fed by a lack of food. The shelves quickly emptied, since the economic reforms of Gorbachev and Ryzhkov in 1987 - 88., has only led to an increase in no secured money supply. Therefore, the interest in "democracy" was still and the movement of empty pots.Today, the pan was filled. Someone with a horse, someone half, someone slightly covering the bottom. Many, of course, angry, but there is still the sense of "impenetrable wall" that was formed 20 years ago. Then all the individual forms of fighting for their financial well-being rested on the empty shelves. Could earn more but it was hard to consume more. Accordingly, the idea of transformation of the whole system became attractive. Today the individual forms of fighting for your pocket quite real, whereas forms of collective to the majority of citizens seem outright adventure.What does this all mean?That the interest of democracy we are not behind, but ahead. He will slowly ripen. Behind, in 1989, there was a search of bread and circuses. Ahead - the transformation of the system that we will implement, to truly understand why we need it.