Статьи на ту же тему

События и комментарии экспертов фонда

| 27 декабря, 2015

What is Sown, Will Take Root

Recent years have been packed with domestic political events: we have seen the federal electoral cycle of 2011-2012; the rise and fall of a wave of ‘white ribbon’ protests; also we have seen the number of political cells throughout the country increasing significantly, while political diversity within them has flourished; the Crimea and Sevastopol have been reunited with Russia and many new practices have been introduced into politics and public life.

The analysis and interpretation of any particular time period can take various forms, including justifying or criticising what has happened in the past: a comparison of ‘what happened’ with ‘what is happening.’ But in politics, the efficacy and importance of any actions can be determined to a great extent (and sometimes crucially) by considering the context in which they take place.

I therefore believe it is right to describe this step, using terms and concepts that have recently emerged in the political lexicon. There are several reasons for this. Firstly, political language is constructed in a particular way with its own terminology. Secondly, in the words of the famous song - ‘What is sown – will take root’; and thirdly, political language not only determines relationships within our society, but also helps create them. Today the struggle for finding the right political agenda has become an important element in the competition we are seeing between leading political figures.

I should point out here, that the subject for analysis is only those concepts and terms, which relate to domestic policy, namely ideology, electoral processes, political regionalism, party building and political mobilization.

Ideology

In 2014, at a meeting between the participants of the International Discussion Club ‘Valdai’, the First Deputy Chief of Staff of the Presidential Administration of Russia, Vyacheslav Volodin said: ‘When there is Putin – there is Russia.’ The phrase caught on and became widely used, both by supporters of the President and by the opposition. The former passionately supported the sentiment, and the latter sharply criticized it. Nevertheless, it has now become clear that the main characteristic of modern political life, and the biggest difference between the present day and the past, is the unprecedented consolidation of the Russian people, and the emergence of a new type of understanding of the ‘Putin Majority’ - which has moved away from a purely electoral sphere, to one of shared ideological values. This is what many people, both in this country and abroad, perceive as one of the achievements of modern day Russia.

In March 2014, the Crimea and Sevastopol were reunited with Russia. Both the events running up to this, and Putin’s address at the signing ceremony where these two areas were brought back into the Russian Federation, are considered to be important points of reference in the formation of the ‘Crimean consensus’. This in itself can be defined as a national consensus on the policies of the President and their values and priorities. Putin’s profound impact on the consolidation of society – by actualizing and raising public awareness of the value of patriotism and love for one’s country - was a decisive factor in the electoral cycles of 2014-15, and in many ways contributed to the electoral results. One should also note that the ‘Crimean consensus’, was preceded by much public discussion, as a result of which the understanding of such phrases as ‘polite people’, ‘the Russian Spring’ and even ‘Vatnik’ (a padded, working man’s coat, which has come to mean Russian patriot) entered in today’s political lexicon. They were memes, which were coined long before the Crimean situation but which were then used by opponents of the policies of the President (unsuccessfully, as it happens, in fact it had the opposite of instilling negativity…) Another important ideologeme to appear in the political lexicon in 2013 was the concept of the ‘nationalization of the elite’ – a number of federal government measures (including a ban on government officials and parliamentary deputies owning property and bank accounts abroad, and also anti offshore legislation). They were aimed at the return of assets to Russia and the ‘re-establishing’ of ties between our political and economic elite and their own country.

The topic of patriotism has become a key factor, not only in the Russian political sphere but also in public life. We have even seen the phrase ‘relevant patriotism’ appearing recently. The ‘Immortal Regiment’ march in Moscow’s Red Square was an important example of the personal perception of generational ties and the history of our country. The march was unprecedented in scale, and these events and recent history are also very close to the hearts of millions of Russians, and ‘Immortal Regiment’ has also become part of the political lexicon.

Electoral Procedures, Political Regionalism and Party Building.

The most significant amendment in the Russian political system has been the cardinal changes in the relationship that the authorities have with the electoral process. The words open-competition, openness and legitimacy, are now solid, set phrases in the political lexicon. In fact, this more modern concept of domestic policy has changed not only the system and the philosophy of those taking part in the electoral process, but also the public’s attitude to electoral procedures and has augmented their sense of the legitimacy of government. For the Russian people, the rejection of this or that policy ceased to be a rejection of the system as a whole. And for the authorities, the concept of a policy being ‘inconvenient’ (not be confused with the concept of ‘marginal’) became something, which was pushed to the periphery of the political lexicon.

The ‘readjustment’ of electoral practices and its’ ‘healthy recovery’, was associated with another solid combination of words – the ‘Volodinsky Spring’ (named after the First Deputy Chief of the Presidential Administration and curator of domestic policy, Vladimir Volodin). This phrase gradually acquired many features typical of the innovations taking place in domestic policy, features which were reflected in the expansion and improvement of the quality of political representation in domestic policy. This involved simplifying party-building processes and eliminating the electoral practice of securing results by using administrative resources, and also, by insisting on real political freedom choice which actualized the term ‘open primaries.’ The ruling Party, ‘United Russia’, introduced the practice of pre-poll voting (followed by various other political forces) in order to build better communication with voters.

Political Mobilization/Motivation of the People.

The ability of the authorities to mobilize their supporters in modern-day conditions, is essential for stability within the country especially when factoring in the ‘prevention’ of attempts from abroad to meddle in domestic political policies. The distinguishing feature of this approach has been to look to energetic people who are willing to work for the good of society and to organise public events as part of a general discussion on various platforms - including social media. This approach proved to be more than justified. Firstly, any public events held by government supporters far surpass any of those staged by the opposition. Secondly, the division between the ‘Internet Party’ (which implies progressive and opposition Parties) and the ‘Television Party’ (patriots and government supporters), which has grown up over the last 11-12 years, has now melted away. Over the past five years people have come to the internet en masse, as all research shows, and in fact if one just looks at all the internet discussions, it is looking more and more like a social media platform.

The most important social project to take place in the last five years has been the development of the All-Russian People’s Front – ONF – a non-partisan association of supporters of the President. It is a unique organization, which brings together civil society activists who are willing to give their free time, striving to achieve social goals. To begin with some politicians were skeptical of the ONF and it struggled to find a sense of ‘identity’ and its place and role in society, which were important factors in influencing political life in the country. Phrases such as ‘Social Control’, ‘Action Forum’ and ‘Rating of wastefulness’ have appeared (or returned) to the political lexicon thanks to the ONF.

The ‘anti-orange’ meeting of over one hundred thousand people was an important event in the street protests, which took place in Moscow in February 2012. Following on from this came the social movement ‘Antimaydan’, which upheld the ideas of this meeting and ‘cut off’ the ‘white ribbon wave’. It’s basic role is to counter so-called ‘coloured’ activities in Russia. The Antimaydan activists have already shown great drive and dynamism in organising street gatherings and public discussions.

I envisage many questions from those of you reading this article. Why have I chosen that phrases ? Where have been negative or critical phrases? I chose those, which are well known, which reflect the reality of politics and indeed to a great extent, help formulate it. In other words, phrases and word combinations, which define the daily agenda and have an influence on the behaviour of actors and on the choices of main social groups – which is far better than simple using descriptive word constructions.