Subject sovereign democracy cheered sleepy ideological space Russia's domestic policy, and filled-in any way, but still meaningful political stagnation party monster "United Russia", and this reason alone it should not be avoided. Especially, one much and does not avoid. "Sovereign democracy" was the first sign of real ideological state and authority of the Putin era. Articles on this topic at some point out, one by one, and the leader of "United Russia" Boris Gryzlov, in general, some grinning to himself, proclaimed "sovereign democracy," the foundation of the program of the party, reading a piece of paper a new definition of the term. So painfully choosing from five options, "United Russia", the-same with the party program. I helped her in this, which is natural, its creator himself, Vladislav Y. Surkov, pulling and almost willful manner endorsing it is based on the concept of "sovereign democracy."
The last "software failure" before the final decision perennial problem with the content of a United Russia came after Putin questioned the right to life of the term "sovereign democracy". What Surkov, not a loss, reacted with lightning speed. "I do not care what happens with the term, I do not care what happens to sovereign democracy" — he said in his secret speech at the second media forum of "United Russia", to whom the present journalists selected recorders and put out the camera. Further, in strict secrecy Surkov explained that the term itself, if that, for the first time was more pronounced U.S. Secretary of State Warren Christopher in 1994, Romano Prodi repeated a few years ago, and Dick Cheney. This is for those who are trying to make out a new term looming loss of democratic freedoms — here you are, the continuity of the leading democracies.
But then Vladislav Y. explains: "The fate of the term — is secondary. The main thing is that he updated the discussion of critical topics — individual freedom and national liberty. " It should be understood that statement as summing up the Putin who has received mandate from the old elites — keep personal freedom, the main achievement of Yeltsinism for which Russia, in fact, paid the sovereignty, heading in the wake of U.S. foreign policy. Retained. But at the same time Putin has returned and national sovereignty, that Surkov stands as an achievement of national freedom, explaining: "The national freedom — is what is called sovereignty. Sovereignty — an independent authority, in this case — the people's power of our democracy. "
Here is revealed another, far more profound meaning of the term to which supposedly no one cares and "whose fate is secondary," namely: if democracy — is power the people is sovereign democracy — it is the sovereignty of his power, the power of the people. In parts of the mouth Surkov key question is: "We want to be self-sufficient country in terms of what we are able to provide their sovereignty, or do we have for this resort to other, more powerful countries? It question. Starting with the question of conscription — whether it is necessary — not far to the question — and whether you need an army? "
In this phrase lies the final determination that a country is primary and which is secondary. Primary — self-sufficiency, providing sovereignty. Secondary moaning about lost freedoms supposedly, the desire bblyiih freedoms of non-compliance "sovereign democracy" western-style democracy … But it won the West is the American democracy, flying on the wings of strategic bombers — see point about the loss of sovereignty. For example, the mission of that Yeltsin is precisely to quickly surrender to the West, the Americans, in all conditions, and the speed of our delivery of the West itself is determined on the basis of their ability to digest the resulting fragments — political, economic, geopolitical. Yeltsin's motivation in this case was as follows: stop resisting and gave up, as quickly as possible to get a decent life in a material sense for the country, such as in the West. But the delivery just was, first of all, in the rejection of sovereignty and the implementation of directives received from Washington. And Yeltsin did what he was told. As a result, we did not live in the West, and became to the total "surprise" of the then elite, live much worse than the last days USSR. At a time when the ruling elite began to suspect that they had been deceived on the agenda, in order of priority, the question was already on the decay of Russia, that is the beginning of the actual pieces of territorial separation from Chechnya, on the North Caucasus, Southern Russia, etc . on In this time worked instinct rather than rational pursuit of great-power STI and strengthen the country — if the country falls apart, where we will reign, where we will steal, "saw", from where to export? And then came Putin, who proposed and already concerned about the elites did not commit suicide, but to think — to cease to depend on the external logic and act independently, that is "sovereign." Since the very first time after years of surrender and retreat was a question of sovereignty and its importance for survival.
The next few years were spent so that, above all, to prove to themselves that sovereignty — is a value that we need it, and give it up, we can not. These reflections occurred a loud "howling" in the West, who also noted that Russia has ceased to obey him, and made a bid for sovereignty.
The argument was only one — just do not fall under the general and the greatest democracy in the world, then you are against democracy in general. The juxtaposition was as obvious as it is far-fetched, either democracy, then listen to us, or sovereignty. Or — or. It would seem that the choice in favor of sovereignty would mean a rejection of democracy, but it We paid too high a price — the collapse of the empire, widespread poverty, demographic failure to so easily give it up. Refuse can not be saved! Where the comma? And then there was the following idea, right on Dostoevsky, "both better."
Putin said — Democrats are different. This was the first step, after which the public and the elite started thinking process: first question of self-preservation, the answer to which was sovereignty. Further declaration of the sovereignty posed the question of democracy. Began to think about democracy and understand that democracy is different. Thus, the method of addition — the sovereignty, which we need to survive, and democracy for which paid a high price, so, sorry, besides, we could have a different, and not American — society and power have sovereign democracy. Theorem.
In fact, for the masses, as it turns out, the most important thing — it's personal well-being and stability. And all this is possible only through the secure preservation of sovereignty, because its loss plunge the country back into Yeltsinism nightmare from which we have just worked so hard to get out. Therefore, sovereign democracy — is, of course, well, you can show the West not to "yell." But it is better to do something without democracy. Indeed, any democracy in Russia — is, above all, anything goes. And who among us can do anything? That's right, officials, thieves and thieves from power. For a long time, "sovereign democracy" remained empty ideological construct, and was merely a pretext for an attack on Putin's current model, taken up by Medvedev, which theoretically personal freedom and power of the people were supported by the national freedom, that is sovereignty. August 8 America gave us a test, deciding to test how this "Construct" viable. Dmitry Medvedev took it brilliantly. Medvedev now — our President, Russia really is sovereign, and we really a democracy. This is no longer any doubt. Even in the United States.