The “voters’ strike” will boomerang politicians and society

By Lev Shlosberg, Pskovskaya Gubernia

25.01.2018

The Russian civil society is discussing the idea of ​​a “voters’ strike” put forward by Alexei Navalny in response to his non-admission to the presidential elections. The idea looks quite appealing, and the main secret of this appeal is that it is easy and comfortable for a person to consider himself a participant of a large action, when he/she has nothing much to do – there is no need to make efforts to achieve a political result. Inaction, submitted as an action, is a manipulative psychological device that allows a person to feel part of a larger group presenting itself to society if not as a majority, then at least as a force.

A STRIKE FOR A REVOLUTION

The key issue for developing a personal attitude towards the “voters’ strike” is that it is an alternative to elections. But the alternative to elections is the revolution, and nothing else. History did not invent anything new here. We still have the same choice: elections or a pitchfork.

One can not fail to understand that a revolution in Russia means cruelty, blood, tyranny and innocent victims. There were no other revolutions in Russia.

A government which emerged from lawlessness becomes a lawless government and it can not be different.

The “voters’ strike” is not an alternative to a revolution and can not become such for a simple reason – it does not cancel elections. Elections will be held in any case. The lower margin of turnout is not determined, and the organisers of the election campaign of the likely winner are primarily concerned with the score of his “victory”. The voter turnout is not included into the “score”.

If the “voters’ strike” does not work for elections as an instrument for political change (and it certainly does not work for elections), then it indirectly works for a revolution, even if the organisers of the “strike” do not think about it, or directly deny it – simply because there is no other alternative to elections.

Moreover, the “voters’ strike” directly works for Putin, as it raises his percentage in elections, reducing the support for other candidates.

It absolutely suits the authorities, therefore Navalny’s leaflets criticizing Putin are confiscated everywhere, but rallies in support of the “voters’ strike” are allowed almost everywhere – they do not beat on Putin, but on his opponents.

In the final analysis, the “voters’ strike” represents a direct fight against all other presidential candidates, but for Putin.

In relation to society, this struggle is maximally egoistic and minimally altruistic; this is the struggle of Alexei Navalny for himself, for his personal political space, regardless of how this struggle can end for the entire Russian society.

Gathering together social forces for political action, it is necessary to understand where the energy of the society organised by you will move, what way-out it will be looking for, into what forms it will take and where it will lead to.

Depreciating these definite elections due to non-participation of a definite candidate in these elections, the organisers of the “voters’ strike” launch a dangerous boomerang, which will certainly hit them as politicians and the society.

Depreciation of the institution of elections means increasing the social value of a revolution or a coup. These are the connecting political vessels. If you can not (do not want, do not plan, etc.) to achieve change through elections, then, you are making room for other political actions.

Elections or pitchforks. There is no other alternative.

The habit of non-voting is the sister of the habit of revolution.

Democrats should not educate and raise revolutionaries. Even simply because they are more likely to perish in the flames of revolutions.

CAPITULATION BEFORE PUTIN

In what elections was Alexei Navalny going to take part? In the very elections in which we all take part – dishonest, opaque, not free elections.

Today there are no other elections in Russia.

But participation in such elections is the only possible and the only correct form of peaceful political struggle.

True, this is a game with rules imposed on us. It is a run in the swamp. But there will be no other elections under Putin.

First, we will learn how to win in such elections and only after that we will be able to return to fair elections to the people, in the whole country inclusive.

It will not work the other way. Fair elections will not come to the country out of the blue. The present Russian authorities, illegitimate children of dishonest elections, will never give us fair elections for their political death.

True, participation in such elections means participation in a political struggle within a system which has been destroying freedom. But free people are able to win in non-free elections, when they become a majority.

We need to learn at such elections, in these fields and in this morass how to defeat a political adversary. By the overwhelming majority of civil society. Such correlation of forces can be achieved only in the struggle against the opponent, a superior opponent at present.

And here – the second key question. The “voters’ strike” is a disguised form of surrender to the acting authorities: “I do not want to go to the elections, the winner of which is known in advance, I do not participate in the crowd scenes (a circus, clownery, etc.).”

It sounds proudly in form, but extremely sad in actual fact.

The “voters’ strike” supports the myth of Putin’s invincibility. All the legally important reservations that the next presidential term will be the fourth, the elections are unlawful, and participation in unlawful elections is unworthy of a citizen – all this is in favour of the power holders rather than the poor.

They will win on such elections – elections without citizens – as a ruling class confidently and without problems. Russia’s ruling class of Russia and personally Vladimir Putin need such elections without dissenting voters.

The “voters’ strike” is a form of deceitful agreement with Putin’s uncontested omnipotence, a form of avoiding a personal direct clash with him.

“We will never be able to win the elections” – this postulate is the most pernicious and suicidal for democracy; it de-energises people’s energy, emasculates civil strivings and paralyses the public will.

This postulate corrupts the people, discourages their saving habit of voting, as it is exactly a habit that – the only one multiplied by millions of votes – can bring peaceful changes to the country, as it always happens in history.

A voter who did not come to the polling station once, one day receives a nasty and contagious experience of avoiding elections, the experience of non-voting, the experience of non-participation, the experience of not solving difficult tasks, the experience of not taking responsibility. Sooner or later, such an experience can become a habit.

A DISAPPEARING VOTER

The third question is how much we believe in ourselves and the people.

If a politician is confident in his abilities, is certain of mass support of citizens with whom he is on constant communication, you can show in almost any situation how many people are with you and what is their strength.

A politician can show how many supporters he has exactly through his actions in the elections, and this can be not only a vote for the candidate.

It is possible (nobly, but very painful and difficult) to call a political ally for support, if there is such in the elections. It is possible to make ballots invalid in the same way, up to writing down the name of the candidate suspended from elections in the ballot (I did so in 2012, having written down Yavlinsky in my ballot).

Citizens can and must do an action that can be physically counted so that to say “Look, there are many of us, you (yet in power) can not disregard us, we are here, we have not left and will not leave.

A “voters’ strike” is a way to a political deadlock, because it does not allow the voter to prove and tangibly exercise his or her suffrage.

A voter who did not come to the election “on purpose”, in protest, is dissolved in the number of voters who did not come to the elections out of habit, or laziness, or indifference and disbelief. Such a voter can not be seen, it is impossible to count his or her vote. A non-voting voter disappears as a citizen.

Political privatisation of non-voting citizens is a very wicked move for a politician. You can not add your 10 cents to 45 cents of someone else and declare that you have 55 cents in your hands. It is not fair.

The “voter’s strike” represents despair and disbelief rather than strength and will.

Why should democrats nurture powerlessness and lack of will in the people? Do we want to win, or is life of those avoiding elections quite comfortable and convenient for us?

Only those who come to the polling stations will be able to answer these questions.

A call for non-voting is a call for political unemployment of voters, a call to wean from the feelings of the master of the country, the sovereign of power, a call to abandon the struggle for the state that belongs to us by right.

A c all to non-voting means alienation of people from their civil feelings, and this is very dangerous for society. This weans people from their self-awareness as the people, from realization of their significance, their historical and political role.

The “voters’ strike” means fostering of a sense of political inferiority in the people, habituating voters to the fact that they do not choose the power (the power is chosen not by them). A politician should not habituate voters to the political unemployment, even if he himself can not participate in the elections.

You can not corrupt the people by inaction.

THE BOOMERANG OF WEAKNESS

The “voters’ strike” is a recognition that Putin is stronger than us.

In fact, we are stronger than Putin. Putin has no future. We have it. But this can only be proved through elections gathering all the forces.

All should come to the polling stations and prove that we are the majority. We should grit our teeth, win elections and take the power into our hands.

Is the Russian society capable of defeating Putin in the election today? Yes, it is.

The number of people who are dissatisfied with the direction of the development of the country is larger than the number of those satisfied with life or submissive to the fate of Putin’s electorate.

Do we have enough strength for this victory? Only elections can show this. Not only these elections, but all elections, literally every election, and none of elections should be neglected.

Are politicians able to unite civil society, and not for personal ambitions, but for the sake of the future, for the sake of common freedom?

Only elections can show this.

Time will come (and it happened many times in history), when a politician who called for a “voters’ strike”, will lack these very votes – those who wanted and were ready to vote, but they were said: do not go, do not do it, this is not our war, we are above the battle.

A boomerang that has not reached its goal returns.

But it can return to empty hands that have forgotten how to hold weapons.

Source: http://gubernia.pskovregion.org/columns/bezrabotica-izbirateley/