What do Putin and Ushakov

Difficult the victory of the ruling coalition on elections in the Riga is the product of ethnic mobilization of the Russian-speaking voters, while the majority of Latvian voters of the city the authorities have lost (in detail this is what I wrote in the last article). Now we have to explain how the party “Consent”, categorically refuses the representation of the Russian-speaking population, managed to achieve this effect.

The retinue plays the king

If we try in one sentence to Express the difference between “Consent” from the leading Latvian parties, it is the most accurate answer: “what we don’t know.” Indeed, in any of the three components of the government coalition of Latvian parties is a tense internal debate, well known to all observers. We can read dozens of articles about what a politician “Vienotiba” is kind of inner group and how this grouping affects the policy of the party as a whole.

This fight might look disgusting as fight the spiders in the Bank, but it’s natural: politicians must be ambitious, because he is fighting for power. To gain power in the country, we must first conquer her own party. Hence the passions, which are impossible to hide. Especially in our electoral system where each voter supports the party, but some of its politicians and therefore should know what each represents.

“Consent” is nothing like not writing. Because of the position of individual politicians, there is no information. They just remain silent, which is absolutely crazy to representative democracy. If the TV screen tells us about his plans a member of the ruling coalition in Riga, it is likely that it will either be nil Ushakov, or one of “Honour to serve Riga” — Andris Ameriks, eiženija, Vyacheslav Stepanenko.

Here is a typical example, not noticed by the commentators. Formally, a leading politician of “Consent” in the state Duma is the Maxim Tolstoy. He is the head of the faction and head of the important city development Committee. In these elections he got into the electoral list at number 43. This opal? But then he had to drive quite as shunned by the faithful associate of the mayor of Svetlana Savitskaya. Tolstoy and elected to, and we may never know what happened. And what would be the sensation if similarly pushed the leaders of the Latvian faction of the previous Duma — Sarmite Elerte or Dainis Locis!

It is clear that such a policy is possible only because the “Consent” of a specific voter. For the voter Latvian parties it is important that the country team rules. It is involved in the formation of this team with his voice. Voter “Consent” vote for the leader, trusting him completely. And from the team requires only one thing: discipline to vote in favour.


Therefore, the Latvian voter in response to the question of who to vote for, say “for “Vienotiba””, “nationalists”, “peasants”. Voter “Consent” usually says “for Ushakov”. It is neither good nor bad — it just indicates that political culture.

A new Latvian party, Olesnica at the Riga elections of representatives of the government coalition, while the structure of voting preferences similar to “Consent”. Their voter voted for a bright leader mārtiņš of Bondara or Utah streak and Janis Bordans not knowing the team as a whole. But it was in the beginning with other Latvian parties “Vienotiba” nee “Jaunais laiks”, was perceived as the party repše. Then it turned out that not he alone wants to drive… So I think a similar fate awaits the current udacnik, if they politically survive.

But “Consent” under the direction of Ushakov’s work for the twelfth year, and is increasingly a party of one leader. And if we want to find similarity to another political force, it can not be found in Latvia. Here, the “United Russia” is very close, and not just because among the parties has an agreement on cooperation.

I want someone like Putin

“Consent” is like “United Russia” political philosophy. For example, the impersonal functionaries, against which must Shine sole leader. We still don’t know what naughty is pushed aside, Boris Gryzlov, as not to know what happened before the elections with Maxim Fat. And the voters have no interest in it. He is sure that it is this party that his beloved leader would be correct. Therefore, all political failures are written off to the team, and the bright image of the leader remains at an unattainable height.

Remember, ascended to the top of Ushakov. It happened in the crisis to “Consent” the moment when the party split, failed completely in the municipal elections, its founder and permanent leader Janis Jurkans squeezed out of politics. And here at the Congress of delegates introduce a new leader — a young journalist, who is present not only do not know — they do not remember whether he was a member of one of the members of the then merging parties. But, naturally, they unanimously vote for him.

All this is very similar to how almost nowhere Putin. Yeltsin appointed the little-known functionary head of government, announced a successor, and immediately the whole range of the party “United Russia” has not yet been created — saluted. Because here and there members are driven by the conviction that disciplined adherence to the instructions of the authorities guarantees a successful career. On the contrary, too many questions that will inevitably ruin his career. “In my years should not dare to have its judgment” that taught us a classic. Of course, in a classic parliamentary democracy, the behavior of a politician should be completely opposite.

Of course, neither Putin nor Ushakov did not come out of nothing. Both have chosen a professional spin doctors with a clear understanding of which candidate is suitable for an existing voter. In and of themselves, Vladimir Putin and nil Ushakov — people of outstanding merit, a huge capacity for work and willpower, stunning erudition and resourcefulness, able to stay perfectly with the camera. Enough random natural selection in the narrow circle of leading politicians could not bring to power such strong personalities, so they had to expand the search radius.

The problem here is that choosing leaders, strategists were well aware of the psychology of the Russian voter. Why Putin tops the list of all his 17 years in power. And in Latvia, these methods work only against people of the same mentality — Russian voters. They make up about a quarter of the electorate — we can calculate on the referendum about the Russian language. So by and large the ruling party “Consent” will not. But to come to power in the cities where such voter prevails, it has.

Will point to a few traits common to the “Consent” and the “United Russia”. First, the extreme ideological blur. “Consent” calls itself a left party, is proud of the achievements in the social sphere, but it is largely a matter of conjecture. She and the other party — the populist number. They are for everything good and against everything bad. And it is pragmatic: it is necessary to collect all voices, rich and poor, entrepreneurs and employees.

Secondly, the only value is staying in power. We can’t imagine the “United Russia” in opposition, right? Works the same and “Consent”: for the sake of power it is able to reject all the program requirements, especially as they are quite vague. And also configured the voter “Consent”. He was mortally offended when the party took government after the elections of 2011, although she was only 31% of the seats, and any rest was much easier to find the software that is compromise.

For this reason, “Consent” is ineffective in opposition — politicians cannot and do not want to work there. Periodically they just move in the ruling party — so it was still under Arkans first with America, then with the whole five members of the Saeima. Incidentally, Ameriks and two of the original five — Dainis turlais and Vyacheslav Stepanenko — great friends with “Consent” in the Riga city Council. And that is true — albeit in different ways, but to power-then came that old to remember…

But the municipal deputies of the “Consent” from time to time exclude in Liepaja, Ventspils, Jurmala is an unapproved management cooperation with the mayors. Comrades just decided to lean against the government individually, throwing a junk party. Now to strengthen the periphery directed three of the most brilliant politician of diet — Valery Ageshin, Andrejs Elksnin and Nikita Nikiforov. The opposition potential of the fraction is further reduced.

Military secret

And now the answer to the question posed at the beginning: why relying on Russian-speaking voters, the party is conceals? Lying on the surface the explanation is to attract Latvian voices is not enough. Is that Latvian voters have forgiven. voting for the Russian language, will not forgive him in the program phrase “to keep educational institutions in minority languages”? But to translate as decisively is education in Latvian was the goal of most Latvian political parties. And people were going to vote for “Consent” namely, that this did not happen — not to high school the food was free, what the program says.


And this is not the only example. Opponents Ushakov recalled that he recognized the Soviet occupation of Latvia and does not recognize the transfer of Crimea to Russia — for most of his constituents is totally unacceptable. And those little things that could safely be done at the municipal level — to rename the street Dudayev and set somewhere out of the centre the monument to Peter the great — is not even tried. But all these fair criticisms do not affect the image of the mayor.


Again, it is necessary to look for Parallels in Russia — and all becomes clear. Putin’s position on the ownership of the Donbass is clear: this is the territory of Ukraine, and so it should remain after a peaceful settlement of the conflict. Position typical Putin voter is also clear: the Donbass will never give the “Bandera junta”, because it will be a disaster for its inhabitants, which this voter is sympathetic. But Putin’s voter is not inclined to blame the President for treason, as well as ushakovskiy does not reproach their leader.

The Russians and Russian-speaking Latvians are convinced that they live in a hostile environment. For Russia it is the whole world, for Russians of Latvia its state. And because the leader is not obliged to tell its people the truth — it needs to lie in the interests of a common cause, not to be substituted to the enemy.

We don’t know that the real Putin about the problem of Donbass, and the real Ushakov — Russian kindergartens. I think that both the mere existence of these problems annoying, they would rather they were not. And it is unlikely Neil V. will give his little boy in Russian kindergarten in the Latvian mother. But he and the other know what they think their voters — therefore, Ukraine will not receive the Donbass, and the gardens do not translate into Latvian.

Both of these examples show that authoritarian leaders depend on civil society. As well as that between the voter and his choice there is mutual understanding which is not based on words, and the harsh truth of life.

I think that the conformist nil Ushakov did not want to become the leader of the Russian of Latvia. And I would prefer to have this Latvia was the other leader with the ability to call a spade a spade. But the logic of natural conflict between the Russian-speaking community and the majority population of the country has forced Ushakov to play its role. And he is forced to do something that does not aspire to sign up for Russian language, to protect sassy teachers who declared their disloyalty to write in social networks in Russian, and to pay a penalty.

And the more Ushakov is going to do in the next four years, when his power is so fragile, and hope to support at least some of the number of the Latvians is absolutely ephemeral. So I, being a principled opponent and “Consent” in General, and Ushakov in particular, they vote for their list.