Почему в России провалился протест | Михаил Пожарский

Introduction

The speaker introduces the topic of protests and shares a personal experience from a protest in Russia.

Personal Experience at a Protest

• The speaker attended a protest in Russia on May 6, 2012.

• After the main events, they saw young people dancing and chanting near the metro station.

• The police had been violent towards protesters earlier that day, but were not aware that they were with the crowd.

• This event led to the development of a culture of protest in Russia.

The Civil Rights Movement

This section discusses the nonviolent protests of the Civil Rights Movement in the United States and their success in achieving desegregation.

Nonviolent Protests

• The Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee coordinated nonviolent protests on buses throughout southern states.

• President Kennedy intervened in violent situations, such as in Birmingham, Alabama, and threatened to send federal troops if local authorities did not comply with desegregation.

• After several clashes, city officials agreed to desegregate public transportation.

• In 1963, two black students were admitted to the University of Alabama despite opposition from Governor George Wallace and National Guard troops.

Martin Luther King Jr.

• Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his famous "I Have a Dream" speech during a peaceful demonstration in Washington D.C.

• King's nonviolent protest tactics were successful because they gained support from white liberals and federal authorities who opposed segregation.

• Television played a significant role in spreading awareness of the movement's message and gaining support for their cause.

Nonviolence as a Tactic

• Gene Sharp's book "From Dictatorship to Democracy" outlines 198 methods of nonviolent protest that can be used against oppressive regimes.

• Protesters should avoid initiating violence but may use tactics such as strikes or infrastructure disruption to achieve their goals.

• Nonviolent protests are effective in gaining support from potential allies and can be successful when combined with the threat of economic or social disruption.

The Beginning of the Protests

This section describes how the protests in Ukraine began and how they gained momentum.

Protests Begin

• On November 30th, 2013, Berkut violently attacked protesters on Maidan Nezalezhnosti.

• The attack was unprovoked and caused outrage among Ukrainians.

• Many media outlets covered the event, which helped spread awareness of the protests.

• The violence sparked widespread protests across Ukraine.

Support for the Protests

• Many businesses, media outlets, and government institutions supported the protests.

• Three parliamentary parties initially supported the protests: Batkivshchyna, UDAR, and Svoboda.

• Opposition politicians regularly called for compromise while street radicals were more confrontational.

Supplies for Protesters

• Activists needed supplies such as food and medicine to sustain their protest.

• Oligarchs and Western countries provided support to help keep protesters supplied.

Russian Protests in Comparison

This section compares the Ukrainian protests to similar events that occurred in Russia.

Russian Parliamentary Elections

• In December 2011, mass falsification of parliamentary elections led to unexpected public outrage in Russia.

• Initially only a few hundred people protested but this number grew over time.

Lack of Political Support

• Leaders from opposition parties who had suffered from election fraud did not support or join the protests in Russia.

• They hoped that by remaining cautious they could avoid being targeted by authorities.

Violent Crackdown on Protesters

• On May 6th, 2012 police violently dispersed a protest on Bolotnaya Square in Moscow.

• While fewer police officers were injured than in the Ukrainian protests, this event marked the end of the Russian protests.

Conclusion

This section discusses how the violent crackdown on protesters in Russia differed from that in Ukraine and how it ultimately led to different outcomes.

Violent Crackdown vs. Igniting a Flame

• The violent crackdown on protesters in Russia did not ignite a flame like it did in Ukraine.

• In contrast, the violence against protesters in Ukraine only served to fuel more protests and support for the movement.

Importance of Political Support

• The lack of political support for Russian protesters was a major factor contributing to their failure.

• In contrast, many businesses, media outlets, and government institutions supported the Ukrainian protests.

Lessons Learned

• The success of the Ukrainian protests can be attributed to a combination of factors including political support, supplies for protesters, and widespread public outrage.

• The failure of similar events in Russia highlights the importance of political support and cautious opposition leadership.

The Importance of Organization in Protests

This section discusses the importance of organization in protests and how it can affect their success.

Lack of Organization in Russian Opposition

• In Russia, traditional media was already under government control by the beginning of the 2010s, while YouTube had not yet grown to reach a wide audience.

• As a result, information about protests only reached the public in a strictly controlled and favorable manner for the authorities.

• If opposition groups had a way to reach wider audiences at that time, would the situation have been different?

Belarusian Protests and Public Support

• The Belarusian protests of 2020 showed that even with widespread public support, victory is not guaranteed.

• Opposition candidate Sergei Tikhonovskiy was detained before elections but his wife Svetlana Tikhonovskaya was allowed to run for president.

• According to opposition polls, she received over 70% of votes from citizens. However, official results claimed that Lukashenko won with 80% of votes.

• Despite this discrepancy, mass protests began on August 9th but were eventually crushed by Belarusian security forces.

Importance of Organization in Protests

• The lack of organized political parties or businesses supporting opposition movements made it difficult for them to coordinate effectively during protests.

• While internet communication helped with coordination during the Belarusian protests, it was still largely blocked by authorities at its peak.

• In contrast, Ukrainian opposition movements had strong organizations and unions supporting them during Euromaidan protests in 2014.

Three Groups of People in Power

In this section, the speaker explains that there are three groups of people in power: nominal, influential, and ruling coalition. The size of the ruling coalition is important for maintaining power.

Three Groups of People in Power

• Nominal group consists of those who have an opinion but no real power.

• Influential group consists of those whose support the government relies on.

• Ruling coalition is at the top of the food chain and receives most benefits from being in power.

• The size of the ruling coalition is important for maintaining power. In countries with a wide ruling coalition, it's easier to control supporters through targeted distribution of benefits. However, if there are too many supporters, it becomes difficult to bribe each individual.

Difference Between Free Countries and Autocracies

In this section, the speaker explains that free countries differ from autocracies only by the size of their ruling coalitions. He also discusses how meritocracy can be used to maintain a dictatorship.

Difference Between Free Countries and Autocracies

• Free countries differ from autocracies only by the size of their ruling coalitions.

• In free countries, there are many people whose support politicians need to maintain power. This makes it difficult to bribe everyone individually with private goods like money or positions.

• Instead, public goods like infrastructure or healthcare are used as incentives for supporters.

• Autocrats have a smaller ruling coalition which makes it easier to control supporters through targeted distribution of private goods.

Meritocracy

• Meritocracy can be used to maintain a dictatorship by selecting new loyalists from lower levels when old ones become disloyal or die out.

• This mechanism is called meritocracy and helps ensure stability in dictatorships.

How to Maintain a Dictatorship

In this section, the speaker explains how dictators can maintain power by keeping their ruling coalition small and their nominal electorate large. He also discusses the risks of expanding the ruling coalition too much.

Maintaining a Dictatorship

• To maintain power, dictators should keep their ruling coalition as small as possible.

• This makes it easier to control supporters through targeted distribution of benefits.

• However, they should also make sure that their nominal electorate is as large as possible. This helps prevent rebellion by making people feel like they have a say in government.

Risks of Expanding Ruling Coalition

• If the ruling coalition becomes too large, it becomes difficult to bribe each individual with private goods like money or positions.

• Instead, public goods like infrastructure or healthcare are used as incentives for supporters.

• However, if there are too many supporters, it becomes difficult to provide enough public goods for everyone.

• This can lead to protests and rebellions which threaten the dictator's hold on power.

Importance of Populism and Meritocracy in Maintaining Power

In this section, the speaker explains why populism and meritocracy are important for maintaining power in dictatorships.

Populism

• Populism is important because it helps prevent rebellion by making people feel like they have a say in government.

• It's important for dictators to appeal to the masses and present themselves as champions of the people.

Meritocracy

• Meritocracy is important because it allows dictators to replace disloyal or dead loyalists with new ones from lower levels.

• This mechanism helps ensure stability in dictatorships by preventing old loyalists from becoming too powerful and challenging the dictator's hold on power.

The Curse of Resource Wealth

This section discusses how countries with a single main source of income, such as natural resources, are more susceptible to autocratic rule.

Autocracies in Resource-Rich Countries

• Diversified economies are harder to control under dictatorship compared to countries with a single main source of income.

• Countries with abundant natural resources such as oil, gas and diamonds tend to have the worst forms of autocracy.

• Post-Soviet states lack stable democracies except for the Baltic states.

• Unstable political regimes exist in countries where ruling coalitions are relatively broad. Attempts to reduce the coalition and usurp power are met with resistance.

Stable Autocracies

• Some countries have stable autocracies where ruling coalitions are small and fully controlled by the leader. Examples include Russia, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan.

• Countries that rely on their resource wealth often fall into the trap of having small coalitions.

• Belarus is an exception since it has little resources but still maintains an autocracy by attaching itself to Russia's small coalition.

The Rise of Authoritarianism in Russia

This section discusses how Vladimir Putin strengthened authoritarian tendencies in Russia through various means.

Consolidating Power

• After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russian elites decided not to allow new people into their coalition.

• In 1993, conflict between President Yeltsin and the Supreme Council ended in tanks firing on Moscow streets. Yeltsin emerged victorious and passed a new constitution that gave him immense power.

• In 2000, Yeltsin's coalition faced a challenge from the Tandem of Luzhkov and Primakov. However, the Second Chechen War and terrorist attacks boosted Putin's popularity.

• The Yukos case in 2003 was exemplary of how Putin corrected all the flaws of electoral autocracy in Russia.

Creating Order

• Putin created a party called United Russia to consolidate power.

• He also brought order to television by making it clear who was in charge.

• Oligarchs who owned media outlets were quickly put in their place regardless of past loyalties.

The Consolidation of Power

This section discusses the consolidation of power in Russia during the 2000s and how it was achieved through a combination of carrot and stick tactics.

The Elite's Affiliation with United Russia

• In 2007, only 15 parties were allowed to participate in the Sumy elections, compared to 46 in previous years. By this time, most governors and representatives of big business had already affiliated themselves with United Russia.

• Putin initiated the process of turning an electoral autocracy into a personal one during his first term. By the end of his second term, he had established complete control over the country.

• When large protests occurred in 2012, parliamentary parties were afraid to fight for their votes as there were practically no oligarchs willing to support them.

The Lack of Opposition

• Mass protests were dangerous due to laws that restricted demonstrations and combatting extremism.

• During the early 2000s, Russian elites willingly joined the new system because they wanted access to oil money. The economy grew rapidly at around 6-7% per year.

• Autocracy can be created not only by force but also by incentives. In Russia during this period, elites had more incentives than fear.

Belarus vs Russia

• Lukashenko's regime was different from Putin's as it did not have oil revenues. He dismantled opposition groups in Belarus before they could gain momentum.

• Belarus' Independent Trade Union existed as an opposition group until it was defeated by Lukashenko's regime.

Conclusion

• Recent protests in Russia are linked to events that occurred a decade or two ago. The foundation for current victories or defeats was laid many years ago when important laws were passed and power structures were established.

• People have little control over things like global oil prices, which can have a significant impact on the consolidation of power in countries like Russia.

Understanding the Russian System

In this section, Navalny discusses the importance of the bureaucratic system in Russia and how it affects daily life. He also talks about his support for self-organization within this system.

Navalny's Support for Self-Organization

• Navalny supported attempts at self-organization within the bureaucratic system, such as the Alliance of Doctors and Police Ombudsman.

• He even created a project to create a union where budget workers could complain about low salaries.

• These efforts can be seen as an attempt to both inform people about corruption and sow discord within the ruling coalition.

The Difficulty of Escaping Authoritarian Regimes

• Even with good strategies, it is difficult to escape authoritarian regimes that have been built up over decades.

• Examples from history show that defeat does not necessarily mean loss of power for autocrats.

• Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait in 1990 is used as an example of how even a humiliating defeat did not lead to his downfall.

The Importance of Maintaining Power

• Autocrats often maintain power by incorporating new loyalists into their coalition while sidelining old elites.

• Conflict can actually help autocrats maintain control by allowing them to incorporate new loyalists into their coalition.

Hope for Change?

• There is no guarantee that change will come even after an autocrat's death or removal from power.

• A possible path to change is through a consensus among the ruling coalition and influential groups, but this is difficult to achieve.

• There is a small glimmer of hope in the form of a regional politician who was called out for vacationing in Mexico during the pandemic. This incident led to calls for his resignation and shows that people are becoming more aware of corruption.

The Importance of Power and Political Independence

In this section, the speaker discusses the importance of power and political independence in modern society.

The Value of Power and Political Independence

• Having power is important because it allows individuals to protect themselves from harm.

• Political independence is also crucial because it ensures that people are not at the mercy of others who may have different interests or agendas.

• Without power and political independence, individuals may be vulnerable to exploitation or abuse.

The Risks of Losing Political Independence

• Losing political independence can lead to a loss of control over one's own life.

• When individuals are dependent on others for their well-being, they may be forced to compromise their values or beliefs in order to survive.

• It is important for societies to maintain their political independence in order to ensure that all members have equal opportunities and protections.

Challenges in Achieving Political Independence

• Achieving political independence can be difficult, especially when societies have been deprived of it for a long time.

• It may take years or even decades for a society to regain its political autonomy.

• Despite these challenges, it is important for individuals and societies to work towards achieving greater levels of power and political independence.

Conclusion

The speaker emphasizes the importance of power and political independence in modern society. They note that without these things, individuals may be vulnerable to exploitation or abuse. While achieving greater levels of autonomy can be challenging, it is crucial for societies to work towards this goal in order to ensure that all members have equal opportunities and protections.