Source Viktor Bout and the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia have found each other. This is not the first such alliance in the history of the party. But, according to journalist Gleb Cherkasov, the new career of the former American prisoner will show how ready the Russian party system is for saving changes.
The meeting between Viktor Bout and the Liberal Democratic Party looks natural. The party of Vladimir Zhirinovsky took some part in his fate, besides saying A, that is, putting Andrei Lugovoy as the second number on the electoral list of 2007, why not say B.
If Vladimir Zhirinovsky were alive, he would have done exactly the same. That is why the Liberal Democratic Party called Bout. The new leadership of the party emphasizes with every step that now everything will be the same as before, nothing has changed, Zhirinovsky is still with us, although he can no longer make a speech. For the current Liberal Democratic Party, following traditions seems to be the only way to survive politically.
But now, too, is clearly not against it: the Hall of Columns of the House of Unions is not the worst place to start a new life. But the development of his career in the LDPR will become one of the markers of how significant changes are possible in the country's party economy.
An almost perpetual motion machine
The authorship of the current structure of the party system belongs to Vladislav Surkov, who in the mid-2000s held the position of deputy head of the presidential administration. The reform of the chaotic economy that he inherited had several stages, but the essence was that there should be few parties (at some point there were only seven left) and there could be no surprises from them. And this applies to all organizations, regardless of the declared ideology and current relations with specific presidential officials. Surkov left his post in 2011, but Vyacheslav Volodin, who replaced him, and then Sergei Kiriyenko, worked in the same logic. This does not mean that they were all like-minded in everything, especially in terms of technology and ways to achieve goals, but the line for the existence of the party system in the form of a drive belt for the entire political machine was unchanged.
The main task was to ensure that all seats in the Duma were filled with loyal and negotiable people. Political parties, especially those represented in the Duma, or at least those wishing to retain regional representations, must be in close contact with the presidential administration. This interaction gives some people peace and confidence in tomorrow's Duma day, and others the right to any political initiative. But, since Staraya Ploshchad cannot formally be the main instigator of all undertakings on all issues, deputies can also voice some proposals, and not necessarily from the ruling party. It seems that during the time of Volodin, the practice of introducing bills by deputies of all factions was introduced – this meant that the initiative was not only approved, but also prepared with the participation of Staraya Ploshchad.
The theory and practice of Surkov's party building formed quite definite rules for life and work in parties and their Duma factions. The majority of them are “people of coordination”. They don't like sudden movements and harsh words, especially if it may conflict with the main line in some way. To a lesser extent, this selection works at the grassroots level, but there are almost no misfires at the level of the lower house of parliament. There cannot be a faction that will lead its own line, there cannot be a deputy who writes some wrong request or makes a politically erroneous (from the point of view of the Old Square) speech.
“People of agreement” and the factions and parties that include them give the entire political system sufficient stability. But it becomes quite fragile if a non-system element appears in the design. Opponents of the authorities were cleared out quite a long time ago – the last such deputy was Dmitry Gudkov. But it turns out that too energetic fellow travelers, especially those with other political backgrounds, could also become a threat.Two important characters of the “Crimean Spring” did not fit into the general order – State Duma deputy of the last convocation Natalya Poklonskaya and former head of Sevastopol Alexei Chaly. Both by political origin and by temperament, they were not “people of agreement.” The system, after some trouble, found them a harmless place for itself, once again appreciating how important care is in the selection of personnel. And, perhaps, that is why the writer Zakhar Prilepin, an absolute adherent of the current Russian government, did not receive the mandate he earned.
These are exceptions. Much more often, the system built into itself those who have the potential to become a “man of agreement”. It would seem that Viktor Bout has quite a clear path here. Although he is initially a man of action, he clearly does not need new difficulties. However, it is not enough just to seat a prominent person in a chair, he must be occupied with something for the good of the common cause. Making Viktor Bout one of the leaders of the new LDPR project would probably be an interesting decision. But this is a complex technology. And it is fundamentally contrary to all the rules. Stubborn adherence to the precepts of Zhirinovsky so far speaks not only of the loyalty of the party members to their former leader, but also of the fear of stepping aside from the beaten path. Literally following the traditions is the first step towards the mechanistic repetition of techniques that once worked. But there are no such skills anymore.
And this applies not only to the Liberal Democratic Party, but also to other parties represented in the Duma. The system is aging, and it is difficult for the “coordination people” to update it precisely because of its genesis.
Meanwhile, there are more and more “people of action”, and they are more and more noticeable. The fact that people from the new reality are not yet in the political reality does not indicate the presence of insurmountable obstacles – it's just a matter of time. It's just that, as it used to be, it will not be possible to ride this wave of “coordination people”. Not that historical moment. Before inviting Viktor Bout, the Liberal Democratic Party invited Yevgeny Prigozhin to visit. His answer was extremely harsh, as Vladimir Zhirinovsky could have answered in such a case. But the head of Wagner PMC does not see a place in the current system and is certainly not ready to integrate into it in any secondary roles. He has his own system, and he invites everyone else to integrate into it: “I have not made any appeals to the LDPR for a long time, except for the proposal to all deputies of all parties to go to the front to fight. Therefore, those who took advantage of my offer can meet me at the front, and not in the Hall of Columns.
Long coexistence of the system of “people of coordination” and the system of “people of action” is impossible. The first has a certain amount of time left, but whether it is possible to adapt oneself to the new times so as not to let the second system suppress itself is still an open question.