There are at least three reasons why liberals in the Russian Federation will either not come to power at all in the near future, or will quickly lose it.
The first reason. Liberals do not even allow the thought of violent protest. This is explained by the fact that liberals are more afraid of the people over whom they want to rule than of rivals in the struggle for this power. The current government is also more afraid of the people than the liberals. But she relies on the security forces. Liberals would also like to rely on them, but the siloviki do not need liberals. Therefore, willy-nilly, the liberals have to use the people, but at the same time they are tremblingly afraid that this very people would not get out of control. And on the one hand, they call the people to the streets, and on the other, they demand that those who have come out to behave themselves quietly and not resist – the liberals declare any active resistance a provocation. It is clear that such a “peaceful protest” cannot lead to any victory. The reasoning that “if a million comes out,” then the punishers will scatter, are simply ridiculous. First, it is difficult to find a million idiots willing to give flowers to those who beat them with clubs. Secondly, even if several million come out, who will give flowers, and not give back, the authorities will only be concerned about whether there are enough cameras for the prisoners. But, since the people of power do not feel sorry for the people, the punishers will simply stuff the prisoners like herring in a barrel into the first cellars and all the cases.
Reason two Liberals urge to fight for democracy. But what is democracy and why do most Russians need it? What do they want freedom of speech if in the smoking room they can say whatever they want, but they will not be allowed into the newspaper anyway? What difference does it make to them whether the elections were fair or dishonest if all candidates treat the people like cattle? People are interested in something else: will there be work, what will be the salary and what are the prices, will people be jailed for the sake of a tick? Shenderovich likes to say that most Russians do not see the connection between these issues and the issue of democracy. But is there this connection? For example, in the most democratic elections, a certain politician will promise people jobs, high wages, low prices and the abolition of plans to catch criminals. People will choose him and … they will be deceived by him. What should they do? Wait five years, then choose not this, and another liar of the same kind? After all, voters have no ways of influencing the cheated politician except to vote in a few years for another cheater.
Therefore, the people do not expect anything good from the liberals, and many, remembering the 90s, expect even worse than what they see now.
For this reason, the authorities are so lenient towards liberals – let them cry about the fact that somewhere an official is not elected, but appointed, who cares? And that is why they took up Navalny in this way – he speaks not only about the elections, but also about things that are close and understandable to the people: about where the money taken from the people goes. But Navalny is not a liberal. Another thing is that he may well bet on the liberals, as Yeltsin did, who also followed the same path as Navalny (who traveled by bus, bought food in ordinary stores, etc.). But then the third reason comes into play.
The third reason. Liberals want a 90s comeback. But in the 90s, the usual plundering and squandering of state property took place. Instead of using the capital they received, the new Russians preferred to spend it at their own pleasure. One of the reasons for this was the insecurity of entrepreneurship, and not only and not so much from workers’ protests (the Russian authorities just fought with them at all, despite the fact that there were not so many of them), but from officials, security officials and bandits. To legitimize his business, the newly-made owner had to make a lot of “kickbacks”, after which he could “squeeze out” this business at any moment. It was easier not to take risks, but to burn capital in the Canary Islands or elsewhere.
The same will happen now if the liberals, more than they hoped, find themselves in power. Who will protect businessmen from kickbacks and pushbacks? Security officials? It is necessary to protect from them in the first place.
Whether this is all in some Latin American or African country, all one dependent on the United States or on its former metropolis, the authorities could turn to the United States or the ex-metropolis with a request to send a couple of battalions of marines or paratroopers who will restore order. But it’s one thing to bow down to someone you already depend on, and another thing to go to someone you consider equal. It is clear that the ruler of Russia, whoever he is and what his name is, will not want to go to bed either under Uncle Sam, or under John Boole, or under anyone else. He can sell all the timber to China, but he will not call Chinese troops to Moscow.
Therefore, even if Navalny or some other politician who has seized power in Russia bets on the liberals, he will quickly become disillusioned with them and begin to get rid of them. Like the same Yeltsin, who also started out as the Russian Pinochet, which liberals remember with longing.