"Orange" revolution = crash of statesmanship

Let's try to understand the ideological basis of orange revolutions and to evaluate, whether our life can seriously change for the better in case of its success?

In every country, where so-called orange revolutions took place, there were people who organized them, and thereafter, accordingly, came to power. After all, the revolution changes completely the elite - the top layer of the power. At that, following to the change of power the country always obtains a new route of movement. However, the matter is that the route of movement can change a vector for the best, keep it unchanged, and it can pull over to a still more aggravated situation.

Many say that all orange revolutions were financed by the World capital, which is cutting the political map of the World in its own interests. Somewhere, like in Iraq, the main objective was to keep dollar the World leading currency (as we remember, the war has burst out right after Saddam Hussein has voices a decision to trade oil for Euro), somewhere (as in Libya) to leave no chance to a valuable stream of power resources to be distributed all over the World regardless of the interests of the World capital, somewhere (as in Georgia) - solution of strategic military tasks in the region: setting of NATO bases close to the borders of not so friendly state, as Russia.

It is rather difficult to judge, whether the above statements are correct. To start with it is necessary to define ‘what the World capital is’ and who possesses it. Moreover, if, for example, Georgia obviously adheres to a pro-American course, in Egypt through elections the power has passed to ‘Moslem brotherhood’, unlikely they are going to begin negotiating with America.

Secret games are of a little interest for the people - they wish to live, work and enjoy their meal in peace. The most important thing for the people is not to understand, where from orange leaders get money and who’s pulling their puppet strings. It is important to understand, what ideological basis have all these revolutions and what are the true intentions of their leaders. Can the orange revolution turn the vector of its development for the best? Basically, the question is: generally would there be any sense to join the orange movement, to attend their meetings and to demand the change of political course in a form proposed by orange leaders?

Typically, a person aspires to the greater and to the better. For a politician it means moving up the career ladder and with each new step obtaining a greater volume of power. However, such advancement has certain limits: in any political system the elite can remain elite only in a concrete political situation. In case of even little changes of political system, the essential part of elite is to be replaced. For example, it is enough to recollect the recent history of our country: with remaining general parameters of the state political system, with a change of the Yeltsin’s course for the Putin’s one, we can see a replacement of the whole galaxy of central figures by other figures. It means, the elite always tries to preserve as much as possible the condition of the state political system, so that it could remain at the helm of state as longer as possible. At the moment when political situation is stabilized, personal changes are reduced to a minimum. The more so out of the question is a chance for persons from opposite clans and/or camps to enter the ranks of top elite of the country at this moment.

Accordingly, if the politician does not belong to elite, but very much wishes to joint it, than the stronger is shaken the state, the more unstable is the political situation, the greater are his chances for advancement upward. The maximum chance for the most serious takeoff would be a variant of complete replacement of elite, i.e. revolution.

Here we will recollect the classical Lenin’s doctrine saying the revolutionary situation arises: ‘when the upper classes cannot, and the lower classes do not wish’ to live by old rules. Actually, it is a situation when a large number of problems have accumulated in the country, but the government is not capable to solve them, and common people see that many things ‘go wrong’ and do not agree any longer to bear with the country political course. Still, the sole understanding by the people will not be enough, actions should be undertaken to force the old elite to leave, after all no one would ever leave the power for nothing. The everlasting old power can be displaced only in public: either peacefully - through elections, or by force. For this purpose, a large number of people should be prepared and moved to direction you need.

Why communists were so successful with revolution, why the country has chosen to follow them, after all, in 1916 in Russia there were more than 100 parties? Most of them strictly opposed the tsarist institute, were dissatisfied with the situation that has created in the country. The matter was that communists have come with a new ideology, they offered something absolutely different from the theories existing in the World. They offered a new life and called everybody to join them: they offered factories to workers, and land to peasants, they offered a new political system without exploiters, where all people would be equal. They offered a new outcome from the situation, an outcome so much beautiful and promising that no other party dared to promise. This was the reason they could distinguish themselves on the general background and gain confidence of the people.

So, one organizing a revolution should offer a distinct ideology, which would clearly state a new political course of the country with an explanation, why this course would be the best one. Once there is an idea and you can explain its prospectivity for the country - people will follow you.

And what’s to be done in the absence of so much attractive idea? Here we come to the question, how the ideology of all orange revolutions is being formed. After all, one may call people not necessarily ‘pro’, ‘contra’ might also be an attractive motto. You are displeased with the government? We stand against them, too, let's struggle together. You are displeased with the level of pension? We stand against the beggarly existence of old men, let's struggle together against the system and against those in fault for this disgrace. It happens sometimes, this ideology may exploit ‘pro’ slogans, for instance, ‘Freedom for Khodorkovsky’ or ‘Protect the Khimki forest’. Actually, these slogans are ‘contra’ slogans too: ‘Against the imprisonment of Khodorkovsky’ and ‘against cutting the trees’. There’s also a sort of ‘pro’ something, everyone would support them, but no one would clearly explain, for what they call for particularly, for example, ‘for a decent life’… Would anyone object? No! Still, who has defined the parameters of this most worthy life, and where are they described? Or another example ‘For a free high-quality education’… Who’s gonna be against it? No one! But who has explained in detail, how to build an education system that could provide free and high-quality education. And where one may see examples of such education?

It is this, that explains a surprising fact, when as the central orange leader disappears, the protest movement escalates. The ideology does not disappear, because there’s no exact ideology. Instead, there’s always a chance to write off a similar incident for dishonest actions of the authorities, to untwist another PR-scandal and score up more. In this context, the actions of our government should be rather approved, than condemned. The fact that our orange leaders are not put under an excessive political pressure, as Khodorkovsky, not taken in prison by obviously political reasons, give them no convenient occasion to deploy their activity.

Orange revolution is a possibility against the backdrop of a number of problems accumulated in the country, using the discontent of people, to replace easily the top of ruling authorities. But so far as persons, which come to power, basically have no experience of the country government, persons without clear understanding, where to lead the country to, NOTHING good is going to happen. In the most ideal case nothing is going to be changed, just one group of oligarchs will replace another group. In a classical case the situation will worsen necessarily. Here are the examples: Georgia and Ukraine – sure it did not become better, Tunis and Egypt – it became much worse.

Thereafter, all occurs under a standard scheme. 1) The seized position has to be strengthened. For the purpose there are two variants, both used successfully: through modification of the legislation and through placing ‘correct’ figures to key positions. 2) After it becomes clear that the country needs to be governed and that initially there nobody knew, where to and how to lead the country, soon absolutely every person, who came to power, begins to understand that they have not much time and there begins an awful plundering of everything but the kitchen sink.

For multinational and federative states the orange revolution bears one more danger. Not every person is able to explain exactly the essence and ideology of such revolution. However, soon most people clearly understand there’s no better prospect. Here comes in action another principle: ‘if it is not getting better, what is it needed for?’ In such countries there always will be territories, which entirely disagree with the new elite and its political course, especially so when the new rulers try to replace straight away authority leaders at the local level. There appears a probability of the country disintegration into several parts.

Let’s summarize all above-stated:

  1. Orange revolution is a maximum destabilization of political situation in the country, accumulation of the people’s discontent with actions of authorities, and replacement through mass protest actions of the national elite by newcomers.
  2. Orange revolution never uses positive slogans, negative slogans are used, actually. It offers neither pure and clear ideology, nor understanding of what needs to be changed in the country for radical improvement of situation.
  3. Orange revolution cannot improve situation in the country, typically the situation is aggravated. Besides, it increases corruption and brings the state to the brink of disintegration.

The following example will help us explain, what really happens. Let’s suppose you live in an old house. This house has already begun to collapse: the basement shows destruction, walls have gone cracks, pipes leak and wiring burns. The administration of the house lives very well: they have newly-repaired apartments full of light, they collect rent from all tenants and, not being ashamed, its larger portion distribute not for the house needs, but to their pocket.

Many find this state of affairs too much displeasing, and begin shaking the house. It is obvious, if to shake a badly standing house rather long - it is going to collapse sooner or later. On the ruins, those who happen to be on the top, i.e. those who has organized it all, might well profit. Yet, the things of the rest dwellers can hardly be so cheerful: the most will land on the street (it is roughly 150 million in Russia), while some will be buried under ruins.

Once there is a necessity to take down the old house, one should know PRECISELY what to build, it is even better - to start to building the house !!!!well in advance!!!! to make the moving as fast as possible. No one would wish to live on the ruins!!!

Question: Should the orange revolution be anticipated in our country?

Orange revolution should be anticipated in our country, necessarily, however it is not highly probable. First, one should bring all the protesters under his banners. For this purpose, a one-party system would fit ideally: all in favor are in the party, all opposed - in opposition. Our country has a multi-party system, and all opposition parties are not satisfied with the government, each one in its own way. To bring all party members of communists, democrats, Yabloko movement, LDPR, fascists and others under one banners it is practically not possible in our country. Secondly, orange revolutions show maximum success, where educational level of population is very low. The lower education has a person, the easier the ‘necessary’ information can be loaded to his head. In our country the high percent of population has got medium and higher education. Additionally, we have well studied the experience of all orange revolutions of the recent 10 years. It is doubtful, the country will voluntary put the head on a scaffold.

As we wish to live well, we have to search for an outcome, i.e. the idea and ideology of a new life, the idea of building a new decent civil society, similar to the one offered by the New philosophy, and realize it consistently. This would be the only positive way.

As to the most participants of orange movement, they are socially active people, who wish to have a decent live. They understand little in politics, and they sure have no idea of real purposes, problems and consequences of orange revolution. In their overwhelming majority, they are very good people wishing good for themselves, for their relatives and the whole country and, what is important, eager to fight for a better future.

On the other part, the POLITICAL LEADERS of ‘ORANGE’, such as NAVALNIY and UDALTSOV in Russia, are the persons well aware of the consequences of such revolutions. Possibility of own profit is a hundred times more precious for them than the life and health of all and every resident of the country, well-being and the peace in the country. Speaking the Stalin language, they are the ENEMIES of the PEOPLE!