3 Answers

  1. Well. Begins. And how have you not been banned yet? At least not here. You are welcome. At least not here such questions. Not about politics. I don't want to talk about politics.

  2. I will allow myself a lyrical digression.

    Apolitical sentiments, apparently, have always existed, to a greater or lesser extent. There is no doubt that their popularity is determined by the situation in the country.

    My personal experience is unrepresentative, but I note that I first encountered such excuses in my student years, seven or eight years ago, although I studied at the faculty, which implies that you need to be aware of the agenda. I remember that people not only couldn't list the members of the G8, but they clearly didn't know either the deputies from the region or the senators (one of the teachers once admitted that even at other faculties they didn't know the names of those who represent the interests of the region in the upper house of the Federal Assembly). But the student body has always been considered a very reactionary environment. At that time (the second half of the 00s), there was a trend towards apoliticalness. Like, politics → news → TV. Young people boasted that they didn't watch TV, that “you can see that nothing happens [just because I don't follow the news, so I sometimes look through the news on Yandex].” Years later, on duty, I got to a meeting of the local Public Chamber and was struck by the fact that a colleague in the media department was surprised to hear the name of a State Duma deputy from the region: “Who is this?” This passivity has also been witnessed on the part of some scions of the provincial establishment, who, on the one hand, are obligated by their position to be informed. Perhaps there is a certain amount of pretense in this.

    The reasons for the current state of political culture, however, lie deep. This is also the turbulent 90s, when everything seems to have changed with kaleidoscopic speed, but even a new foreign car was a luxury for the vast majority of people. “Well-fed” 00s ― the vertical of power is being built, the liberal opposition is being removed from the federal mouthpiece (the State Duma is being deprived of such parties as Yabloko and the SPS; there are almost no independent channels left in the country), thanks to the rising price of oil, an economic recovery begins, and people often talk about an unspoken pact between the government and the population ― well-being in exchange for loyalty. The era's refrain is ” don't rock the boat.” The symbol is a credit Ford Focus, the first mass-produced foreign car that every middle-level manager could afford. Leviathan 10s ― disillusionment with the “swamp movement”, criminal cases against oppositionists, the return of former influence to television, increased propaganda of anti-Western rhetoric, local defeats (theory of small affairs). In 2014, for the first time in a long time, a Russian film was nominated for an Oscar ― “Leviathan” by Andrey Zvyagintsev about the unsuccessful attempt of a resident of a seaside town to resist the local authorities. Yuri Bykov's film “The Fool”gets a wide response.

    Among ordinary people, existential thoughts are constantly slipping: you can't change anything anyway; for some, HOA is already a policy. Do you remember the cartoon “The Wise Minnow”? When “there is something to lose”, it is safer to lie low. It's risky to be a freethinker today.

    However, I do not think that our compatriots are so completely inert. Fatigue, anger and apathy develop into irritated remarks: “Bullied with their policies.” Yes, this shows the immaturity of civil society, in which the authorities ideally serve the citizens and are responsible to them. After all, political enlightenment itself is natural and not at all shameful. If a person studies the declarations of civil servants, it is not because they are curious, but because the declarations were created to ensure transparency of the government.

    However, part of the blame lies with the opposition loudmouths, who focus on, conditionally, the audience inside the Garden Ring, have a penchant for criticism and do not focus on ordinary mortals.

    In general, from this complex of reasons, factors and circumstances, I personally find it difficult to isolate one that would fully explain the ethics of political dialogues. Is it appropriate to talk to strangers about the secret business of Deputy Ivanov, about the ambitions of Minister Petrov, to express disagreement with the actions of the highest echelons of power? Especially without taking into account the engagement, yours or the interlocutor? Another thing is that it doesn't hurt to ask you to specify where the policy ends. It may be that it never really started. By the way, the amendment to the state of civil society has not been canceled. Plus, it is worth considering whether a person's comfort zone extends beyond their own threshold, whether they communicate with neighbors, monitor order in the yard, and take care of security.

  3. It is customary for us to refer to politics as the struggle for supreme state power and international affairs. Meanwhile, in developed democracies, politics is quite different. For example, whether to build a kindergarten on a vacant lot or make a park there is a policy at the neighborhood level. In other words, politics is not a struggle for power, but a public discussion about solving public problems. And the role of a politician is to offer fellow citizens (in the case of a microdistrict – neighbors) one or another solution to the issue, its pros and cons. In this sense, in many Western countries, almost any conversation, except for personal questions, is somehow about politics. And this is not considered shameful – on the contrary, society is so arranged that interest in public life is encouraged.

    This may not be exactly the topic, but you might find it interesting.

Leave a Reply