The United Russia forum held last week seems to have been organized with all of the modern Western party convention political “special effects” in mind. The conference hall did not in any way resemble old Soviet party traditions. The rostrum was placed in the center of a kind of amphitheater in an emphatically democratic manner. The presidium was very nominal; we could see “simple people” behind the speakers, including the main speaker – Vladimir Putin; there was even one person in a wheelchair off to the left. Certainly, they were not just ordinary simple people – they were party functionaries, but still, the whole act resembled a purely “American picture:” it is an old-time tradition for an American president, for example, to choose such a background for public speeches. There are always “simple people” sitting or standing behind him.

The format of the forum was also significantly shortened– it was quick and very business-like in manner, to emphasize the ruling party's business style once again. Thus the forum was organized in much the same way a show is organized nowadays--the party even hired special people for this.

There was a number of “round tables” held simultaneously during the forum to discuss the relevant problems of modern Russian society. Among the leaders and participants invited to the round tables were people who are not very close to the United Russia bosses, such as the vice president of the Russian Union of Industrialists and Businessmen, Igor Jurgens, known for extreme liberal views. He is also known for having headed the Institute of Modern Development, recently created at Dmitry Medvedev’s initiative. During the forum, there was also a “round table” dedicated to the problems of democracy. It seems like the ruling party attempted to emphasize, in every possible way, that it intends to encompass the widest spectrum of political viewpoints, definitely including the moderately liberal portion of them. I have heard the opinions of a few experts who agree that by doing this, the United Russia leaders wanted to also demonstrate their willingness to “play” in the field allotted to Dmitry Medvedev, who was never very close to the United Russia leadership and who, as those who associate their hopes for a political “thaw” with him believe, is a conductor of certain liberal ideas.

Immediately after the forum, it was announced that a number of party political clubs will be formed simultaneously, and will function within the framework of United Russia. Actually, all three – the Center of Socially Conservative Politics, the November 4 Political Action Club, and the National Patriotic Club – have already existed for a few years, however, they are now meant to embody the three ideological movements within United Russia – the conservative, the moderately liberal, and the patriotic movements. A special Coordinating Council was created to formulate “the agenda for intra-party dialogue.” At the same time, it was emphasized that the intra-party discussion between the party’s different movements should under no circumstances lead to the formation of competing factions inside United Russia.

Such a scheme for intra-party discussions looks a bit artificial and strained. It is not clear why anyone would actually need to debate and stand up for a certain ideological position. Because the purport of any political discussion, after all, is not only in convincing the opponent that you’re right, but also in obtaining, as a result of political struggle (arguments), control over certain power instruments to try to implement your ideas. Discussion just for the sake of discussion, in this sense, seems rather senseless.

However, United Russia is striving to find not only an organizational model for its existence (it is the possession of power that is the main goal behind the party’s existence today), but also an ideological meaning. The party is trying to gain a de-facto ideological platform, which it does not have today, after 7 years of existence. There is a slogan – that the party is supposedly implementing a certain “Putin’s Plan;” however, the plan itself does not exist as a detailed description of strategy and tactics, or as a list of planned goals for social development and proposed means of achieving them.

Is it possible to develop an ideological platform this way – by organizing discussion clubs (but not factions), by way of “forced” conduction of various disputes? It is doubtful that such efforts will be successful, that all this will not just turn into holding formal empty events – meetings, seminars, conferences. As of today, the United Russia party lacks any internal stimulus for developing a full-fledged ideological platform and for agonizing over the tactics (that is, over a way to lure the mass voter with the party’s ideas) or over the strategy. Primarily because, as of today, the party does not have any political rivals in Russian politics, it is not met (and there is no hint of this in the foreseeable future) with any challenges to its political monopoly, even though it achieved this monopoly not owing to any proposed ideas, but only due to administrative resource. And the question is: why rake your brains over some ideas, if undivided power, all the posts and offices, and control over all public institutions are guaranteed as is?