The Dissenter March and the Consent March took place over the weekend. If you're sitting at home and reading about all this online, you might get the impression that Moscow is at fever-pitch. OMON riot police, arrests, fines, brawls, Kasparov, Kasyanov, Rogozin: as concepts, these are symbols of confrontation between the authorities and the opposition. The coverage was substantially greater than the essentially small number of protesters.

Moscow has almost 4.5 million Internet users. These people don't notice what the authorities say (or rather, don't say) on television about the Dissenter March protests. Their overall impression will be unequivocal: the authorities are scared of the opposition. The opposition is not scared of the authorities.

It isn't clear why the authorities fear demonstrators. Why do state officials say that the streets are not the place to express protest? Why are laws passed to specify that there should be no more than two demonstrators per square meter? Do the authorities really believe that despite election results and approval ratings, their position really isn't as stable as it seems?

This awkward concern for the safety of demonstrators seems hypocritical. For instance, who cares about safety standards - two people per square meter - in the metro subway? Isn't it dangerous for people to crowd close to a train's opening doors and line up six deep on the platform, waiting for trains? It's not a protest rally, of course - but it certainly demonstrates something. The irresponsibility of the authorities, incapable of solving public transport problems? And what about Moscow's traffic jams, several kilometers long - aren't they a demonstration of unsolved problems in private transport as well?

The reaction of the authorities to a march by a few thousand "dissenters" is revealing. Most likely, the big campaign issue for the next elections will be "consolidating our society in the face of an external threat." For this purpose, all the recent evidence will be useful: the deployment of US missile defense elements close to our borders, and US State Department reports that describe Russian democracy as underdeveloped, and the persistence of the Jackson-
Vanik amendment, and the export of color revolutions.

This topic is likely to confirm the veracity and relevance of the overriding ideological concept: "sovereign democracy." 

Fairly soon now, we'll hear the Dissenter March participants described as "turncoats" and "internal emigres." Suspicions about all their motives being "borrowed from somewhere" and "prompted by someone" will be supported by photocopies of bank account statements with many zeroes.

Russia's conservative voters approve of anti-Americanism, the state's strong hand, and removing "idle talkers" from the political stage. The authorities are appealing to those voters, and the appeal is probably effective at the tactical level - but in strategic terms, it's a mistake. The strength of an argument, including an ideological argument, should be proved in open debate.

And now we see the "consenters" who exercise their civil rights solely by criticizing the "dissenters." But it's worth bearing in mind that at the level of everyday life, those consenters probably don't consent to crowded subway stations, traffic jams, corruption, or restricted liberties. Thus, on any issue beyond pro- or anti-Americanism, these people are latent dissenters too.

And we all know what happens when demand for fairness and justice becomes more relevant than anti-Americanism. Think back to perestroika.

Nezavisimaya Gazeta