Paul
Goble
Staunton, November 8 – Ever more
people equate Vladimir Putin with Russia, something that for most Russians is a
positive but that for others is a negative thing, the editors of “Gazeta” say,
noting that this “personification” entails “a serious danger “not only for the
powers that be but also for the country as a whole.”
In an unsigned lead article
yesterday, “Gazeta” says that this equation has gone so far that “the logic
that ‘any attempt to create problems for Russians in the West is a personal
move against Putin’ has become a commonplace of Russian official rhetoric” even
though few appear to be thinking about its consequences (gazeta.ru/comments/2014/11/07_e_6292885.shtml).
On the one hand, the paper says,
such statements “sound like a call to ‘unite around the leader’” or even a
testimonial to the existence of that unity, one produced within the framework
of “the so-called ‘nationalization of elites’” that Putin sponsored more than a
year ago. But on the other, it has
another meaning which may be just the reverse.
In such statements, “Gazeta”
continues, “it is possible to see attempts to shift responsibility for
everything which is taking place in the country and even in a specific group of
companies on the one who really has concentrated in his hands all the fullness of
power and the work of government institutions.”
Neither Russians nor anyone else has
any doubt that “all the key political and economic decisions in the country are
taken by Putin personally.” As long as things are going well, he is given
credit for that; but when things aren’t, as now with Ukraine and sanctions, the
fall of the price of oil and the collapse of the ruble, Putin may be held
responsible as well.
“Not so long ago,” the paper
continues, “the problems of the country could be written off as the work of
stupid ministers, selfish oligarchs, the efforts of ‘liberals in the government’
and thieving regional authorities.” That was entirely consistent with the
centuries-old notion in Russia of “a good tsar against bad boyars.”
But now because the equation of
Putin and Russia has become so much greater than any such linkage in the past,
it is becoming “ever more difficult to define the border between compliments to
the chief of state and the desire to find him guilty for everything.” That is
all the more so because no one else “feels responsible for anything.”
“In this sense,” the paper says, “’the
nationalization of elites’ has really occurred.” Once again, its members have
the views which Nicholas Berdyayev described a century ago: “The Russian man …
loves Russia, but he is not accustomed to feel himself responsible before
Russia.”
Thus, when Vyacheslav Volodin says
as he did at the Valdai Club meeting in Sochi, if “there is no Putin, there is
no Russia,” the deputy head of the Presidential Administration was saying something
rather more than “just a figure of speech.” Instead, “Gazeta argues, “this is a
mathematically precise formula for the description of the current state of
Russia. But not of its future one.”
“Today, [Russia] both for Russians
and for the world really is reduced to a single individual.” But there “undoubtedly”
will be a Russia “after Putin.” And his personification
with the country will have consequences for Russia long after he leaves power.
“History shows
that in those countries were all successes are ascribed to one man, a moment
comes when its nation begins to consider him the source of all misfortunes.” And
because the state apparatus feels itself free from any responsibility, its members
are quite ready to transfer their loyalty “to another master.”
The paper concludes with a quotation
from Erich Fromm. The American thinker said such attitudes can lead to “such a
degradation of mental capacities, initiative, and mastery that they will gradually
lose the ability to fulfill the functions needed for the ruler.” And that is something that can have
consequences even before he passes from the scene.
No comments:
Post a Comment