Paul
Goble
Staunton, January 1 – After the
September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the US, the New York Times featured a drawing of a single blade of grass
breaking through a brick. Anyone who has ever had a driveway or a sidewalk
knows the significance of this: the strength of the concrete always looks
overwhelming, but the grass always finds a way to break through.
Something similar can be said of
Russia. Despite all the repressive power of the state and its repeated destruction
of its best people, good people committed to freedom miraculously continue to
emerge. They aren’t numerous, at least not yet, but they provide a surety that
they and not those who seek to pave them over will ultimately determine the
future.
That is the greatest hope of those
in Russia and elsewhere who believe that Russians like all other nations have
both the right and the capacity for becoming democratic and free. It is at the same time the greatest fear of
dictators like Vladimir Putin whose power and even survival depends on targeting
again and again those committed to such values.
On the Kasparov.ru portal for the
new year, commentator Svetlana Naumova notes that she has spent much of the
past year tracing “the progressive mental and moral degradation” of Russian
society and Putin’s “unbelievable successes in turning the population into a
herd” (kasparov.ru/material.php?id=5867EF8778271).
And she indicates
that she has no doubts that Putin truly does enjoy the support of the 86
percent his propagandists regularly claim.
But what is interesting and for the future of Russia important is that
despite everything, there is the other 14 percent, those who don’t approve of
him or his regime and who are denounced as “national traitors” as a result.
“By what miracle,” Naumova
continues, have such people continued to exist and what may be more important
emerge? The answer is “unknown” but the
fact that they do exist provides the basis for hope even though the numbers of
such people remain small and most other Russians view them as the regime would
like.
She cites with approval the views of
Yury Nesterenko before he fled to the US that only a tiny number of Russians
today are willing even to consider the argument that “Russia and Russians are
not identical,” that the regime is not operating for the benefit of the population
and never will (yun.complife.info/miscell/exodus.htm).
That has led the small number who do
understand that to grasp at straws, at the few who turn up at meetings or at
regime crisis that might lead to change, and failing that, at the possibility
of continuing to live in emigration. But, Nesterenko writes, any hopes in the
near term appear misplaced.
“Even if tomorrow Medvedev were to
hang Putin and then shoot himself or both were blown up by terrorists … things
nonetheless would not improve. This snake would throw off its skin” but not
change its form. Therefore there is no reason to think that things are changing
or will change soon.
As a result, Nesterenko says, “the
more wise people leave Russia, the ore quickly this evil empire will disappear
and disappear once and for all.” The
criminal state will collapse because the herd it has made the population into “will
not be able to support its existence.”
Naumova says she has “her doubts” on
this last point. First of all, she says, Nesterenko might be right if the West
were to recognize that Putin’s Russia is a cancerous tumor; but increasingly
its leaders are prepared for business reasons or their own convenience to
connive with it to continue to exist.
Moreover, emigration will help
Russia only if those who depart continue to fight for the implementation of
what they believe in Russia. If they don’t – and unfortunately, many do not –
then their departure abroad will only be “a plus for Putin” who will be only
too glad to see them leave and thus stop causing him trouble.
What then should the 14 percent be
doing? There is no chance of a revolt now, “even ‘the minority or the minority’
isn’t ready for this,” Naumova says. She
says she understands this on the basis of Russian behavior in areas of the USSR
occupied by the Germans. People didn’t revolt, but “they weren’t slaves. They
hated and waited for a suitable moment to begin resistance.”
The fate of Russian dissidents
today, she continues, “is much more difficult than that of the residents of the
territories seized [by the Nazis because] they have to oppose not only the
occupiers but also the hurrah patriotic and zombified nerds. But nevertheless,”
Naumova insists, “it is no less important to struggle with evil” even when “there
is no hope of victory.”
In the current situation, she
argues, “it is important not to be silent but to give an assessment of the
crimes of the regime and also of the negative processes which are taking place
in the country and in society. Such texts are a kind of mirror” and they can
attract the attention and understanding of others.
Doctors have “a mantra,” she
continues. “’If you can’t cure an illness, it means one must learn to live with
it.’ To learn to live with evil does not mean to come to terms with it.” There are many ways to show that one hasn’t
done that, and she lists six ideas.
First, one must “boycott the actions
of the illegitimate regime,” including elections and demonstrations. Second,
one must “boycott the Kremlin media.” Third, one must “change the tone of conversation with
the powers that be,” stop requesting things and start making real demands, even
if they won’t be granted, at least at first.
And fourth, one must ‘”unite and
form horizontal cooperation.” The
Putinists are afraid of this and afraid of its capacity to organize mass
demonstrations against them. That fear must be recognized and then exploited,
Naumova says.
At the risk of sounding naïve and
overly optimistic, Naumova concludes by saying that she “as before believes
that Russia will be free, even if this happens not veryquickly and possibly at the
price of disintegration and the loss of territory and that the Putin regime,
which rules society with the help of fear and force is doomed.”
No comments:
Post a Comment