Paul
Goble
Staunton, April 1 – Russia, it is
sometime said, is a country with an unpredictable past; but Russian governments
have worked hard to try to control not only the future but also the past. Now, however, Sergey Shelin says, the Kremlin
“no longer controls either the future or the past” – and that leaves Putin “without
the two accustomed instruments” for manipulating the people.
Many have pointed out that Putin’s
team now doesn’t have “any model for the future” as it heads into the
presidential elections, the Rosbalt commentator says. “This is true, but it is
far from the whole truth.” The Kremlin
has also lost control over the past as well and thus is increasingly unable to
hold people in check (rosbalt.ru/blogs/2017/03/31/1603794.html).
Indeed, Shelin argues, “the
present-day situation is absolutely new for post-Soviet Russia.” Occasionally,
it has been unable to present “an attractive picture of the future … But never
has this been combined with an inability to speak in the role” of either an
opponent of a hated past or a defender of one Russians as a whole like.
Instead, the regime’s constant
revisions of its views of the past and the transparent falsification and
exploitation of themes, combined with the indifference of Russians to a past
that is ever more distant from and less significant to them than before make
the regime’s failure to talk about the future even more critical.
“Ever less time remains until March
2018,” Shelin points out, “and the mechanisms of control over the past and over
the future are misfiring again and again. [As a result,] Vladimir Putin is
approaching his re-election without either of the traditional instruments for
manipulating the minds” of the voters.
He gives several
examples to support these conclusions. What, he asks rhetorically, can a regime
propagandist say about the anti-corruption “disorders?” Besides referring to
the Arab Spring or Western machinations, two things few Russians pay attention
to, he will be driven to talk “about the horrors of all Russian coups and revolutions,
from the earlier up to 1991.”
This propagandist will do so because
he “imagines that this is a completely irresistible intellectual weapon. And he
will then be surprised when his listeners simply yawn.” His shock will be
greater because “earlier this wasn’t the case: images of the past occupied a
central place in the propaganda of our regime at all of its turning points. And
they worked. People responded.”
In 1996, for example, Boris Yeltsin
was reelected not because he enjoyed real support but because he successfully
portrayed Gennady Zyuganov as someone who would restore Soviet times – and not
just Brezhnevite stagnation but Stalinist terror.
In 2000 and 2004, Putin was elected and
then re-elected on a platform of “moderate restorationism” which promised to
turn away “from the cursed 1990s” and return to the relative well-being and
stability of the late Brezhnev years.
In 2008, Dmitry Medvedev was elected
with the support of both those who hoped for “a continuation of Putin
restorationism” and those who wanted “a return” to the greater freedoms of th3e
1990s. “Both the one and the other,
however, instead of the past they wanted go the past which they wanted somewhat
less – the return of Vladimir Putin to the Kremlin throne.”
And thus it is no accident that 2012
and the years following “became a time of grandiose militant mobilization of
history with the goal of having it serve the interests of the bosses.” Not only
was the traditional celebration of victory in World War II but also of all
kinds of other victories from the times of Ivan the Terrible onward.
But today, none of this has the same
effect. Russians see how often the regime is prepared to rewrite the past and
how difficult a time it faces in confronting the complexities of earlier times.
And they see that the regime uses these things only to try to distract
attention from its failure to address their real problems now.
The reason Russians have changed is
not only that the young people “going into the streets don’t remember even ‘the
cursed 1990s’ not to speak about the times of Gorbachev and Brezhnev,” Shelin
argues. Instead, it is rooted in the
fact that all events have a certain “to be used by” date, after which they don’t
play the same role.
Instead, they are met with
indifference bordering on contempt. “Don’t
believe pollsters” who talk about the rising rating of Stalin, he says. “Pollsters
simply can’t capture the indifference with which the masses view today both
Stalinism and anti-Stalinism.” Those are increasingly issues of the distant
past.
And efforts to use even more distant
pasts – such as the revolutionary year of 1917 – not only highlight that
problem but show that the regime can’t make up its mind about how it wants to
treat this or that issue. The Kremlin’s failure to take a clear line only makes
it easier for Russians to go their own way, ignoring the past and focusing only
on current problems.
No comments:
Post a Comment