Paul
Goble
Staunton, June 14 – The
anti-corruption demonstrations in Russia this week -- for an interactive map on
locations, numbers and arrests, see meduza.io/feature/2017/06/13/skolko-lyudey-protestovali-12-iyunya-i-skolko-zaderzhali – are supported
by 57 percent of all Russians, according to the Levada Center (levada.ru/2017/06/13/aktsii-protesta-12-iyunya/).
They have even attracted comment by
Vladimir Putin who says that the problem the Russian opposition has is “not in
simply struggling with the powers but showing citizens and voters that the
programs [it] is proposing better correspond to the interests of the
electorate” (https://ria.ru/politics/20170614/1496437830.html).
But precisely because these
demonstrations even more than those in 2011-2012 or on March 26 this year are
widely perceived as a watershed event in advance of Russia’s presidential
elections next spring, they have been the subject of an enormous number of
commentaries. Three of them, which consider the consequences of these protests,
are especially interesting.
In the first of
these, Lev Gudkov, the head of the Levada Center, says that by its harsh
response to the demonstrations, the authorities “have contributed to the
politicization of young Russians” and thus have made it likely that there will
be more protests and that these will be more political (nv.ua/opinion/gudkov/krivaja-rossijskih-protestov-chto-dalshe-1310923.html).
“As a result of the worsening of the
economic situation, the very lengthy crisis and the sense that there is no way
out, social tension and dissatisfaction is growing in Rusisa,” the sociologist
says. Much anger is directed at the
corrupt nature of the authorities, more for economic reasons than moral ones.
It would be a mistake to see this
just as populism, he continues. In fact, the regime’s half-hearted fight
against corruption has contributed to the widely held view in the population
that the entire government is corrupt.
Aleksey Navalny has capitalized on this and that is the major reason for
his success.
“The portion of Russians who are
really dissatisfied with the current regime is not too large but nonetheless
notable – consisting of between 15 and 25 percent” who really want to see a
change in the composition of those at the top of the state. But the number of
such people is “beginning to grow: this is perfectly obvious.”
What was especially interesting
about this week’s demonstations was the dominance of young people among the
participants. “Because the action was banned, people of older age groups were
much less in evidence than usual … By their harsh position of suppression,”
Gudkov says, “the authorities are contributing to the politicization of young
Russians.”
The Levada Center head says “it’s
worth noting that the authorities have quite strong concerns relative to the
growth of protest attitudes. They really
fear that because massive protests are the only factor which could destroy the
system. Because the movement is not egoist and mercantilist, the authorities
don’t know what to do” besides using force.
In the second commentary, Moscow political
analyst Aleksandr Morozov argues that Navalny by his actions is opening up the
political system for “extra-systemic” players but that the relationship of
young people to him is more “situational” than many think and that young people
could desert him over his perceived authoritarianism (snob.ru/selected/entry/125758).
Russian society at
large, Morozov continues, is still behaving in a very “passive” way. People
“recognize very well the risks of entering into conflict with the authorities
and they are already frightened … But this atmosphere of hopelessness and
pessimism … is not entirely justified.”
And this is “for one simple reason: the
high political inventiveness of Navalny and the unpredictability of his
political thought.” Because of that, Morozov says, the opposition leader is “constantly
broadening the possibilities of the political situation,” as shown by his
ability to organize a massive “unsanctioned” protest.
What
he will do next is by definition unpredictable, the political analyst says, but
his “audience is waiting” for him to “begin to attack not only Medvedev but
also Putin. Now, it is still too early to do that, but at a certain moment, it
will be already too late.” Navalny has to figure out just when to shift from
corruption to the slogan of “’no fourth term.’”
And
in the third, Rosbalt’s Sergey Shelin argues that the protests Navalny has
organized this year are not just complaints and demands that the authorities do
something, “but a struggle for a change in the powers that be.” That means in
Russia today, there is something that hasn’t existed for “almost 20 years,” a
struggle for power (rosbalt.ru/blogs/2017/06/13/1622804.html).
That
is hardly an equal struggle, of course, but one that prompts the question just “how
many divisions” does Navalny have? According
to Shelin, what matters now is not so much the numbers of people and places
where protests have taken place as the passion that those taking part have
brought to them.
He
suggests that there are already “three main results” visible. First, “it is obvious
that in the capitals the authorities were much more afraid this time than in
March but that they had prepared for the struggle much better this time around.”
Second, Russia’s “silent majority” isn’t yet ready to repeat a demonstration
and that’s why many took “a pause” now.
And
third, “The June events have shown that a new group of young opposition activists
have come into the streets.” Not yet in the millions but already in “many
tens of thousands” who are prepared to oppose repression and “the archaic,
anti-modern regime” of Vladimir Putin. Thus, Navalny has a serious and
consolidated political base.
As
yet, it isn’t large, perhaps two percent or a bit more. But under Russian conditions, that is a start
and something he can build on. And
Navalny’s backing will only increase if the authorities try to block him from running
as they have up to now. That fact,
confirmed this week, makes Monday’s demonstrations a turning point.
The
Day of Russia this year “clearly did not become a holiday for the regime.”
Instead, it became “a breakthrough day for his opponents. I call it the day of
confirmation,” Shelin continues, confirmation that “the Putin era continues,
but the atmosphere of the last 18 years has disappeared forever.”
No comments:
Post a Comment