Paul
Goble
Staunton, July 24 – Analysts of all
political persuasions tend to assume that this or that group of the population is
deeply attached to a particular ideology and that the future depends on whether
groups will maintain or shift their attachment from one to another. But three
articles in the Moscow media today suggest that view is at least partially
incorrect.
More than that, they suggest that
those political leaders who accept the primacy of ideology as an explanation
for Russian behavior are failing to see what is really going on and often claim
victory for themselves without understanding that they haven’t won one or yield
to their opponents who see more clearly that other factors are at work.
The first of these three, by Moscow
political scientist Vasily Zharkov, appeared in Novaya gazeta. He argues that Russian liberals have been
paralyzed by their acceptance of the view that the people (the “narod”) are
deeply attached to “red-brown” ideas and thus must be opposed rather than
appealed to (novayagazeta.ru/articles/2017/07/24/73227-ne-boyatsya-sobstvennyh-grazhdan).
That liberal view,
he continues, not only has kept them from challenging the regime’s tightening
of the screws but from reaching out to the population and winning its support
by speaking to what it is really concerned with. “The Russian voter,” Zharkov says, “believes
not in political values but in personal well-being and personal guarantees.”
That voter cares only that he be
paid and paid on time. “All ideas,
liberal or conservative or whatever are meaningless when he hears the clear
signal ‘you will be paid.’” As a result, the acceptance of much that the powers
that be insist on has little or nothing to do with ideology, and if liberals
were willing to offer something similar, they too would attract support.
The issue then is how can the
liberals find “a common language” with the narod. “To begin with, they must
cease to be afraid of their own citizens” because their fears are rooted in a
misconception. And “they must begin to
respect them as genuine democrats do.” If that happens, the liberals may find
there are far more supporters for democratic change than they imagine.
The second article by commentator
Dmitry Sidorov of the Lenta news agency makes a similar point about the
significance or in fact insignificance of ideology in Russian political life by
focusing on an entirely different subject: the current purge of Russian
nationalists by the Kremlin (lenta.ru/articles/2017/07/24/ourboys/).
He argues that
this effort to “cleanse” the Russian political scene of these figures and their
media outlets has less to do with ideological differences – the usual
explanation – than with something else entirely, the willingness even eagerness
of such nationalists to form alliances with other political groups in the
run-up to elections.
“Nationalists,” Sidorov writes, “are
not the most influential group within the non-systemic opposition but they are
persistent and ready for coalitions with others. They constantly try, although
not always successfully, to conclude situational alliances with other forces,”
and the Kremlin isn’t interested in the possibility that they might do so again.
At various points in the past,
Russian nationalists more than liberals and reformers have reached out in an
attempt to form alliances, often with groups that have very different
ideological agendas. That flexibility on
their part suggests that they are more interested in gaining power than in
realizing all the points of their ideological program.
And the third article, by journalist
Yekaterina Trifonova of Nezavisimaya gazeta, suggests that the civic activity
of young people, something that many reformers have placed so much hope in, is
far less stable than they imagine because participation in protests for many
has more to do with fashion than commitment (ng.ru/politics/2017-07-24/1_7035_protests.html).
She cites research
by Aleksey Kudrin’s Committee on Civic Initiatives to argue that many young
Russians who recently have taken part in protest actions “in fact do not have a
defined civic position.” They are far more “apolitical” in ideological terms
than their elders. And taking part in
demonstrations is simply a matter of “fashion.”
Such attitudes, she suggests,
explain why the youthful protesters can be usually divided into three groups: the
smallest are those who support a particular leader, a bit larger are those who
are attracted by the subject of the protest, but the largest of all are those
who come to watch or “to make selfies” and then get “many likes” in social
media.
No comments:
Post a Comment