Paul
Goble
Staunton, August 8 – The protests in
Moscow last weekend and the official repression of them have given rise to two
diametrically opposed predictions about the future, Dimitry Savvin says. Both
are unjustified and destructive, but each contains just enough truth to attract
attention and support.
According to the first, “Russia is on
the brink of a revolution or even a civil war, that the regime is a colossus
with feet of clay, that these are crumbling and that one need only wait a big
and then “the beautiful Russia of the future” will almost magically appear, the
editor of a Russian portal in Riga says (harbin.lv/bez-izlishnego-optimizma-bez-izlishnego-pessimizma).
According to the second alternative
set of predictions, he continues, the powers that be are in full control, will
crush any manifestation of dissent, and consequently that no real change can be
expected anytime soon. In short, “all who live in the Russian Federation must
leave hope behind.”
In response, the conservative Russian
commentator says, one can only say that “both the first and the second view are
not simply untrue: they are destructive, although there is a dollop of truth in
each.”
For a revolution to take place, he
says, four things are needed – the existence of an alternative elite, the
presence of a revolutionary organization, popular political leaders, and a
systemic crisis. None of them exists in
Russia at least in a full-blown way, and so no revolution there is likely in
the immediate future.
That is not to say that there aren’t
signs of the emergence of each, but these are only the beginnings and they aren’t
going to lead to the revolution some thing the Moscow protests portend as being
immediately ahead, Savvin argues.
Instead, a revolution, if it occurs, is something far more distant.
Talking as if this were not the case
will inevitably inspire “false hopes” and when those hopes are dashed a new
wave of disappointment, which will make the achievement of any serious change
that much more difficult.
Thus, the prophets of immediate
revolution are wrong; but so too are those who say the regime can continue unchanged
for a long time to come. That is certainly what Putin and his entourage in the
Kremlin would like, but the protest movement among other things makes that
impossible.
Even though the Kremlin leaders
would like to avoid taking action, the protesters are forcing them to, the
commentator says. Indeed, one can say in the language of chess that Putin is
now in a Zugswang where he would like to pass but can’t because almost any move
– toward liberalization or toward repression -- will make his situation worse.
Liberalization offers the better
option in some ways, but it contradicts Putin’s preferences and undermines his
system, allowing for the emergence of ever greater challenges. But repression,
while more congenial to him, will lead to further deterioration of relations
with the West, of the economy and of the social system, opening the way to “systemic
collapse.”
Given this choice, Savvin continues,
“the Kremlin would very much like to change nothing,” to “’freeze’ the Russian
Federation in its current state. “But growing protest activity, like a blast of
heat, makes changes inevitable,” in one direction or another for a long time or
a brief one.
“Today, as at the end of the 1980s,
a struggle is going on not for a legal state, a free society and a free market.
Today, a struggle is taking place for the very possibility of struggling for
these things, for the creation of conditions in which the corresponding
political forces can grow.”
The protesters aren’t going to win out
anytime soon, he continues. “Years of intense work and struggle” are ahead, and
everyone must recognize this. Moreover, things are not going to move along a
single vector: there will be increasing repression on some occasions, and
increasing liberalization in others.
Protest actions “from Shiyes to Moscow
are one of the very important steps along this path, without which other steps
won’t occur and one that may ultimately ensure enough change in the elites that
there won’t be “a neo-Soviet nomenklatura restoration” again. This in turn means that it is necessary to
proceed but without excessive optimism or excessive pessimism.”
No comments:
Post a Comment