Putin’s Repression has Shifted Center of Protest Activity from Better Off Strata to Poorer Groups and Kremlin Should Be Worried, Gallyamov Says

Paul Goble

            Staunton, April 24 – Something dramatic, even revolutionary, has happened in Russia in recent months, Abbas Gallyamov says. The center of protest activity has shifted form the major cities where the educated and well-to-do are concentrated to poorer groups outside the metropolises.

            These “less privileged groups in the provinces have typically been far more loyal,” the former Putin speechwriter and now Putin critic says. But repressive measures of recent years have drastically altered this dynamic, and now it is the poorer segments of society rather than the wealthier ones who are most inclined to voice their discontent” (pointmedia.io/story/69eb64b175d0d3346a25cb0c).

            “One reason for this,” Gallyamov says, “is the decline in living standards. In keeping with the logic that "proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains," those strata of the citizenry that have been driven to utter destitution are now turning toward dissent. Another factor stems from the sharp escalation in state repression.

The commentator continues: “The resident of the metropolis—who, until recently, was still openly critical of the authorities—has now developed a palpable sense of dread … and so he takes great pains to mask his true sentiments, providing both pollsters and his superiors with the answers he knows they want to hear.”

At the same time, “the resident of the provinces—who, until recently, remained steadfastly loyal—has not experienced any significant increase in fear as a result of these repressive measures. He does not perceive them as being directed against him personally” as he comforts himself by saying that he’s “voted for Putin all along.”

Such poorer rural groups do not consist of heroes, Gallyamov continues. They retain “a certain level of fear toward authorit] … but [in sharp contrast to the situation among urban groups] that fear has not intensified significantly of late. His level of irritation, however, has begun to rise.”

Such former loyalists instead “feel that the authorities have deceived them: they promised one thing but delivered something entirely different in return.” As a result, they feel “ in voicing discontent, they are somehow ‘within their rights’ in demanding things from the authorities.” In contrast, urban groups never believed the regime and are now more afraid.

“By unleashing repression” as they have, the commentator says, “the authorities thus intimidate one segment of society while simultaneously forfeiting the support of another—a far larger one. The problem, however, is not merely a matter of numbers: An intimidated populace constitutes a deeply unreliable social base.”

And even if this larger group does “’sincerely’ internalize the narratives of the powers that be, “they nonetheless remain broken, spineless individuals. At the slightest sign of adversity, they buckle.” After all, Gallyamov concludes, as history shows, “you cannot construct a stable political edifice upon such a foundation. It will be nothing more than a rickety shack.”