Paul
Goble
Staunton, September 27 – The monuments
a government puts up say more about what is going on inside the minds of its rulers
than any speeches they may give or programs they may announce, according to
Rosbalt commentator Sergey Shelin. And
the Russian government of Vladimir Putin is no exception.
When the Putin regime decided to put
up a statue to Mikhail Kalashnikov, the inventor of the machinegun of the same
name, the commentator says, he for the first time felt a certain admiration for
those Soviet leaders who in the 1980s erected a statue of Yury Gagarin, the
first man to orbit the earth (rosbalt.ru/blogs/2017/09/26/1648879.html).
Those who put up the Gagarin statue
based it on the proposition not that the spaceman was a Soviet officer whose
achievement was the result of competition with the US, Shelin continues.
Instead, they viewed him as “a world-historical hero as the first man who was
sent into space. Everything in the monument tis only about this.”
Its designers knew something” that
those behind the new Kalashnikov monument don’t, and they were able to “distinguish
good from evil,” while the current regime simply can’t do that. Even Stalin had enough sense not to make the
war memorials he ordered up at the end of World War II about more war but rather
about the pursuit of justice, as he understood it.
That of course was a case, as one
French existentialist put it, Shelin argues, of “hypocrisy being the last gift
that vice pays virtue.” But Stalin paid
it; the Putin regime does not seem capable of doing so. Its monument to
Kalashnikov is not to the man but to the weapon he designed.
And it is completely devoid of “artistic,
professional and intellectual” dignity.
Consequently, one can only agree with the Vedomosti writers who point out that “the style of the monument
belongs to that of a new Russian cemetery where criminal bosses of the wild
1990s are interred” (vedomosti.ru/opinion/articles/2017/09/22/734902-kulturno-ognestrelnii-brend).
But in another
sense, Shelin suggests, these are only external signs. Much more significant is
the essence of what the Putin regime has done: it has elevated to the statue of
a national brand a gun intended for nothing else but killing. That is the message of this regime to
humanity, and it is very different than the one those behind the Gagarin statue
wanted to deliver.
The current regime’s thinking is
also reflected in its new Alley of the Rulers of Russia which includes busts of
seven Soviet ones “from Lenin to Gorbachev.”
Esthetically, they are unimpressive; but the messages this assemblage
sends is both obvious and disturbing especially for Russia’s future.
That conclusion does not arise from the
presence of Stalin among these people: he has been “rehabilitated” for a long
time already, Shelin says. Rather, it comes from a reflection about those who
are not included: Zinovyev who was viewed as “the first person in 1924” and Malenkov
who was in 1953 and part of 1954.
Their absence reflects not so much
the historical ignorance of Russia’s current rulers as their view of what a
Russian ruler must be: In their minds, he “must be an autocrat” regardless of
what his title is; and if he is unable to achieve that power, then he must be “written
out of history” and forgotten.
The message this sends to the
Russian people is easy to decipher, the Rosbalt commentator says. “On Red Square, if one stands facing the
Mausoleum, there ise a necropolis to the right. And in the necropolis – in so-called
‘granite ranks’ are monuments with busts of 12 leaders set up over their
remains.”
“The visual and ideological similarity
of the new ranks with the old is simply striking,” Shelin suggests, “all the
more so because four of the seven ‘rulers of Russia’ -- Stalin, Brezhnev,
Andropov and Chernenko -- are memorialized by extremely similar busts also on
Red Square.”
And what this means is this, Shelin
says. Russia’s current rulers aren’t so much concerned with “’a single history’”
as they are with a cemetery. Or “if you
like,” their view of history is one “understood as a hierarchically organized
cemetery” where everyone is buried in ranks not by the personal qualities but
by how much power they had.
Thus, the commentator concludes, “the
presentation of the machinegun and the busts is not a cultural measure. It is
the regime’s confession of its most secret feelings. What then do you want to
know” or possibly expect to find out “from the current powers that be about the
past, the present or the future?”
No comments:
Post a Comment