Paul
Goble
Staunton, September 25 – Many,
including those who would like to see a civilized European future for Russia,
nonetheless believe that Russians are so restricted by their “’cultural code’
of serfdom and paternalism” that the only way forward is to rely on “an
enlightened ruler who bases himself on a group of elite intellectuals,” Yevgeny Gontmakher says.
Such people believe that what must
be done is to create “a certain autocratic Singapore, only a thousand times
larger,” but “in fact,” the Moscow economist and commentator says, history
shows that Russians are not so constrained by their cultural code and that
reformers should proceed in exactly the opposite way (echo.msk.ru/blog/gontmaher/2061512-echo/).
Those
who want to move in a European direction, he continues, must use “all possible
means of freeing people from the sense of hopelessness and passivity that to a
large extent has been artificially created” and promote participation in
elections, civic enlightenment, and any other forms of public involvement they
can think of.
To
do otherwise, to act as if only an enlightened ruler can set these right,
Gontmakher says, is to “condemn Russia to another round of heavy tests” but
even more it is to ignore the history of the last century which shows that
Russians can and do change radically and rapidly on occasion.
If
any nationally specific cultural code existed before 1917, he says, it was
eliminated or at least radically transformed by the Soviet system which moved
people about, attacked religion, encouraged inter-ethnic marriage, and
generally undermined what most had assumed were the core values of this or that
people.
And
except for a few small national groups, most of the population of Russia today
represents a mixture of things, a levelling of group distinctions in Russian
society, and justifies speaking more often about the “international,
non-religious, and extra-territorial” nature of the population of the country.
Moreover,
Gontmakher argues, the population of what is now the Russian Federation has
shown itself capable of rapidly and radically changing many of its behaviors in
response to change in the environment, something that one would not speak of if
it were the case that everything is predetermined by a cultural code.
When
the Soviet system collapsed, Russians neither defended it nor responded with risings
against the new order. They were not
even driven to protest by the default of 1998. Instead, they adapted to new
conditions, recognized they couldn’t depend on the state and began to act in
ways those who believe in the cultural code would say were impossible.
And
then when the economy began to grow in the early years of this century, a
development that reflected not only the rise in the price of oil but also in
the way in which Russians chose to act and spend money, they changed again and
would have changed more but for the decisions of the Kremlin.
Instead
of promoting the kind of reforms that would finally undermine paternalism and
that the new wealth had made possible, Vladimir Putin and his regime moved in the
opposite direction, taking ever more of the economy under state control and
promoting the paternalistic values they should have been combatting.
The
Russian people again adapted, Gontmakher says; and that again shows that “the
behavior of the large masses of people can be changed very quickly both toward a
positive or toward a destructive side.” The state plays a big role in this, but
it can’t control everything as 1991 showed.
Consequently,
he says, he very much hopes that “the current attempt to reduce people to a
gray mass of ‘human capital’ will end much more quickly than did the communist
experiment.” And he points to what is happening in the North Caucasus and in
the emigration to the possibilities of rapid adaptation and change.
Despite
what many in Moscow think, Gontmakher points out, “the spirit of entrepreneurialism
is developed in the North Caucasus more than ever before.” And it is thus a serious mistake to overstate
“’the special nature’ of our North Caucasus from the point of view of prospects
of successful independent economic and social development.”
And
the new emigration also testified to the ability of Russians to adapt. It is another mistake, he says, to exaggerate
how much longing it has for Russia. In fact, its members have gotten to work,
put down new roots, and are adapting as rapidly as almost any other peoples to
the situations they find themselves in.
In
short, Gontmakher concludes, Russians can and will change if the powers that be
and their intellectual critics stop assuming that they can’t and won’t and that
the only way to deal with what some call “the dark people” is to keep them
under the tightest of control. Just the reverse is the course that is
needed.
No comments:
Post a Comment