Paul
Goble
Staunton, May 13 – Many still say
that the Putin regime lacks an ideology, but in fact from the very beginning it
has had one, Andrey Illarionov says. It is sislibizm,
a contraction of “systemic liberalism,” that refers to the use of ostensibly liberal
rhetoric for the justification of a fundamentally anti-liberal regime.
Specifically, the Russian commentator writes
on the Kasparov.ru portal today, “sislibizm
is an ideological trend which uses quasi-liberal and completely liberal
rhetoric for the justification of illiberal political practice and the
strengthening of an anti-liberal political regime” (kasparov.ru/material.php?id=5AF7BEAF84D46).
According to Illarionov, “the most important
aspect of sislibizm is a servile attitude
(passing at times to deification) of the state in general and the current
Russian state in particular. The supporters of sislibizm are distinguished by a rare ability to distort facts” and
to misread situations always to their own benefit.
If this were only an intellectual
trend, it would be unfortunate but easy to dismiss, the commentator continues.
But unfortunately, it is wrapped up with state policy in ways that mislead many
as to what the state is actually about and how Russians and others should react
to it.
He develops his argument by
examining the works of Moscow scholar Yekaterina Schulmann in general and her discussion
of the Cossack attacks on demonstrators in Moscow and in the regions. The latter is far more immediately important and
instructive as to how Russians should evaluate the regime and react to its
increasingly authoritarian actions.
According to Illarionov, Schulmann confuses
here readers by conflating two different means of the term “paramilitaries.” Some like the militia and the police are “undoubtedly
completely legal formations.” But there is another kind, not recognized by the
state and even in conflict with it, like the Ichkeria forces in the 1990s or the
Caucasus imamate more recently.
And then there are the Cossack
groups “which beat demonstrators on the streets of Russian cities on May 5 of
this year … Naturally, they were legal from the point of view of the current authorities
which not only did not conduct military actions against them but even provided
them necessary support.”
The key fact is this: “In a free
society, people simply aren’t beaten. If people are beaten … then this is not a
free society and not a hybrid regime as Schulmann likes to assert. This is an
authoritarian regime.” And if the Cossacks are acting without reference to any
law, then “this is not simply an authoritarian regime but a bandit
authoritarian regime, not a hybrid one.”
But that is not the worst aspect of
those like Schulmann who reflect the ideology of sislibizm. The worst is the ease with which they fall into double
standards so that they can appear to be criticizing something in one place that
they in fact support in others.
Schulmann has expressed outrage
about Cossack actions in Moscow but supports the use of Cossacks in Krasnodar
and Stavropol krays where supposedly it is completely justified by local
conditions.
For her and others who share her
views, “beating citizens with whips in Moscow is not comme il faut. This produces a large quantity of negative headlines
and bad pictures for the inauguration of our new beloved by all president. But
to beat citizens with whips in the south of Russia is completely justified
because there the political culture is different.”
That is outrageous and dangerous
because if criminal actions are allowed in one place, they can easily spread to
others. The only good thing about the
Cossacks’ application of whips against the protesters is that because the
Cossacks aren’t a state agency, they can be challenged in court more easily and
opposed by other “paramilitary” forces who can defend the protesters.
The Russian regime has thus produced
its worse nightmare: an infuriated population ready to take force into its own
hands because the government is using or allowing to be used illegal force
against it. Without the organization of
such self-defense groups, the opposition will find it “impossible” to advance
toward “a genuinely free society.”
No comments:
Post a Comment