Paul
Goble
Staunton, June 15 – The number of
senior officials now under arrest is greater than at any point since the death
of Stalin, Igor Dmitriyev says, noting that the list includes two federal
ministers, the owners of several major banks and corporations, senior FSB
officers, the former head of the investigation body for regions, governors and
a plenipotentiary representative.
This “unprecedented” development,
the Russian commentator suggests, is “not simply the intensification of the
struggle among ‘the Kremlin towers’ but rather the beginning of a reformation
of the entire Russian elite,” something Lev Gumilyev and others say happens in
Russia ever twenty years (afterempire.info/2019/06/15/cikly/).
Dmitriyev provides a long list of
other Russian officials now being bars, but his primary focus is to argue that
Gumilyev’s theory about elite renewal every 20 years in Russia, something the
late scholar documented for earlier periods of tsarist and Soviet history
continues to be true today.
Few would dispute that there was a wholesale
turnover in the elites of the Russian state in 1918 as a result of the
Bolshevik Revolution and in 1938 as a result of Stalin’s Great Terror. And most
would accept that there was yet another turnover in 1958 following Nikita
Khrushchev’s attack on Stalin and the cult of personality.
The subsequent waves Dmitriyev sees,
in 1978, 1998, and 2018 as start of the
latest changeover, are more controversial.
In 1978, Gorbachev was elevated to the Politburo and the USSR entered a
new and troubled period which ended with the collapse and disintegration of the
Soviet Union.
Then, in 1998, the commentator
continues, a new changeover in the elite began with the rise of Sergey
Kiriyenko as prime minister and Vladimir Putin as head of the FSB. The first ten years overseen by this group was
relatively successful but then things began to go wrong in 2008. And now a decade later, Dmitriyev argues,
times are ripe for another turnover.
“We cannot specify precisely which
social stratum now will rise up the heights of the state pyramid. But judging
by the reaction of ‘those at the top’ to the scandalinvoolving the falsification
of accusations against journalist Ivan Golunov, ‘the systemic liberals’ will
remain in the ruling duumvirate.”
The clearest indication of that is
not the dismissal of two MVD generals but “the reaction of the government media
and officials who always have their finger in the wind. And they, from Simonyan,
Khinshteyn, and Maria Zakharova to Moskalkova, Matviyenko and presidential
advisor Anton Kobyakov all decisively supported the social protest.”
If they are the obvious “winners” in
this round, Dmitriyev says, there are some obvious losers as well, including
first and foremost Moscow mayor Sergey Sobyanin whose city has been an island of stability and who has
attracted ever more support as a possible successor to Putin. Now, in the wake
of the protests, his star is in eclipse.
Obviously, the siloviki have also
suffered as well. But “who then remains among the winners besides ‘the systemic
liberals’?” He suggess that the list includes many people in or from the Federal
Protective service, including the presidential plenipotentiary for the North
Caucasus, the emergency services minister, and the governors of Tula, Yaroslavl,
and Astrakhan.
If this analysis is correct, Dmitriyev
says, “this means that the Russian state is entering into an era like that of late
Rome. There and then,” he continues, “came to power members of the praetorian
guard, that is, to use the language of the present day, the very same ‘party of
the adjutants.’”
How things ended for the Roman
Empire as a result is well-known, the commentator observes. Whether Moscow will
follow suit in its capacity as “’the third Rome,’” very much remains to be
seen.
No comments:
Post a Comment