Russia’s Times of Troubles Especially Tragic Because of What They Lead To, Mitrofanov Says

Paul Goble

            Staunton, March 6 – Russia’s periodic times of troubles, Sergey Mitrofanov says, “are tragic not only because it is difficult and often dangerous to live in them but also because those that follow also are troubled. People rush about and recombine what they’ve heard before, calling for “‘prison,’ ‘law,’ ‘judges,’ ‘a strong power,’ and ‘punishing someone.’”

            Thus, “the exit from times of troubles appears to many to be only an exit into ‘confused time,’” the Russian commentator says, with people waiting for another catastrophe and so either waiting for some external force to bring order or willing to support someone within Russia who promises to do so (ej.ru/?a=note&id=34766).

                Unlike Ukraine, at least in the eyes of Russians, Russia has “all the elements of greatness,” Mitrofnaov says – “a state-forming people with an ancient history and a national idea, the idea of a state” with a population that is disciplined and “a responsible ruler at the head. “The problem, however, is that the integrity of this construction is pure fantasy.” 

            This construction frequently falls apart. In the 20^th century alone, it fell about twice and in the course of 100 years that is “a lot.” And each time, the commentator says, the problems that led to the collapse have become the basis for the rise of hatred to “any liberal reformation,” thus repeating the cycle.

            This has led to the rise of a curious category of people, statesmen without a state. One such is Gleb Pavlovsky whose essays on the Russian system show that there is as yet no state but that it must be created by state-thinking people.  “That is easy to say, but it is hard to do, Mitrofanov suggests.

            “The establishment of the state ‘Russia’ has drawn out some 30 years, almost half the life of the USSR.” And the pursuit of this state, something that has proceeded in fits and starts, continues in the form of the revision of the Yeltsin Constitution, a document that is far from perfect because it was a compromise between the chekists and the democrats.

            That compromise was by its very nature unsustainable, and the chekists emerged on top. Now, it appears that they want their own constitution, and other Russians can only “guess why ‘they’ are doing this.” But the answer is clear: they view the constitution not as a social contract but as “a party program or publicistic essay” about Russia’s future.

            Putin has admitted as much. He said that he is “doing all this in order that the democratization of the cursed 1990s not be repeated.” But as this week has already shwn, his approach won’t prevent the return of some aspects of that crisis, including the collapse of the ruble, and indications that more revenants may be ahead.

            As long as Russians are fighting the last war, the war against times of troubles, they almost certainly will set the stage for a bout of anther one of these in the future.