[Russia Profile Discussion Group] Re: The Perm governor, "Nashisty" and "fashisty"

[eugene...@comcast.net]

There is no reason to either under- or overestimate the significance of political symbolism.  The theatrics of signing pacts or issuing manifestos and memoranda are all healthy attributes of the public – as opposed to backdoor -- political activity.  From this perspective, signing the Antifascist Pact is hardly more sinister than, for example, organizing joint street protests with National Bolsheviks.

 

There is unfortunately plenty of evidence that xenophobic and nationalistic sentiments in Russia are on the rise.  The fact that 12 political parties, a third of all currently registered, have come together to express their concern, however symbolic, would seem to be a welcomed sign of civil maturity.  I agree with Peter Morley that “antifascist” is perhaps too strong of an adjective to use.  Yet in political vocabulary, the flashier the better, and “antixenophobic” and “antinationalistic” don’t sound sufficiently good.  Besides, the genie is already out of the bottle.  Linguistic constraints didn’t bother a top Georgian official when he called Russia a “fascist country.”

 

I wouldn’t share Peter’s concerns about lack of “spontaneity” and possible role for the Kremlin in initiating the pact.  Is the Kremlin such an “evil” organization that it immediately compromises everything it touches?  I feel, on the contrary, that the political significance of the pact would have been even larger had Putin explicitly endorsed it.  Attempts to present the pact as yet another United Russia’s PR ploy seem to betray someone’s jealous frustration with the fact that it was United Russia who came up first with the idea.  What prevented, for example, SPS from initiating the pact?  Aversion to PR?  Hmm.   

 

Peter’s suggestion to consider the pact in the context of Russia-Ukraine relations and the new NGO law strikes me as too far-fetched.  Instead, I’d like to propose much simpler explanation.  The Antifascist Pact is an unfolding election campaign.  Facing CPRF and Rodina in the regional elections on March 12, United Russia is trying to hurt the opponents with accusations of national hatred and xenophobia.  Demanding that the signatory parties expel from their ranks members promoting “racist views,” United Russia is reminding the voters that a score of Duma deputies from CPRF and Rodina have signed the notorious anti-Semitic “Letter of 500.” (Correct me if I’m wrong, but in contrast to what Peter’s saying, no single deputy from Zhirinovsky’s LDPR has signed the letter). 

 

The opponents seem to feel the heat.  Rodina has issued a statement agreeing with the major “principles” of the pact.  Rodina’s leader, Rogozin, has assured that the party would “voluntarily” adhere to its requirements.  Rogozin further added that Rodina hadn’t signed the pact because it wasn’t “asked to.” 

 

[Peter Morley (Russia Profile Discussion Group)]

Dear Eugene,

Thanks for your reply, and for correcting my error regarding the LDPR and
the "Letter of 500".

I completely agree with you that the "anti-fascist" pact is linked to the
forthcoming elections. But in writing my original post, I wanted also to
try to put it into a broader context (and to stimulate a reaction from a
somnolent group.) I was not trying to say that the pact was a result or
part of some over-arching plan; rather, just that it makes sense in
Russia's current political environment. I don't believe there is any such
sinister co-ordinated (the key word) "grand plan" run by the Kremlin (or
anyone else).

Regarding your reading of the pact as a sign of healthy public political
activity. Here, I think we disagree on a very basic point: the degree to
which Russia's political process is fully -- to use the two buzzwords --
free and fair. This leads to differing interpretations of the pact. To me,
current Russian politics, including the party arena, appear to be a
simulacrum of a political process, or a biased game in which all the cards
are held by one player. I would cite Andrew Wilson's "virtual politics"
here, having read one of his articles and reviews of his book, although I
have yet to read the book itself.

Thus, I disagree that this pact is a healthy attribute of public political
activity. I would very much like to say with you that it is also a welcome
sign of civil maturity, as I agree that there is evidence of increasing
xenophobia and unpleasant nationalistic sentiment. Instead, I would
propose another thought, which occurred after writing my original post:
that, as well as being a short-term pre-election measure, this treaty also
potentially serves a function of elite consolidation. The "Orange
Revolution" (not to mention events in Georgia and Kyrgyzstan) that I see
as having paralysed Russia's vlast' was a graphic example of what happens
when a country has fragmented elites -- even elites as disparate as the
ones in the Orange coalition -- that can unite behind a common cause.
Similarly, the aftermath of that revolution shows what happens when those
same elites lose the one thing that bound them together (although I am not
concerned here with whether "colour revolutions" are a good or bad thing
for the countries in question).

Thus, ahead of 2008 (and despite what I wrote above, I believe there must
be some long-term planning going on behind the scenes), the elites must be
consolidated in order to make any power transfer as smooth as possible. We
have seen business more-or-less consolidated with the Yukos example,
occasional tax raids elsewhere, and high-profile meetings between
"captains of industry" and President Putin. The "anti-fascist" pact could
be part of this process in the political-parties sphere. Thus, there
should be no visible endorsement from Putin, as it should appear to be a
spontaneous initiative led by parties.

Finally, regarding your references to liberal parties (Yabloko marching
with Limonovtsy, and SPS's "jealous frustration). You ask: "What
prevented, for example, SPS from initiating the pact? Aversion to PR?".
Here I agree with you -- both major right-wing parties have shown
themselves to be singularly inept regarding public initiatives. It's
enough to remember the last SPS Duma election campaign with the advert set
in a private jet -- hardly the sort of image to appeal to most Russians.

[Eugene L Magerovsky]

I am Eugene, but evidently not that one, since I happen generally to
agree with you on your major propositions and did not send you any
e-mails. Keep up the good work. ELM

[Babich Dmitry]

Dear Peter and Eugene, I think the issue of racism will be difficult for Russia to resolve as long as both sides of the most important Russian political barricade (for Putin or against him) do not agree on some sort of a "common front" against fascism, racism etc.

So far, both sides accused each other of being secretly linked to the racist groups or supporting them by their political activity. The opposition said the government "created an atmosphere of fear and distruct of the outer world" (Emil Pain's words), which facilitated the racists' actions. Kremlin's chief person on party work said Yabloko and Limonov's NBP "were growing on the same branch" and hinted that the liberal opponents of Putin would love to see Rodina win if only it could annoy Putin.

As long as these two groups continue squabbling instead of educating the young generation and purging their ranks of real racists, the problem will remain.

Yours, Dmitry Babich

P.S. You can see some of these thoughts in greater detail here:

http://www.russiaprofile.org/politics/2006/2/15/3255.wbp

[eugene...@comcast.net]

Dear Peter,

 

Thanks for commenting on my post.  I hope that a few more lines would still be appropriate before we pronounce this horse completely dead.

 

Although I feel, too, that we would disagree on the extent of freedom and fairness in Russia’s political process, I’m not naïve to deny the enormous influence the Old Square exerts over the political party sphere.  But this is beyond my original point.  I see the bottom line of the pact deal as follows: all Russia’s major political parties have defined – in one way or another – their positions with respect to a growing socio-political threat.  Backroom bickering and on-camera posturing notwithstanding, the open ceremony of the pact signing represented, by definition, just that: a sign of public political activity.  The fact that 79 percent of Russians approve of the pact (according to a recent VTsIOM poll) suggests that the public does pay attention.

 

I’d love to agree with you that Putin’s distancing from the pact is part of a “long-term” plan.  I only hope that this is not because there is a split over the pact in the presidential administration.

 

I find thoughtful and intriguing your idea that the pact may represent an attempt at the elite consolidation ahead of 2008.  It’s become customary to reduce the whole problem of power transition to the feat of picking up a “right” successor.  Hence our fixation on personnel moves within Putin’s cabinet/administration.  What you’re implying is that there will be other, less visible, events supposed to provide stability, predictability, and calm.  It is going to be an exciting exercise to try tracking down these events in the future.   

 

Regards,

 

Eugene Ivanov