Democracy has been, is, and will continue to be.

Artwork: Konstantin Latyshev: "Russia. Elections 2008. Kommunyaki Socialistovich Revengerov vs. Efesbee Kaygeebeeovich Spyov

Earlier this week President Medvedev gave his first interview to a Russian newspaper - his publication of choice seemed to be a significant one. He spoke fairly extensively with Dmitri Muratov, editor of Novaia Gazeta – one of the few papers in Russia to maintain a staunchly critical stance towards the Kremlin and an inquisitive nose for sensitive stories. Novaia Gazeta might not have a massive distribution in Russia, an interview might not change the world and the responses given by Medvedev may not have departed from the general rhetoric, but for the optimistic amongst us, pushing aside the plethora of potential ulterior motives, the very fact that Novaia Gazeta was granted this interview signals perhaps a start towards a more conciliatory era in relations between the state and the press.

I’ve picked out a few bits of the interview that I found the most interesting. You can read the full text (in Russian) here: http://www.novayagazeta.ru/data/2009/039/01.html

________________________________

On the upcoming elections in Sochi – destination Winter Olympics 2012.

Muratov: Don’t you think perhaps it would be best to just cancel the elections in Sochi, rather than stage them? It would be less cynical to do so. Lebedev who was running for Mayor has been forced to step out of the race by the courts, whilst Nemtsov (also running) has been denied the chance to run his election campaign.

Medvedev: I don’t yet know who has been removed from the race or how, but I do know however, that at this moment in time there is a fully rigorous political battle going on in Sochi, and it is a good thing that there are representatives of various political groups taking part. In my opinion, the problem with many municipal elections is that they are too uniform – people don’t have anyone to choose from and find them dull.

On the social contract and presidential Council on civil society and human rights which took place on April 15th.

Muratov: Am I right in thinking that civil society is today more important to you than a society of government officials?

Medvedev: You know - civil society is something that we still haven’t entirely learned how to comprehend properly in Russia […]. But gradually we are beginning to understand that civil society is an integral social institution of any state. It is a feed-back institution; organisations of people who do not have a post in government or in the civil service, but who actively participate in the life of the country. […] I’d like to point out: such relations [between state and civil society] are never simple for any government. This is because civil society and representatives of human-rights organisations have many bones to pick with the state and the government. They want to ask a lot of questions; and one doesn’t always want to have to answer them. And this is precisely why such an exchange should be of an official nature - this is the aim of the Council. I am expecting that the discussion will be most interesting. Obviously, it will be tough. But this is precisely why it is important.

On the new law requiring civil servants and members of the government to declare their income.

Muratov: It has not really been made clear who it is that will be checking these declarations for their authenticity. It seems that over the past few days in Russia a powerful community of “impoverished” husbands with very affluent wives has appeared…

Medvedev: You know, the task of controlling the bureaucracy and government officials is one of the fundamental tasks of any state. We started doing this quite a long time ago and I can’t really say that we have had much success. Although if you were to compare with the situation in the 1990s and the situation today, I most definitely think that there has been an improvement. […] In my opinion, the main problem today is not the lack of normative acts on control, but lack of rigorous implementation of these acts. This is, of course, where the difficulty lies - because bureaucrats are never very satisfied when they are obliged to control themselves. However, these procedures must be followed despite the fact that no-one likes controlling themselves, no-one likes confining themselves within strict frameworks; they must be followed because this is what distinguishes a civilised society from an uncivilised one – a civilised society doesn’t like it, but it has learnt to do so all the same.

[…]

Muratov: Have you personally felt a negative reaction from bureaucrats? Or have they been understanding over your decision to enforce the publication of their declaration of income?

Medvedev: Well, you know, the post of president frees one of having to hear the negative reaction of bureaucrats. I made this decision – and everyone else has to carry it out.

On the independency of the judiciary and the Khordokovskii affair.

Muratov: I’d like to ask you about the second YUKOS trial. Did you find its outcome predictable? The outcome of the first trial, for anyone who took an interest in it, was, alas, rather predictable. Someone wrote in to me and said: perhaps in the beginning Medvedev is just going to ring up the courts, including that involved in the YUKOs trial and say “you’re independent, you’re independent, let me remind you, you’re independent, you’re independent, you’re independent! "And that will be a manual kick-start for the restoration of the judiciary system.

Medvedev: I can tell you now, that any manual kick-start is very costly and I’m not just talking about the courts system here. It is simply necessary to strive towards a state machine that works in a rational way automatically. [As for the YUKOs trial] perhaps the outcome of one or another trial someone found predictable. This is the freedom and the luckiness of a person who does not have state obligations.
[…]
However, whilst for everyone else, it’s a personal matter, it would be illegal for the president to find a court’s decision predictable. It would be a sign that the law has been broken. For civil servants and for the president there is not and should not be any inkling whatsoever of predictability of the outcome of any trial, and this includes the YUKOs trial.

On the regional authorities… and rumours

Muratov: In the city of Maiskii in Kabardino-Balkaria a rumour was doing the rounds that President Medvedev was soon coming to visit, since Medvedev’s grandmother lives somewhere in the region. And what did the local authorities do when they couldn’t find the said grandmother? Just in case, they re-laid all the roads in Maiskii; cleared out tonnes of rubbish; paved the main square; put up streetlamps; everyone was happy. Why don’t we spread rumours that Medvedev’s, Surkov’s or some other government ministers’ grandmothers live in various towns throughout Russia and perhaps the fear would make more local authorities come to their senses.

Medvedev: That’s quite a good technique… I can see what’s happened here. Once, in Maiskii, if I’m not mistaken, my grandfather worked as regional party secretary. This was 60 years ago however, but perhaps that’s where they’ve got it from.

On democracy in Russia.

Muratov: Today you’ve spoken about the elections, about control over bureaucrats, about the internet. Does this mean that President Medvedev is planning to rehabilitate democracy in Russia?

Medvedev: You know, I think that democracy in its own right is in no need for any kind of rehabilitation. Democracy is a historical notion and at the same time a wholly supranational one. Therefore democracy is not in need of rehabilitation anywhere. It’s another matter that for many of our citizens the very difficult political and, more importantly, economic upheavals of the 1990s at some point fused with the arrival of the first fundamental democratic institutes in our country. For these citizens these times were extremely difficult and this made a scar on their understanding of democracy. But this is just through personal experience, rather than their understanding of democratic institutions as a whole. Therefore I do not believe that we need to rehabilitate democracy. Democracy has been, is, and will continue to be.

... more

Oh mamma!

Photo: Ruslan Shamukov

Amongst numerous other things, the Russian authorities do not like demonstrations, protests, unsanctioned parades or any other form of public dissent. This was clearly indicated by the swift and high-handed termination of the recent “Dissenters’ Marches” of members of the political opposition by police. The forceful suppression of the latest demonstrations against the tax on imported cars served to show that any public display of opposition to the Kremlin’s policies, even by those not officially involved in the political sphere, would not be put up with either. Now, as this most recent incident demonstrates, the government’s intolerance extends to any form of protest however small, harmless and comical it may be. (Extracts from Kommersant 21 Jan.)

________________________________________

30 People in Mummy Costumes Arrested in Moscow

Approximately 30 people attempting to carry out an unauthorised demonstration demanding the removal of Lenin’s body from the mausoleum on Red Square were detained on Manezhnaia Square in Moscow on Monday. Approximately 30 members of the “Orthodox Monarchists” group had previously declared their intentions to organise a “flash mob” dressed in Mummy costumes on Red Square on the 85th anniversary of Lenin’s death.

According to the representative of the city’s police force, “A group of around 25 young people carrying a cardboard coffin were arrested by members of the police force."

Before the event, the organisers had stated that “this will not be a mass demonstration. There will not be crowds of people standing round and creating a scandal and so we hope that we will not be dispersed. The mummies will join onto the Communist’s march... Our demonstration is to demand that the government and communists rebury Lenin in a modest grave at Voklovskoe cemetery in St. Petersburg where there is enough space for him to be placed and where the communists will be able to come and pay their respects to Vladimir Il’ich (Lenin) in peaceful surroundings.”

... more

Protest, what protest?

Photo: Andrey Kremenchuk
Everybody in Russia loves their government; the Kremlin enjoys universal support, as all citizens rejoice that their authorities are working together to ensure a bright and prosperous common future. Right? Of course not, although you’d be forgiven for believing that, if your only source of news was the state-owned media.

A couple of weeks ago the Russian government announced plans to raise customs duties on imported cars, in a protectionist move to defend the struggling Russian auto industry. The decision, which many say will have a direct and negative impact on their income, caused uproar in cities throughout Russia, although noticeably in Vladivostok, where hundreds of people turned up bearing banners saying ‘No to import duties.’

What’s interesting here is not the fact that the government has decided to raise import duties - I’m not an economist and I couldn’t say whether the raised taxes are a good or bad thing. What caught my attention was the way the incident was dealt with in the media; whilst the protests were covered by a few independent papers, not a word was breathed about it on Pervy Kanal, the main state channel, and coverage of the protests in most other papers and on other channels was patchy, at best.

Particularly telling was how the incident was reported in Rossiskaya Gazeta, the official state paper, in which state proclamations and new laws are announced. On 9th December the paper announced the government’s plans and then… everything fell silent. Despite people protesting across Russia, the editorial of RG saw no need to mention the disturbances. A few days later readers were told about demonstrations in support of the new duties, and were assured that, despite a global crisis, the Russian car-production industry remains the strongest in the world. But what of the protesters? Eventually their activities were recognised, when RG reported that grievances against the new taxes would be registered by federal agencies. Nevertheless, the way in which we were told about these protesters suggested that they were a minority, almost extremist group, whose protests should not be of universal concern.

This tactic of turning a blind eye to anything unpleasant is symptomatic of how much of the Russian media deals with anti-Kremlin protests. Rather than risk offending the Kremlin, it’s easier just to sweep everything under the carpet and not mention it all. But what opportunity does that allow for the expression of oppositionist ideas?

At the same that people were protesting the increased duties, a series of opposition marches expressing discontent with Russia's general economic and political situation were taking place across Russia. 15th December saw marches in 30 cities across Russia, organised by opposition political parties. The marches, however, didn't have an opportunity to take off, and were quickly broken up by the riot police, with participants being detained or whisked off into waiting trucks. Again, these riots were barely noted in the media. If its not reported, it didn't happen. And in a country as big as Russia, by not giving something adequate reportage you allow it to become an isolated event, effectively preventing further discussion on a topic.

As I was following all this, I was interested to come across an article in the St. Petersburg Courier, a free Petersburg weekly, which addressed media coverage of popular demonstrations. The author, Maria Shilova, noted the absence of media coverage of the anti-import and non-agreement marches, remarking how such protests provide the sole arena for citizens to express non-conformist opinions or a place to express constructive criticism. However, as the breaking up of the opposition marches illustrates, as a democratic pressure valve such marches are far from ideal: any attempts to express discontent will be immediately cracked down on. Shilova ended her article with the following question: And, if you’ll forgive me asking, how will the authorities know what they need to do, if we don’t have an arena for legal Constitutional marches and meetings? If we don't have freedom of speech, social discussions and transparency of information? If the authorities don't have to answer for their actions?

I can’t think of a better way to express the problems Russia faces if it really wants to develop the mechanisms necessary to create a solid civil society. If the country can't even recognise a plurality of opinions by reporting protest, then how can it ever hope to have a truly representative democratic society?

... more

Russia Receives an F for Media Freedom

Photo: James Hill
In September Reporters Without Borders (RBW) ranked Russia 141st (out of 179 countries) in its annual world press freedom index. Describing Russia as a ‘would-be great country’, the report lamented the Putin-Medvedev duo’s strict control over both state and opposition media, as well as the physically and mentally threatening atmosphere in which Russian media professionals work.

In a detailed report, RBW criticised numerous elements of the Russian media, including the abuse of journalists by the militsia during protest marches; searches of editorial offices and news agencies; the closing down of the Samara and Nizhni Novgorod branches of Novaya Gazeta (the left-wing paper, for whom Politkovskaya wrote); the change of leadership and editorial policy of the Russia News Service and the disappearance of the BBC from FM-broad wave. They also expressed further concerns about how the investigations of the murders of journalists Anna Politkovskaya and Paul Khlebnikov are being carried out, and about the circumstances surrounding the death of Kommersant journalist Ivan Safronov.

Why then, if the media is so strictly controlled, are we choosing to base a substantial part of this blog on translations of articles written in the Russian press? Surely any ideas expressed there will be heavily censored and artificial? Well, no, not exactly. Certainly, as the RBW report highlights, it would be ridiculous to speak of freedom of speech within Russia. As the trial of Politkovskaya’s murderers progresses, a poignant reminder of the pressure Russian journalists face, to do so would be an insult to all those journalists facing constant harassment as they attempt to exercise their constitutional right to freedom of speech. However, as I hope the excerpts from following article shows, public opinion, as expressed by journalists, academics and bloggers, is not entirely homogenous. Despite the climate of fear and oppression, the Russian state does not hold journalists in a totalitarian grip. On the contrary, it is possible to find a huge range of opinion pieces in the Russian press, including some that vehemently attack the status quo.

This article, published 28th September in Nezavisimaya Gazeta (The Independent Gazette), is an example of attempts to challenge the status quo and express genuine opinion. In the light of the RBW conclusions, the author, Stanislav Minin casts a critical eye over the state of the Russian media and how it is perceived within Russia.

“Many will argue that the conclusions of RWB are biased. Indeed, any ranking in which Russia comes lower than two thirds down the table is said to be biased. The question is not whether a rating is biased, but rather which bias underpins this particular ranking. Thus, in recent years we have learnt that there are two understandings of human rights: Western and Russian. Similarly, it is suggested that what constitutes freedom of the press is open to different interpretations. It follows that we should not therefore be worried about being ranked 141st in their list.

Freedom of the press demands that journalists are not shot, beaten up, thrown into prison or expelled from the country; that journalists do not receive threatening phone calls; that the State cooperates with them and does not obstruct their access to important information; that undue political pressure is not placed upon writers, so that self-censorship turns into an absence of criticism; that the authorities’ activities are critically examined; that the government neither possesses a monopoly on the mass media nor strives to do so. In these requirements I see nothing specifically Western nor biased.

When we say that ‘Russia has an independent (i.e. independent from the government) press’, we are immediately highlighting the fact that Russia has a problem with freedom of the media. It is a question of word usage. Democratic countries have no need to proclaim that they ‘have’ an independent press, since in these countries the concept of a state media simply doesn’t exist. By claiming to have an independent press, we are immediately aware that there must also be a government-controlled press, against which the independent media is defined.

What’s more, when we say that ‘Russia has an independent press’ we sometimes forget to describe the conditions in which it exists. The independent media is owned by independent businesses, which are themselves often uncertain of their security. Consequently, the media is likewise left feeling unsure of itself. Neither the Russian government nor Russian society enjoys debate; they don’t know how to participate nor do they want to learn. Any alternative opinions are thus seen as marginal and those who pronounce them are dubbed ‘fifth columnists’. As a result, the idea of freedom of the press is not accorded much respect, a problem compounded by the impurity of those in power, their backwardness, their short sightedness and their one-sided understanding of the nature of the media and its complexities. [Given such conditions] it should not come as such a surprise to be ranked 141st in the press freedom index. Russia fails with regards to media freedom.”

... more