| Other Photos |
 |
|
 |
“We” Were the First
// On September 29, 2004, the newspaper “Komsomolskaya pravda” published an interview with Vladislav Surkov
During the past ten months Vladislav Surkov promised the country not only to “Ours”. The mass media published three interviews with him in which he outlined the new image of the country: for its people, for business and for the world public. During the time which passed from the first publication in September 2004, his formulations became more polished and subtle; what could at first seem the initial symptoms of persecution mania, now looks a well-shaped state philosophy. Surkov's pronouncements now acquire the status of sacred texts. And one should not argue against them, one can only comment on and interpret them. “Vlast” magazine does this as it thinks fit.
On September 29, 2004, “Komsomolskaya pravda” published an interview with Vladislav Surkov in which he, for the first time, outlined the picture of besieged Russia. On June 20, 2005, the German magazine “Der Spiegel” published another interview with him. And on July 11, 2005, the “Liberty” Radio made public Surkov's speech at a closed meeting of the general council of “Delovaya Rossiya” held on May 16. The key word in all three texts was “we”. It was used in various forms more than 160 times. But it was repeated ever more insistently in his speech before businessmen, which began with the words: “First, briefly, what we want.” In its comments on the texts of Surkov's triptych, “Vlast” proceeds from this “we”.
“We” and the West
“Their aim is to destroy Russia and fill its enormous expanses with numerous non-viable quasi-state formations. Unfortunately, they have not only the aims, but also the means… The main aim of the interventionists is the destruction of Russian statehood…The detonation of our southern borders as a means to weaken Russia was repeatedly used in the 19th and 20th centuries. We should remember this…The false liberals and real Nazis have much in common. They have the common sponsors of foreign origin, and common hatred for “Putin's” (as they say) Russia. But in actual fact, they hate Russia as such.” (Interview to “KP”).
“I don't speak of orange revolutions' or the activity of humanitarian institutions. Everybody knows that the Freedom House is headed by Woolcey who was the head of the CIA some time ago. Only an idiot can believe in a purely humanitarian mission of this institution… It would be good to flee to Europe, but they will not let us. Russia is a badly-lit outskirt of Europe, but not Europe as such. In this sense we are indissolubly bound with Europe and must be friends with it. There are no enemies in Europe, they are simply competitors. It's all the more vexing, since we're not enemies. One can die heroically in a war with the enemy in a frontal attack. There is something heroic and beautiful in this. Whereas to lose competition means to be a fool, a weakling. This is doubly vexing. It's better to be an enemy, but not ambiguous friends as at present…” (Speech to “DR”)
“The West is not obliged to love us…The time of romanticism has passed. We realize that we're surrounded by competitors, but not enemies. We have made little progress in the modernization of our society. We should look for technological and intellectual solutions in the West. The idea that we shall invent something new is preposterous. We should go to study as apprentices.” (Interview to “Der Spiegel”)
It is characteristic that in the Kremlin picture of the world there are teachers and pupils, friends and enemies, even rival apprentices, but no partners.
In this philosophy Surkov has historical precursors. Way back at the end of the 11th century, the Father-Superior of the Kiev-Pechersky Monastery, Theodosius, emphasized: “Don't adhere to Latin faith, don't use their habits, evade their Eucharist and theories, and don't accept their mores and morals. Beware of unbelieving dogs and all their words, for this Earth of ours is now full of them.” Nadezhda Krupskaya, Lenin's widow, was more outspoken and resolute when she said at a plenary meeting of the CC of the Bolshevik party in 1927 that “the argument about whether a war is inevitable or not is of no importance. We are faced with the need to prepare for war.” As we see, Surkov only follows a ten-century tradition.
“Today Finland, Estonia and the European Union have become more active in the sphere of the fate of the Ugro-Finnic peoples. It turns out that we suppress them in a certain way. They have no rights in our country. The regions inhabited mainly by these peoples have strategically important oil reserves. I am not a supporter of the theory of conspiracies. But, evidently, this is a well-planned system of measures. Last week the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe adopted a resolution on the subject of our oppression' of the Ugro-Finnic peoples (the Khanty, Mansi, Chuvash, Komi, and others).” (Speech at “DR”)
The information that the Finns are willing to drink the oil of Russian children can also be found in historical documents. “The reactionary circles of the Finnish bourgeoisie encouraged by foreign headquarters, contrary to the will of the Finnish people, continue to carry on the anti-Soviet campaign of lies and threats. They don't scruple to use slander and falsehoods about the USSR, allowing themselves systematic hostile acts against the Soviet state and dreaming of the annexation of the entire northern part of the Soviet Union. Apparently, the Finnish pig-heads' have lost reason and fell in delirium.” This was written by the Soviet press a week before the Soviet attack against Finland.
Here are the documents showing the aggressive plans of present-day Finland which caused Surkov's reaction. At the end of February 2005 a group of Finnish political and cultural figures published an appeal in support of the Mari people. “We representatives and friends of the Ugro-Finnic peoples of the world call on the Russian authorities to adopt urgent measures to stop the persecution of the representatives of the democratic opposition in the Republic of Mari El. We call on the international organizations in defence of human rights to support our appeal. In recent months the local authorities of Mari El did not do anything to stop the discrimination and outrages against Maris, thus creating an impression that they support such actions and even stand behind them. We state with regret that the authorities have done nothing to find the persons guilty of cruelly beating the editor-in-chief of the international Ugro-Finnic newspaper Kudo+kodu' and the leader of the All-Russia public movement of Maris Mer kanash', Vladimir Kozlov. The Maris are an important part of the Ugro-Finnic world and the next world congress of Ugro-Finnic studies is to be held in their republic. This is why it is all the more important that the Russian authorities in Moscow and Mari El should do everything possible to stop the infringement of the Maris' rights.”
On May 12 (four days before Surkov's speech) the European Parliament (but not the PACE) adopted a resolution on the infringements of the rights of the Maris (but not the Komi and other Ugro-Finnic peoples, and not the Chuvash, who are a Turkic people) in the Republic of Mari El.
Inasmuch as five oil deposits were discovered on the territory of Mari El in 2002 (each having 30 to 150 million tons of reserves), Surkov couldn't but suppose that it is because of them, but not because of some “ethnic minorities” or “fellow-compatriots abroad”, that the boll started rolling three years later.
“We" and Business
“We shall not allow a small group of companies to wield power in our country. This is not democratic. Apart from these few people there are 140 million poor relatives' Their views should also be taken into account. In our business community some people like to say I myself am from business.' There is a famous phrase of one of the US presidents, which sounds like this: What is good for General Motors is good for America.' I'd like to remind you that both Roosevelts spoke of business somewhat differently. I don't want to quote them not to offend you. Even the Secretary for Trade in the Kennedy administration would say; Yes, this is so, but it also happens not so.' Sometimes it's not good what is good for general Motors.” (Speech at “DR”)
People in Russia like to cite American politicians and businessmen. For example the phrase “He's, of course, the son of a bitch, but he is our son of a bitch.” is ascribed to all postwar US presidents. The same with the phrase about General Motors. In actual fact, President Eisenhower offered the candidacy of the president of General Motors, Charles Wilson, to the post of the US Secretary of Defence in 1953. During the Senate debate on this candidacy Wilson was asked whether he was ready to adopt decisions which were at variance with the interests of his corporation (he was its president from 1941). And he answered: “We in General Motors always believed that what's good for the United States is good for General Motors, and vice versa.” Wilson was approved for the post and remained there until 1957.
“We consider the situation abnormal when the state apparatus is controlled by several big companies. I worked in big companies myself and I know how this is done, and in general, I know this subject. Naturally, this does not mean that the opinion of business should be ignored. Simply, a civilized normal standard should be worked out. We understand full well that the best intellectual resources and most experienced personnel are concentrated in business. This is our national wealth. This is the basis of the political class which should be a leader in the country. Yes, it should lead, but not rule."
"We also adhere to the idea of the stability of property. There are extremes and exaggerations in some places, the special services and various people extort and try to change something in their interests, and this is a disease of entire society. Of course, the YUKOS case creates a negative atmosphere. But the President and other high officials try to give a signal to stop such things. The active position of business, its active self-defence are also important. One shouldn't place all hopes only on the state.” (Speech at “DR”)
This fragment outlines, in a slightly veiled form, the present Kremlin idea of the desired structure of Russian society. So, if representatives of the special services try to take away the property of businessmen, this is a disease of the whole of society. And you should fight this disease yourselves, don't rely on the authorities, they will not help you. But your attempts to “influence and command the state apparatus” are not a disease of the whole of society, but your own class disease. And we in the Kremlin will cure you in a proper way, perhaps, a bit too painful.
Thus society, as seen by the Kremlin, is divided into four classes: the people proper, the special services as the flesh and blood of the people (with all their diseases), big business as the prepuce of the people (with all its diseases), and, lastly, central power as the spirit of the people (free from all diseases). Business, despite its intellectual resources, is offered the enigmatic role of a leader, whereas the authorities (nothing is said of their intellectual resources) bear the burden of ruling everything.
“We” and the People
“I am sure that Russian people in a broad sense of the word are capable to create and live in democracy and enjoy its benefits. There is a certain historical path, but it shouldn't be jumped over. For this may break the neck of those why will try. We don't restrain anybody and anything artificially. We are simply afraid…
The new procedure of the appointment of governors was seen as an arbitrary act of the supreme authority. But we simply insured ourselves from certain idiotic things. Pardon me, but we are not cultured enough. It's not the question of distrusting the people. We simply don't want a Wahhabi to be elected in Daghestan.”
This passage again brings us to the subject of the division of Russian society into classes. Business, as we remember, should think less of profits, but heed the opinion of our 140-million-strong people more often. As to the Kremlin, it cannot afford simply to follow the desire of the people in such an important issue as the appointment of regional powers, for it is thinking of Russia as a whole…
“We” and Parliamentarism
“At the next elections we shall support “United Russia”, of course. I think it would be a grave mistake to reject UR in favour of some new party. In this way we shall never be able to set up a stable political system."
"We introduce a party system. Of course, we'd like to have the President a member of a party. Because as long as our governor and our President are non-party persons, the entire parliamentary system looks like a decoration. Today he is a conservative, tomorrow a right-wing, the day after a left-wing element. One of the assistants of a governor is responsible for the communists, another for the right, still another for the left. All of them are hostages. The governor summons his assistants and says: this will go to the communists, this will go to “UR”, this to some other organization. Is this democracy?"
"It seems to me that we should strengthen the right liberal modern Europeanized flank of “UR”. It is dominated by the left conservative elements, and if we let them act freely, they will do too much which we may not like…
Luckily, the leader of the party, if informal, is the President, and the country's policy is based on the need to adhere to certain values…
Many liberal leaders come to see me and suggest that we set up a new party. But I say why?', what for?' There are 300 places, go and take seats there. If you want to work in the party's leading bodies, do join them, there are quite a few decent people. But while we stand aside and criticize them with disgust, saying that they are simply a voting machine, a grey mass of mediocre people, nothing will change for the better. Let us get inside. If you regard yourselves bright persons, go in and this mass will also become bright. Meanwhile, all turn away from it and neglect it, thus you alienate power from yourselves.” (Speech at “DR”)
The Kremlin dwellers insistently persuade the “leading” class to join the leading party, however, they are not in a hurry to it themselves. This is not surprising, for to be the leading goat in a herd is not the same as to be the shepherd. And as long as the President claims the role of the shepherd, he will never enter the herd.
“We” and the National Elite
“I want to say that our project is quite ordinary, even banal. I'd call it sovereign democracy'. It's not good to add anything to democracy, because it gives rise to the question of a third road. But we are forced to do this, because the subject of sovereignty has not been dealt with properly by our liberal politicians. I often hear that democracy is more important than sovereignty. We don't agree with it. We think that both are needed. An independent state is worth fighting for…
Now about sovereignty. We believe in the national elite. Any well-to-do person in Moscow and London visits the same places. All Armani' boutiques look alike and sell similar goods. Naturally, such people as you and we think that we have integrated and borders no longer play any major role. But I repeat that we should remember that there are 140 million people who are far from rich and simple, living in our country. It's strange to neglect this circumstance. One could think that the political class worked by a shift method. In Monte Carlo and then here to pick up profit. This road leads nowhere. Despite the integration of western economies, the French elite is French and the German elite is German. I think that until the Russian ruling elite ceases to be an offshore aristocracy (perhaps, in the next generation) and becomes the national bourgeoisie, we shall have nothing good. We shall be floundering in a clinical gap'”. (Speech at “DR”)
Entrepreneurs should feel flattered. They were called the “elite” and promised a special protection of the Russian authorities which they will never have from the authorities of other countries. Peter the Great had almost similar views; he didn't hide his negative attitude to foreign entrepreneurs who held key positions in the economy of Russia by the time of his accession to the throne, justly believing that they would be bad villeins. At the same time he demonstrated a kind, paternal attitude to the Russian merchants who complained about the domination of foreigners and displayed their personal servile loyalty to the sovereign. We shall note that in the epoch of Peter the Great the French and German business elites emphasized in every way possible that they were not going to cringe to the powers that be,were interested in politics and political struggle, often received citizenship of other countries and displayed loyalty to other sovereigns. In any case, they maintained broad business ties with foreigners not fearing accusations of high treason and betrayal of the high title of the genuinely “national' elite.
The Kremlin has not formulated the criteria by which the “national” elite of modern Russia will be determined. Will it be a special “Russian” manner of dressing, behaving and thinking? Or will it be the pronounced hatred for cosmopolitan-minded entrepreneurs living in the Russian economic area (as it was the case of Nazi Germany)? Finally, what price should any entrepreneur pay for the right to be included by the authorities in the “national” category? These questions have no answers so far.
Afanasy Sborov
All the Article in Russian as of July 25, 2005
|
|
|
Photo: Dmitry Dukhanin
