15 November 2024
by Aleksandr Podrabinek
Source: Radio Svoboda
You have no coherent political program. You have no leader. You are unable to unite. You have no plan of action for post-Putin Russia. What are you proposing? What are we supposed to do? Who are we supposed to follow?
Nearly everyone attempting to engage in or write about Russian oppositional politics has had to listen to these kinds of reproaches on the brink between despair and irritation. The people have by no means been silent, and many have been seeking a way out of the authoritarian impasse. At the same time, in the most paradoxical way, the enemies of authoritarianism want to lean on political leaders who might draw for them a handsome and coherent road into the wonderful Russia of the future. “Show us the way, and we’ll take it”—that’s approximately what many people who disagree with the regime but are counting on an abstract leader are saying or thinking.
It’s a very sad story. The search for a political healer who will write a prescription for Russia’s recuperation demonstrably attests to these people’s unreadiness to search independently for a way out of the crisis.
The social demand has been heard by the liberal opposition, a significant portion of which is now quartered in the West. There are lots of suggestions, and the discussions can be quite pointed, all the way up to ad hominem attacks. Some feel that only Ukraine’s military victory can vanquish authoritarianism. Others see putting Putin on trial as one of the principal objectives. Still others seek salvation in purification. And some blame corruption for everything. Another group thinks it essential to divide Russia up into multiple separate countries, which would automatically guarantee each of them prosperity and democracy and the surrounding world stability and security. Quite specific debates are under way, for example, about the independence of Udmurtia or Tatarstan.
A large number of unresolved questions truly have accumulated in politics, in economics, and in law. Oppositionists of a liberal bent have their own answers for them, modeling an image of a future Russia in virtual reality. The answers might vary, but these oppositionists are united by one shared feature: they are solving these questions as if they possessed the fullness of power. They know for certain what needs to be done and are ready at the very first opportunity to bring their solutions to life, taking other opinions little into account. You get the impression that in their dreams they see themselves in Putin’s place.
Meanwhile, all these issues—from a trial of Putin to Russia’s breakup—have a tactical quality. The strategic objective of the liberal opposition that, in my opinion, is worthy of any efforts and important for the present day is the creation of instruments of democracy, the return of life forces to our depleted democratic institutions. And if this cannot be done in today’s Russian reality, then it is this objective that should take first place: today in the consciousness of the opposition, in discussions and negotiations; tomorrow as the first step on the path to restoring democracy and a legitimate regime in Russia. The creation of the instruments of democracy, not trials, purification, or the fabled decolonization.
A presentation of what the instruments of democracy in Russia should be like is the positive platform that could unite the political forces that want to see Russia a free, democratic, and rule-of-law country. Yes, along the way, lovers of socialism or nationalists—everyone rallied by the anti-Putin rather than the democratic platform—will probably fall away. That’s fine. The world has accumulated sufficient experience in building democratic institutions, and much of it may serve for Russia, too. The new Russian parliament may be deciding questions of war and peace, annexations and reparations, state borders and the sovereignty of regions, purifications and punishments for crimes against humanity. A sound instrument for solving problems in a democratic state is more important than the decisions themselves.
Translated by Marian Schwartz
