Letters have started coming in with reactions to my post about fear and loathing.
I’m reading them with enormous interest. Many thanks to everyone who has paid attention to this discussion. Let me repeat: this is not a theoretical, historical, or political-science debate. It is the most urgent discussion about how to defeat the “Putin regime.” Because that regime is not just Putin personally, but also part of the elite, broadly understood, which considers the current way of governing our country acceptable. “Yes, of course there are excesses, but overall it’s acceptable. There’s no other way. That’s the kind of people we have” (quote).
And we—the opposition—have a different point of view… “Uhh… what exactly is it?” voters ask us. And it turns out we still haven’t even decided whether election fraud and corruption should be discussed. Victory over the “Putin regime” ultimately means defeating its supporters at the ballot box. But on our banners we have Chubais, Sobchak, Yeltsin’s Constitution, and an alliance with Khodorkovsky’s Wagner-style PMC (private military company). Great.
A guaranteed 1.5% in unfree elections and 0.5% in free ones. I’ll try to write in detail about all this in my response to the responses, once I’ve read everything and thought it through.
But for now, two very important points about the discussion as it unfolds.
First. I rewrote this part three times, lowering the level of insults and personal attacks each time, until I arrived at a friendly and constructive tone (I think).
I’ve been blogging for about 20 years and have written thousands of posts. I’ve been in prison for 2.5 years now and have still managed to write a few things.
But for only the second time in my life (the first was after the post “I Am Ashamed of Mikhail Khodorkovsky”), I’m facing a reaction in the form of blatant, brazen lies claiming that I am supposedly not the one writing these texts. These lies range from the direct (“Navalny isn’t writing this”):
to even more nauseating evasions and hints along the lines of: “Many people say he didn’t write it, but there have been no denials, so maybe he did, but really who knows.”
Note that this is not just lying on social media—someone even paid for and placed this planted article.
What needs to be understood here is that I am the one being accused of lying. So that means I’m lying to you. Someone else is writing for me, and I’m passing off those texts as my own. And not just technical texts, but programmatic ones. Don’t play dumb and pretend I might not know about this. The level of my isolation is very high. But I, like any prisoner, have the right to correspondence and to express myself in any way I choose.
I have already spoken out clearly about these “doubts about authorship,” and I am repeating myself for the last time—politely and constructively, but firmly.
Some of those repeating this lie are simply foolish. We can forgive them.
Some are hypocrites. They know they’re lying, but they play dumb. Fine, that too.
But the organizers and relentless promoters of this idea are not only disgusting scoundrels and shameless people—they are also public informers (snitches).
Let me explain.
What was I just given 19 years for? For words. Literally. For posts and videos that a Putin-controlled court declared extremist. A significant part of them were published AFTER I was imprisoned.
And in the ongoing investigation in the terrorism case, the substance of the accusation is the same—internet publications. But all of them were posted after I was imprisoned.
You cannot imagine the extent to which the interests and arguments of those liars and crooks discussing my authorship on social media coincide with those of Putin’s investigators.
— Are you the one writing this? Confirm authorship. And how are you writing it? No, let’s discuss it. How exactly is it done technically? Do you have a phone, or are you passing it through someone? Through lawyers or through letters? We need to know absolutely everything. Explain yourself to us.
Because what these bastards are doing is exactly a public denunciation. They know perfectly well, they understand everything, but they keep at it: “And how will you prove it’s you? Come on, reveal all the details to us. Otherwise we’ll keep putting on our fucking circus every time, claiming you’re not the one writing it.”
“And you, Comrade Bastrykin and Comrade Bortnikov, should check on them. Check everything and pay attention. How is it that he’s sitting in prison and still keeps writing improper things about Comrade Putin?”
“We’ll force him to tell everything now, and then you can take action. Shut down the whole chain. Put a stop to this outrage.”
That is exactly what this is. It may not look like a public denunciation, but given the persistence, that is what it is. And let’s say I personally have nothing left to lose—but I am not alone.
So here is my proposal to all decent people:
a) if you see yet another discussion about the authorship of political prisoners’ texts (except in obvious cases of hacked social media accounts, which are immediately clear), especially with “prove to us that it’s really you” and discussion of the mechanism—know this: you are looking at a liar, a scoundrel, and an informer. Never trust such a person again.
b) If you see this, go into the comments and rub the scoundrel’s face in it. This issue concerns far more than just me. There are many political prisoners, and there will be more. All these stupid discussions will make life harder for them, their relatives, and their lawyers.
Important point number two. One of the most common reactions from those who took my post as criticism directed at them looks like this: “Everything Navalny wrote is wrong, but I can’t criticize him while he’s in prison.”
I urge absolutely everyone: let’s stop reasoning this way, it’s nonsense. Half a million people are in prison. Are none of them allowed to be criticized? And not all political prisoners are necessarily good or saintly people. Being in prison in itself does not make anyone better or worse. A person should be judged by their actions, not by where they are.
The only thing you shouldn’t argue with prisoners about is prison-related matters, because you understand nothing about them unless you’ve been imprisoned yourself. And even if you’ve read a pile of books about it and a relative of yours has been in prison—you still don’t understand. I’ve learned that from my own experience. And frankly, you don’t need to understand any of it; it isn’t worth it.
And most importantly: by doing this, you deprive me of the most important thing. The most valuable thing. Criticism.
How else am I supposed to think, work, and improve myself?
Criticism and competition are the foundation of progress; I (and the ACF, Anti-Corruption Foundation) cannot do without them.
For example, I criticize Alexei Venediktov, and I will continue to do so. But objectively speaking, it was he who did me (and the ACF) the greatest service over the past year.
He published Leonid Volkov’s well-known letter. That triggered a huge wave of criticism. It led to an extremely important discussion, both generally and within the ACF. We were forced to deal with a crisis. Lyonya resigned from his post as head of ACF International. We changed some of our internal procedures. We thought about how to fix the problem, and we fixed it. Leonid explained his actions very thoroughly and publicly (one, two, three). I also made a statement about it.
The ACF gained critical experience, corrected a mistake, and became better. Volkov responded like a responsible politician, corrected a mistake, and became better. He is now working very successfully on our most important project. I, too, got my share of criticism then, and I will take that experience into account in my work forever.
You, in turn, also gained useful knowledge: you saw how the ACF handles a crisis situation. Whether it corrects mistakes. Whether it acts responsibly. Now you have a better idea of what to expect from us and how we would act, including if we were in power. You can compare our behavior in a crisis with that of other politicians and political organizations.
Criticism and competition turned out to be useful for everyone.
The same is true in the case of my post (a programmatic one).
I need your opinion. If you agree, that matters, and I will take note of it. If you disagree, I will either refute your arguments or agree with them.
You know, for a long time now, the phrase “the opposition is fighting again” has been an idiot marker for me.
These are political debates, even if they take place on Twitter or in Facebook comments. Without them, there is no life and no progress. If you want people with different points of view not to argue with each other, then you belong in United Russia or the CPSU (Communist Party of the Soviet Union).
So please criticize me if you disagree—I can’t do without it.
The English translation is here.