Today, two weeks after the march, it is easy and even pleasant for me to write about it. Above all because I am convinced that the decisions made both by me and by Moscow Yabloko regarding the “Russian March” were the right ones. I have not had cause to regret them once, despite the fact that for my presence on the march’s organizing committee—which caused such a stir—I was attacked even at the bureau of my own party. In this article I would like to dwell on two points which, it seems to me, may be of some interest to readers of Russian Journal. 1. “Democrats on the March” Let me remind you that Yabloko’s monitoring of the “Russian March” was organized first and foremost in order to “prevent violations of the law, both by the authorities and by the participants in the event.” At the time this prompted no shortage of ironic comments along the lines of “they’ve taken over Luzhkov’s functions” (Yury Luzhkov, then mayor of Moscow) and “it’ll be interesting to see how they persuade skinheads not to stage pogroms.” I do not want to seem naive, and I will not claim that the actions of Yabloko’s observers had a decisive influence on how the event unfolded. But we did do something. The only substantive report on the actions of the police and the demonstrators during the “Russian March,” with a demand that the facts described be investigated, was sent to the Moscow Main Directorate of Internal Affairs by Yabloko member and human rights activist Andrei Babushkin, with the participation of your humble servant. We organized visits to police stations where people detained during the march were being held—participants, journalists, and simply random passersby who for some reason displeased our brave OMON riot police officers. Representatives of other parties and public organizations were nowhere to be seen in such visits. I would be glad to learn that I am mistaken and that some other die-hard “anti-fascists” also took on this rather unpleasant work. But apparently most of them preferred to resort to such a mighty weapon in the struggle against the brown threat as open letters. Some comrades, however, made a different kind of contribution. They gladly took part in a state propaganda campaign. These “representatives of the democratic camp,” their faces only vaguely recognizable, were pulled out of dusty closets, their frock coats shaken free of mothballs, and placed in front of the camera. The “representatives” uttered a few stock phrases about “Russia-is-heading-for-disaster-the-regime-is-encouraging-fascists-this-is-all-very-dangerous,” after which they returned to their usual lethargic state, filled with dreams that the situation in the country would change and they would once again be in demand. The fiercest representatives of this irreconcilable liberal camp surprised us by not even showing up at the anti-fascist rally on Bolotnaya Square organized by human rights activists. Well then, that too is a position. The strangest thing, though, was the reaction to the attack by some thugs on the anti-fascist rally. Or rather, the absence of any reaction. Two hundred people armed with metal rods tried to break into someone else’s event and disperse it. The police dispersed them instead. The next day it was all conveniently forgotten. No one was held accountable. Excuse me, but has this become a normal occurrence in Moscow? Does it not deserve a special response? We have traffic jams, unaffordable housing, Petrosyan on television (a ubiquitous Russian TV comedian), and skinheads breaking up rallies. Is that just how we live now? Surely those thirsting for a **real **struggle against fascists should at least raise the question of who these people are, who organized them, whether they are connected to the “Russian March,” and so on. Forgive me for boasting, but if all these signatories of anti-fascist letters and participants in endless round tables had done the elementary things that Moscow Yabloko did, fascists would have disappeared from Russia’s streets. 2. Who Owns the “Russian March” Attending the “Russian March” finally convinced me that the idea of taking away from fascists the right to proclaim national ideas and depriving them of leadership positions in the “Russian movement” is not only entirely correct—it is entirely feasible. We have one stubborn fact: even at the “Russian March” held on November 4 of this year, for all its dubiousness, the fascists were in the minority. They were already marginal even there. Yes, they make the most noise and attract the most attention. But people mostly recoil from them. Here is my primitive sociology. Of the three thousand who gathered, perhaps four dozen were clearly bound for prison. About three hundred were football fans. They just wanted to cause trouble, no matter under what slogans. Two hundred were fifteen-year-old louts from vocational schools who really ought to be given a preventive whipping. A few elderly women—fans of Kvachkov. A few nomenklatura types from tiny nationalist parties. A fair number of people who were simply crazy (there are plenty of those at any rally). And finally, fifteen hundred perfectly normal people, a significant number of whom came as a protest against the idiotic hounding of the “Russian March” and its administrative ban. For these people, “Russian” means neither national superiority nor a desire to smash anyone up. Ordinary average citizens. They came out of curiosity. They probably looked at what was happening with some bewilderment and then quietly went home. Where the TV told them they were a bunch of scoundrels who had intended to ruin the holiday for the whole country. And where they read a letter from the honored democrat Leonid Gozman saying that they were trash who would never find work, that girls did not like them, and that they should be destroyed. One can, of course, try to destroy them. But for some reason it seems to me that the brave brawler Gozman would be the one to get it full force. And the rest of us along with him. I think it would be more correct not to destroy anyone, not to try to reinvent the wheel, but to do simple and understandable things aimed at rehabilitating the national movement. Especially since the law directly instructs us to do exactly that. Fascists, pogromists, and those who incite ethnic hatred should be jailed without hesitation. The mentally ill should be treated. Teenagers should be educated. Normal people should be given the opportunity to act legally and express their views. Attempts to discredit the national movement as a whole—something the authorities and some irresponsible opposition figures are now engaged in—are foolish and futile. Because you cannot discredit a people. One hundred and twenty million Russians will not want to renounce being Russian. Just as Georgians want to be Georgian. Japanese want to be Japanese. And Tatars and Bashkirs want to be Tatars and Bashkirs, not some kind of abstract “Rossiyane” (the civic term for citizens of Russia). I am convinced that if we do not want a fascist “Russian March,” then let us organize a normal “Russian March.” We need this march. The question is whether we will hand it over to the radicals. To surrender the “Russian March” and instead organize some nonsense like the hugging of twenty thousand people staged in Omsk by United Russia on November 4—that is exactly what the “brown” forces are hoping for from us. I do not think we are currently so ideologically wealthy that we can afford to make such expensive gifts. And finally, a few words about the dominant position of the “liberal public” on the problem of the national movement. In general it is characterized by phrases like “it is dangerous even to talk about this” and “any attempt to ride this wave will lead to irreparable consequences.” We definitely will not be able to ride the wave—it has already washed over our heads. You can close your eyes as much as you like and think that if we do not see something, then it does not exist. But it seems to me that such an ostrich tactic will soon cost the politicians who adhere to it dearly. Because the sand beneath their feet is rapidly turning into concrete.
Loading PDF...
1
/
0