Day of farewell with Boris Yeltsin turned out to be something very qualitative for our society
It seems the day of farewell with Boris Yeltsin resulted in something very qualitative in our society. Certainly it was a sorrow, and a very personal sorrow, for anyhow everyone knew the first president of Russia. Everyone knew him as a real live person. not just a TV picture. And he was a powerful person. But it is also utterly good that after harsh and critical comprehension of the 90s so many people still feel a respect for him. Column by Vitaly Leibin.
It seems the day of farewell with Boris Yeltsin resulted in something very qualitative in our society. Certainly it was a sorrow, and a very personal sorrow, for anyhow everyone knew the first president of Russia. Everyone knew him as a real live person. not just a TV picture. And he was a powerful person. But it is also utterly good that after harsh and critical comprehension of the 90s so many people still feel a respect for him. A lot of people were queuing for hours to the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour, even more were bringing flowers and just gave them to those, who had chances to pass through and bid farewell. People who were standing closer in the queue had tens of bunches in their hands.
This respect is a sign of a good social situation. It is amazing how many people respect both freedoms associated with the 90s and the tradition that has been interrupted by the Revolution of 1917. It is, nevertheless, the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour. But what is more important, it is a respect for our own country and state. One can hardly find a person who had nothing to criticize Boris Yeltsin for, but it doesn’t disaffirm a respect to the first personality of the own state. “This country” has finished; “our country” is starting. Even the way the president has resigned, it is a deed.
***
I think, I have not got yet an intrinsic right and proper perspective to speak further about Boris Yeltsin. But nevertheless it is impossible to stop reflections about us, about the contemporary society, about position of journalist. And it is better to begin with polemics, critique. And in the first place, certainly, I would like to argue with the authors of my favorite “Polit.ru”.
Leonid Rusov writes about the construction of new Russia: “…but it had to be done not by Yeltsin, but by completely other people”. In my view it’s very important to precise: history does not ask about “who should have done”, but who can do. In the point of historical choice he proves to be, who is corresponding to the choice. The Soviet government of the past years has listened “democratically” to many different opinions with the only goal… not to take decisions. It was obvious to all specialists that half measures such as “models of self-financing” had become desperately old; somebody had to decide on real capitalism with all its expenses. And tt was namely Yeltsin who did it.
The same thing is not only in economy, but at all points. Egor Gaydar, headed the first real Yeltsin’s government, is known to become quickly respected by army generals, since he was the first leader who took the liberty of saying: “I order to perform the task by all possible means”. Till then the central authority has been expressing itself very vaguely, ducking out, exposing the executors. Naturally everything has come apart.
The state has begun with Yeltsin. In this meaning he and his reformers are the most real statists. It’s clear also because of the fact, that the choice of a successor has been realized first of all according to criterion of human courage and power (see – “waste them in the outhouse”), principle of statism.
There were probably people better conforming to the spirit of change – more educated, democratic, humane… But were there any people capable to take upon themselves the responsibility for the country and such actions that will make them repent afterwards? To order to use “all possible means”? To take decisions with the risk to provoke a quite understandable hatred of million people? Criticism, from the viewpoint of humanism ideals, is needed and useful to the country. But one thing is the position of critic, another – the position of a man, who takes decisions at his own risk, takes a sin on his soul, mistakes, but nevertheless is not afraid to follow his way.
In that seems to be a real historic tragedy of the intelligentsia, the class responsible for humanitarian principles and ideals. It was most likely possible in some moment to leave the dissindent position, to declare the new Russia as own state and to bear responsibility for it. And if in 1992 the state had become “ours”, but not “this”, it would have been more space in it for ideals and values and less for rough red tape. Historically only the circle of economist-reformers turned out to be ready not for demolition, but for creation. That’s why, it’s better now with economy then with anything else.
The situation of criticizing theses of Polit.ru a little from aside is new for me (at present, still keeping the tradition of our internal discussion, also in the framework of “Public lectures”, I’m not the chief editor of Polit.ru; I’m engaged in launching new, very interesting, in my view, project – the magazine “Russian reporter” of the publishing house “Expert” and it seems to be very important and in an amicable way symbolical, that Polit.ru is now headed by Andrey Levkin, its first chief editor, the author of the first, “nice” Polit.ru’s period). Thus, such position of slightly aside seems to be interesting and useful for discussing once more our grounds.
The position of publicist is, certainly, less dramatic then the one of statesman. Not everyone can and must know how to make systematically rough and cruel choices, be responsible for million lives. As for me, for example, in no account I would like to find myself in a situation when the decision on the storm of a building captured by terrorists should be taken, to take the risks of people’s death; at any variant of decision. But also rather high requirements to the publicist’s position exist – responsibility for the fate of many people.
Good Mass Media differs from the week one exactly by the clarity of the viewpoint. When it is not disguised in style and “trap of objectiveness”, but is clearly expressed. And the position of an “aside critic” as if we have to do with a foreign state – one of the weakest. The position of Polit.ru – as far as I understand, is the position of stopping the “cold war”, search for consensus grounds for Russia, for example, over foolish division into “liberals” and “statists”, “traditionalists” and ‘innovators”. We were not afraid to advocate simultaneously the state interests of Russia and civilizing, freedom and right of citizens. The first without second threatens to be the usual attempt of violent modernization, the second without first – the disintegration of our country.
It seems to me, however, that we all relaxed sometimes and slip up to the insipid criticism. It’s clear, that since Polit.ru is open to many opinions, it is responsible for polemics of different parts, and it is quite natural that much criticism appears. But in some very important episodes the editorial position must be expressed more distinctly.
The last episode where I see the deficit of position is the discussion of the March of Dissenters. According to some columns in polit.ru one could think that we are on Limonov’s, Kasparov’s and Kassyanov’s side. For what reason? We has invited both Garry Kasparov and Eduard Limonov to our lectures and discussed many things. At least we understood that it was difficult to get till the grounds of their positions – there is somewhat of a bung there.
I understand, certainly, those, who took part in the March through curiosity or aversion of official red tape. Many of my friends were there. I suppose also that a range of measures on restriction of freedom of processions was excessive. I understand also how it’s unpleasant when mass-medias accuses all dissenters, without distinction, of having sold themselves to the West. Of course, the majority did not get any “dirty dollars” from anybody. As by the way, it was in Kiev. But it does not abolish the fact discussed many times of purposeful and rather expensive, apropos, activities aimed at overthrowing the regime in Ukraine.
As well as the fact that organizers of the March of Dissenters went to the deliberate provocation of clash between citizens and riot police. It was their objective, indeed. That is such savagely cruel way of political campaign aimed at the Western audience, the way of mobilizing supporters – through fight. The more collisions, the better for their objectives. Doesn’t it deserve moral condemnation?
If Kasparov and Limonov are such specific idealists, there are people among organizers who are making business or carrier. I’ve heard with my own ears how one of the leaders of a youth organization (I don’t mention him in order not to do much harm, the matter is not in him personally) was telling with rapture that “colored revolutions” is a technology, and that they have learned how to make it, and the main thing is not in essence, but in right organization of protests. In other words in his world outlook he is a villainous manipulator. And such manipulators worked for this boom in press that police fought against poor people, without discussing their provocation, without discussing their aims and content of their activity.
The senseless position always becomes restricted, manipulated, and advantageous for those who understand their objectives. Insipid article is a free of charge instrument for somebody’s propaganda. Stupidity is too expensive in the proper meaning of the word. It’s stupid to opposite the state agitation and to be instrument of anti-state propaganda. The freedom of speech, non-manipulated statement requires own pithy position of the editor and mass media.
I think that we understand it identically.
