Perry Anderson on "Russia’s Managed Democracy"

By Sean at 19 January, 2007, 3:45 pm

Perry Anderson, prominent left wing social critic and historian at UCLA, has written an insightful analysis of Putin’s Russia for the London Review of Books. I recently translated an interview Anderson gave to Kommersant, and in the LRB piece he elaborates on some of the ideas he presented there. I highly recommend reading it. It’s quite lucid and thick. Not to mention the guy can just flat out write. Here is an opening excerpt:

Russia’s Managed Democracy

Perry Anderson

Under lowering skies, a thin line of mourners stretched silently outside the funeral hall. Barring the entrance, hulking riot police kept them waiting until assorted dignitaries – Anatoly Chubais, Nato envoys, an impotent ombudsman – had paid their respects. Eventually they were let in to view the corpse of the murdered woman, her forehead wrapped in the white ribbon of the Orthodox rite, her body, slight enough anyway, diminished by the flower-encrusted bier. Around the edges of the mortuary chamber, garlands from the media that attacked her while she was alive stood thick alongside wreaths from her children and friends, the satisfied leaf to leaf with the bereaved. Filing past them and out into the cemetery beyond, virtually no one spoke. Some were in tears. People dispersed in the drizzle as quietly as they came.

The authorities had gone to some lengths to divert Anna Politkovskaya’s funeral from the obvious venue of the Vagankovskoe, where Sakharov is buried, to a dreary precinct on the outskirts that few Muscovites can locate on a map. But how necessary was the precaution? The number of mourners who got to the Troekurovskoe was not large, perhaps a thousand or so, and the mood of the occasion was more sadness than anger. A middle-aged woman, bringing groceries home from the supermarket, shot at point-blank range in an elevator, Politkovskaya was killed for her courage in reporting the continuing butchery in Chechnya. An attempt to poison her had narrowly failed two years earlier. She had another article in press on the atrocities of the Kadyrov clan that now runs the country for the Kremlin, as she was eliminated. She lived and died a fighter. But of any powerful protest at her death, it is difficult to speak. She was buried with resignation, not fury or revolt.

In Ukraine, the discovery of the decapitated body of a journalist who had investigated official corruption, Georgi Gongadze, was sufficient outrage to shake the regime, which was brought down soon afterwards. Politkovskaya was a figure of another magnitude. A better historical comparison might be with the murder of Matteotti by Mussolini in 1924. In Russian circumstances, her moral stature as an opponent of arbitrary power was scarcely less than that of the Socialist deputy. But there the resemblance ends. The Matteotti Affair caused an outcry that nearly toppled Mussolini. Politkovskaya was killed with scarcely a ripple in public opinion. Her death, the official media explained, was either an unfathomable mystery, or the work of enemies of the government vainly attempting to discredit it. The president remarked she was a nobody whose death was the only news value in her life.

It is tempting, but would be a mistake, to see in that casual dismissal no more than the ordinary arrogance of power. All governments deny their crimes, and most are understanding of each other’s lies about them. Bush and Blair, with still more blood on their hands – in all probability, that of over half a million Iraqis – observe these precepts as automatically as Putin. But there is a difference that sets Putin apart from his fellow rulers in the G8, indeed from virtually any government in the world. On the evidence of comparative opinion polls, he is the most popular national leader alive today. Since he came to power six years ago, he has enjoyed the continuous support of over 70 per cent of his people, a record no other contemporary politician begins to approach. For comparison, Chirac now has an approval rating of 38 per cent, Bush of 36 per cent, Blair of 30 per cent.

Read on . . .

Popularity: 4% [?]

Categories : Uncategorized

Comments
Cyrill January 20, 2007

Thank you very much for posting this, Sean. An exceptionally good quality essay. I was quite surprised to see so many allusions and references to fascism scattered all over the text. This sure touched a cord, since I have noticed some as well.

The ending is intriguing in its pessimism. I do not know that much about Russia-Europe relationships on personal level, other then that some Europeans are vocally protesting tasteless and rowdy behaviors at beaches and ski resorts. The sheer frequency of Russian speech in London is impressive.

I wonder if the reason so many of emigrants settle in London is related to this exclusion from Europe that the author talks about.

I agree that this exclusion is extremely unfair but it is something that I would expect from Europeans. It will most likely help the nationalist hand and if this is all true, Europe will eventually pay for this exclusion.

Unless Russia is not going to recover as well as we all hope. Oil prices are diving below $50 – still a nice margin, but a far cry from $70. It would be interesting to find out what percentage of their federal budget comes from oil and gas revenues.

For family reasons I had to get up close and personal with the medical system in Russia recently and it is atrocious. As far as I remember from a speech of their equivalent of Surgeon General Russia occupies 127th place in health care spending. I had no idea education is going the same way. However, the 3.7% the author talks about is most certainly mitigated by private funding. Several of my friends have school age kids and they sure contribute quite a bit I understand to schools and to teachers on an unofficial level. Similar to extra payments given to doctors and nurses under the table.

I most certainly need to get my hands on writings by Furman.

Johan Maurer January 20, 2007

Yes, thanks, Sean. I like the fact that Anderson’s point of view is personal and doesn’t pretend to be serenely detached. (I’m sure that in some of his comments about intellectuals he has very specific people in mind.) He doesn’t ignore street-level realities even as he’s setting a larger geopolitical context.

For example, I appreciate the observations of Alena Ledeneva and her nuanced description of human-scale irregular procedures as “essentially inventive kinds of illegality, developed in response to the increasing role of formal law in a society where legality itself remains perpetually discretionary and manipulated. As such, they at once support and subvert the advance of a more developed rule of law in Russia. Critical though her account of this paradox is, it comes with a wry affection and upbeat conclusion: all these ingenious ways of fixing or bending the rules contribute in their own fashion to an ongoing, positive process of modernisation.” My own cautious optimism is in just about the same place. Unfortunately, these tendencies are the private (and, to our minds, relatively innocent) parallel to the ruthless pragmatism at the top.

Anderson doesn’t say it in so many words, but this private legal creativity also has its political dimension. My impression is that, yes, many people approve of their president, but they are under absolutely no starry-eyed illusions about him. It’s his job to hold up the sky while they get on with their lives; his relatively unembarrassing representations of national identity, and the endless retro news stories about his meetings with his own staff, don’t impact their daily lives to nearly the extent that indifferent and capricious local bureaucrats do.

Finally, I’m grateful that Anderson doesn’t fall into the otherwise nearly universal hypocrisy of Westerners writing about Russia. Those of us who are Americans–and who care about human rights, due process, and democracy, are so used to our near-invisibility to our MSM and irrelevance to policy formation that we don’t react much to finding out that Bush claims the right to read our mail, never mind sending more of our young people to Iraq over Congress’s nearly-dead body. Why shouldn’t Putin get cynical about sanctimonious Western commentaries on Russia?

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.