Russia Profile
December 22, 2008
Mercy for the Fallen
Acts of compassion should be the rule, not the exception
Comment by Alexander Arkhangelsky
In the past month small, unconnected and apparently spontaneous steps forward have been made on several humanitarian issues. Alexander Arkhangelsky argues that these could be a reason for optimism, if the state allows these small steps of compassion to become the rule, rather than the exception. The alternative continuing to resist opening up the political system means denying any outlet for popular sentiment to let off steam. The results of that could be disastrous.
Humanitarian news of the previous month. Svetlana Bakhmina gave birth in a civilian hospital. Vasily Alexanyan may be released on bail, though the bail is set, to be perfectly frank, at an outrageously high sum. Murat Zyazikov’s frenzied clan is in hopeless resignation. Nikita Belykh has come a very long way from Perm to Vyatka, i.e. from uncompromising opposition to gubernatorial power.
Of course, the right thing to do would have been to have pardoned her a long time ago; and not only to pardon her, but to use her particular situation to grant amnesty to all pregnant inmates and those who recently gave birth. And then, once and for all, to give up the idea of using female hostages in the titanic struggles of men. In accordance with the laws of humanity (and without breaking the laws set by the judicial system), the ailing Alexanyan should have been set free two years ago.
And not on a humiliating 50-million-ruble bail, but on a simple signed statement of commitment not to leave the city. Based on sensible reckoning, it’s not even clear how the wacko Zyazikov with his whole horde was ever allowed to take power in Ingushetia at all. As for the competent and reasonable members of the opposition, they should have been built into the system of gubernatorial authority back at the end of the second term. In order to at least partly soften the consequences of the Beslan decision. And to call on ambitious young guys to serve the society; young guys who want to work, but don’t want to be part of United Russia. And then to start further softening of the regime.
This is the right thing to do. But inside the political pressure cooker, to which the regime closed the lid after turning the stove on, you have to act differently; by opening the lid slightly from the inside, before it gets opened from the outside or before the pot explodes. Inside the pressure cooker, any actions (or counteractions) are reviewed not in perspective, but post factum; so this happened good (or, alternatively - terrible). In an open political system, the easing of Bakhmina’s fate, the softening of Alexanyan’s lot, the parting with Zyazikov or the bringing of Belykh in closer to the regime should all be evaluated based on some linear scale: enough / not enough / necessary / too little; the main question is what it will lead to, and what steps will be next, and after that, and then after that. For an open system presupposes both a general sequence of actions and a certain perspective. And in a closed system, there is no perspective. And thus there can be no sequence. A different law reigns here: a law of self-sufficient bubbling. Some event didn’t happen for a while, and then boom! it suddenly happened. Which does not in any way mean that the effect follows from the cause, that the event will be in any way developed or that the next step will be a continuation of the previous one. There is no connected chain of events. There are just events as such. Events that can turn into something, or might not turn into anything. And that is exactly why they should be evaluated in themselves. Outside of any political, economic or social perspective.
In this sense Bakhmina’s civilian hospital is self-sufficient. Not because a pardon will or will not follow it, but because it’s better for a woman to give birth among civilians. For any woman. Whether she’s a hostage (for) Khodorkovsky, a homeless man’s girlfriend or an oligarch’s bankrupt widow. And that’s all there is to it.
And it’s better for Alexanyan to have a chance of going free on an outrageous bail than not have such a chance at all. It’s better for Zyazikov to quietly sit off on the side, regardless of whether his removal will become a precedent, whether it will lead to new dismissals of the more monstrous regional bosses. It’s not bad for Belykh to test himself in this new capacity. It doesn’t matter whether any other member of the opposition will be allowed to move from political obscurity into the gubernatorial field.
It is a different matter that sooner or later the number of “bubbles”, if they don’t stop at some point, will become a kind of boiling. On its own accord, too. Regardless of the plans and intentions of the authorities. And the closed lid will rise slightly and give vent to the boiling public energy. Or it won’t rise, and the lid will be blown off, while the pot itself bursts too. And this is something we wouldn’t want to happen, honestly. Hence the unpleasant, by reason of its irrationality, question, “What should we think about these independent bubbling impulses?” has to be answered positively. We should think they are good. With all the possible reservations. Let the brew bubble. Let the lid rise. If you take the lid off maybe the steam will blow off, too.
Of course, it’s much more romantic to run around a square with flags and banners and to delight freedom-loving folks with your polished bourgeois look; but what if the folks turn around and trample over the brave rebels? Alas, it is not possible to completely eliminate this possibility. Unless the lid rises slightly. And what if it is opened, after all?
What if the mercy for the fallen grows from the level of unsystematic pittance to the level of state norm? If the soft force applied to the robbers in uniform and epaulettes turns into a political rule? And if the “change of residence” for the dissidents will be consistent? Great, then! Nikolay Turgenev, author of the books Theory of Tax and Notes of the Russian Man, perhaps the only member of a secret society who insisted on liberating the serfs before the introduction of the noble constitution, liked to repeat Chateaubriand’s maxim this way: Revolutions are a double lesson of Providence. For the people: abuse is better than a Revolution. For rulers: abuse generates a Revolution.
So keep gurgling, self-willed and independent bubbles. Preserve your inertia. Maybe everything will work out. And if it doesn’t… it wouldn’t be the first time for this country to blow its lid.