The Decembrists

No one's quite sure what's going on in the streets of Moscow -- or what to call it -- but it's growing and powerful ... and could all end badly.

BY JULIA IOFFE | DECEMBER 9, 2011

MOSCOW – Tonight is the first night without protests here since some 6,000 young people gathered Monday night to express their frustration with the electoral fraud in Sunday's parliamentary elections and, more broadly, the institution of Putinism. They came out again Tuesday night, where they were met by thousands of drum-beating pro-Kremlin youth activists. And again on Wednesday. Nearly 1,000 people were arrested, and many of them -- including anti-corruption blogger Alexey Navalny, a political rising star since he coined the phrase "Party of Crooks and Thieves" to describe Vladimir Putin's ruling United Russia -- are still in jail. Moscow is filled with tens of thousands of extra Interior Ministry troops and armored personnel carriers, and the city's skies crackle with the sound of helicopter blades.

But what's next? In short: No one knows. Sure, the Russian blogosphere is deep into planning the next protest, scheduled in Moscow for Saturday and which, according to the Facebook group created for it, more than 30,000 people are planning to attend, and Yandex, the Russian search engine, has posted a map pinpointing the addresses and times of protests scheduled all over Russia. But, meanwhile, the Western press is scrambling to tag this phenomenon with something, anything -- the "Slavic Spring," "OccupyKremlin," or "White Revolution" for the white ribbons organizers are handing out -- to make it digestible, classifiable, understandable.

Neither the scope, nor the trajectory, nor the efficacy of the growing wave of protests is clear, and predicting, or even gauging, their success is still impossible. What is quickly becoming apparent, however, is that whatever is happening now is very real, and very different from anything that has happened in many, many years. Something, in short, has changed -- essentially overnight -- and there is no going back to the day before.

At least nominally, the protests are about contesting the outcome of Sunday's elections. There is some substance to this, as each day brings more and more eyewitness accounts of electoral fraud, of carousels, of ballot stuffing, of dead souls voting. There is a sense that, were it not for such tricks, United Russia would not have gotten even the paltry 49.5 percent of the vote that the authorities claim. In Moscow, according to an exit poll by FOM, a Kremlin-friendly pollster, United Russia got 27 percent, a far cry from the national average. Moreover, the people who came out on Monday night -- surprising both the Kremlin and the protest's organizers -- were people who had participated in those elections. For many of them, it was a concrete issue (feeling duped) rather than an abstract one. Perhaps this is why the numbers were so shockingly large by Moscow standards, which has up until now seen only sparse and largely radical or elderly crowds of a few hundred. (Though it should be said that protests over other tangible things, like foreign car imports or monetizing pensions, were always well populated.)

So what changed? It wasn't simply that people were afraid to get involved and now aren't. The axiom that people felt that it was pointless to protest was, in large part, true. For years, polls showed well over 80 percent of Russians did not believe they could influence the political process. And, for the most part, they were right, not least because people who do not participate -- either because they don't want to, or because they're disincentivized from doing so -- can have little effect. The lack of incentives to participate was important, and it was by design. So, too, was the official Kremlin line, which boiled down to this: After the chaotic and ruinous 1990s, the country needed stability and material comfort, while democracy and other such nebulous things could come at a later, unspecified time.

Ironically, the problem, at least for Putin now that he seeks to return to the presidency he first assumed on New Year's Eve 1999, is that he did provide the promised stability and economic benefit to many people, both intentionally -- by raising pensions, for example -- and unintentionally, as commodity prices took off during his initial tenure as president. This flooded state coffers, lined his friends' pockets, and at least some of it trickled down. For people who experienced the penury of the 1990s, these rivulets -- small as they were compared to the billions the new Putin set of oligarchs was making -- were nothing to sneeze at.

Yet it also meant this: Stability worked in ways Putin might now be paying for. As Robert Shlegel, a young Duma deputy from United Russia and commissar of the pro-Kremlin Nashi movement, told me a few days ago, "We have a middle class now. It may not be as big as in Germany and France, but it exists. And the quality of the needs in towns has changed, from how to survive to how to live. They have what to eat and what to drive. The question now is how to live with dignity and justice." That may sound like straight out of a political theory textbook, until you consider what he said when I called him on Thursday to ask about the growing protests. He recalled a conversation with a friend who said he planned on going to Saturday's demonstration. "I said to him, ‘What is the problem? You have a job, you have an apartment, you have a car. What else do you need?'" Shlegel recounted. Why, in other words, are you suddenly violating your end of the social compact of the 2000s: You get richer and buy cars and take vacations, but leave the politics to us.

What else do you need? As could be seen at the week's mass protests, and in the Twitter and Facebook blizzard in the days that followed, what these young, educated, urban, middle-class Russians of the Putin era need is exactly what Shlegel said they needed: dignity and justice. And not the lofty definitions of those words that one often hears in Washington. I mean something more basic: a state that trusts and respects its citizens, a state that sees its people as citizens rather than as bydlo, or cattle -- as the common saying goes in Russia. When Russians describe their political system today, the phrase they most often use is ruchnoe upravlenie, or manual control -- which, of course, implies an utter lack of both those things.

OLGA MALTSEVA/AFP/Getty Images

 

Julia Ioffe is Foreign Policy's Moscow correspondent.

F1FAN

9:48 AM ET

December 9, 2011

Why is it so easy

For the media in the US to point out the protests in Russia and Putin's 'undemocratic' crackdown on them and yet ignore the very same thing happening in the US?

 

WARREN METZLER

11:20 AM ET

December 9, 2011

I object

It is clear to me that the Arab Spring, and the new protests in Russia are about people who have never before in history free to be themselves are not demanding that freedom; which we in the West have had for centuries. The occupy movements in the US are almost all about people who are unhappy, and totally irresponsible in searching for and working for fulfillment blaming elements of society for their discomfort; classical spoilt children upset that mommy and daddy (the government) aren't giving them their latest toy request. Fundamental difference!

 

THESTEELGENERAL

11:28 AM ET

December 9, 2011

Too funny, warring

Too funny, warring medler,

people lose their jobs and homes, and yet you have the gall to describe them as "spoilt" This is why Obama will win, and you know it.
Chris Christie and Rubio knew it too, thats why they didn't run.

 

CALIFORNIAKEANO

5:21 PM ET

December 9, 2011

Big difference

One election is rigged by ensuring both candidates will serve those whose wealth allows for personal provisions, and the other election is just rigged at the ballot box.

 

LILIAMTIO

6:13 PM ET

December 9, 2011

That's exactly what i think !

That's exactly what i think ! I think we should stop looking elsewhere, like in sarcelles, when we got the exact same problem...

 

THESTEELGENERAL

11:26 AM ET

December 9, 2011

The better answer would

The better answer would be:
Because Big Corp owns US media, and they surpress real opposition. Things like the NYT, aren't real opposition anymore, so they get left alone.

Expect some to hide behind half-truths like

"Because it's always easier to point out mistakes that others make." or to flipflop like "Why is it so easy for the media in Russia to point out the protests in the US and mayorial 'undemocratic' crackdown on them and yet ignore the very same thing happening in Russia?" These are not untrue, but largely irrelevant observations

 

AARKY

11:37 AM ET

December 9, 2011

What are they protesting?

Perhaps the Russians under Putin are waxing nostaligic for the good old days of Chicago politics under the first Mayor Daley. " Vote early and often" was the battle cry. The US does sound like a bunch of audacious hypocrites when Hillary starts bleating at Russia about rigged elections.

 

WARREN METZLER

11:46 AM ET

December 9, 2011

Why are reporters so blind

I once read a good portion of a history book about Russia, and stopped when I reached the early 1900's, because I realized that the organizational structure, and therefore the mind-set, of the Communist Party in the USSR was identical to the mind-set and organizational structure of Russia since its organization into a unified country: ruler at the top, ruling class to support the ruler at the top (given lots of privilege to keep them quiet), small class of people allowed to rise on their own merits, and large class of basically sheep kept in ignorance and brutally treated if they got one millimeter out of line.

Having read many of Ioffe's former blog entries, I know she is fairly young and very intelligent, and obvious experienced of living in the West, so she doesn't have the ignorance of Western freedom, which many who grow up in the East and are educated don't. But here she is, like the vast majority of Western media types, totally misinterpreting people bent on a path.

Every human has a spirit, which is the core of that human, from which springs all that human's motivations. And in each person's spirit is hardwired (impossible to be removed) the desire to one day become fully free: able to be one's own person is all areas of that person's life; to experience fulfillment in one's work, to have authentically deep and rewarding social relationships, and to eventually know what is one's spiritual life and optimize it.

A new consciousness was installed in all humans in the mid-1960's, and all who are born since, which causes each person to know that she can be optimal in every area of her life; as in repeatedly experience the quality experiences described in the previous paragraph. And the Arab Spring, and now the Moscow Spring, are about people whose cultures never before in history offered that finally demanding that now be part of their worlds, and not just a dream that required moving to the West to achieve.

This I suggest is the basis for the Moscow protests, and not the various mechanistic ramblings Ioffe and her fellow Western media types appear only able to consider.

 

NONONSENSE

1:07 PM ET

December 9, 2011

same old same old

Here you have a journal with a first class reputation, an intelligent article containing at least some truths, and comments mostly from people fighting some other perpetual political war.

Its a sickness in our society, we have rights that Russians, Chinese, North Koreans can only dream about and how do we use that freedom? Mostly to say petty banal and useless things.

There is a large part of Russian culture (certainly not their government) that I love with a bright blue flame. There are very good, very kind and very talented people in Russia. There is also, unfortunately, a perpetual ruling class of thugs like Putin who repress them. Call them Tsars, call them communists, call them United Russia, it does not matter. The good and even great Russian people seem to be forever condemned to be ruled by repressive clumsy bas****s who brutally cling to their power at the expense of ordinary Russians.

This generation of the Russian elite is not quite as repressive as they could be, see the Chinese or North Korean govts. for that lesson. We will see what Putin and Co. are capable of. It will be almost comically clumsy, it will be oppressive, it will lie and hide behind outworn cliches about the west, but will it kill in mass numbers?

I hope it turns out better this time. My heart really does bleed for all the good people in Russia.

 

KAULITS

5:15 AM ET

December 10, 2011

Tsars, call them communists,

Tsars, call them communists, call them United Russia, it does not matter.

 

MARCY

12:46 PM ET

December 10, 2011

Hope For Peace in Moscow

I hope the problems in Moscow may soon be over. The authorities should be able to overcome this problem. And I have a special concern for the press, I just hope the press can provide balanced information, actual, and reliable, so that information is not distorted. Not only are easily digestible and understandable. Hope for peace

 

GC

10:04 AM ET

December 14, 2011

Comment

A very interesting article. Crucial also for me is the acceleration in needs, within the developing middle class, the increasing activism of pieces of european Russia's youth and a general discontent with Putin's return.
However all these topics do represent just a portion of Russia itself.

As the author herself, very wisely, recalls: "we are right back to Russia's historical problem, one that bedeviled both tsars and communist commissars before Putin: What to do with a liberal, educated, well-traveled elite that orients itself toward Europe and its democratic traditions -- but that is an elite nonetheless, separated from the rest of Russia by a massive chasm in outlook and upbringing as well as aspirations?"

First of all. Demonstrations are right now occurring in Moscow and St. Petersburg (mostly in the first, while the latter saw similar events in the recent past). These two cities are the two heads of the russian two-headed eagle, no doubts about that. But Russia is a continental nation and events in two cities do not allow us to speak about a nationawide trend (protests occuredd elsewhere, but in terms of post-election protests of this kind, organized on social networks, no other examples outside of Moscow and St. Petersburg can be found).

Second. Demonstrations till now saw a very small number of people walking streets and square to shout their rage. Now we are confronted with a potential 30.000-strong crowd which would stage a mass protest on Sunday in Moscow. This would mean a considerable increse in number (which would however remain quite small). We will need some more weeks tro see the effective strenght of the protesters.

Third. These kind of protests are basically organized by filo-western liberal organizations and parties (namely, Yabloko, Other Russia and various minor associations). These organizations, if we add to them Right Cause, got less than 5%. Do we want to acknowledge some 1.5-2% of votes taken away by frauds? Ok. So they got maybe 7%, all together. Given however that they run divided they would not have break anyway the 7% barrier.
The real Russia opposition is made by three other parties (called in the west "systemic opposition, a term that in my opinion often shows a lack of analysis): the Communist Party (which proposed a well arranged mixture of social and nationa-patriotic instances, namely: nationalizations, ethnic passports, fight against illegal immigration, crackdown on corruption etc), with its nearly 20% strong support, followed by Fair Russia (which after having performer a "puppet role", guided by the Kremlin, started to live on its own and now endorsed the platform of New Socialism, which basically reminds of a socialdemocratic one) and by the Liberal Democratic Party, which can't be described but as an ultra-nationalist and populist party (these last two parties with 13.22% and 11.96%).
Demonstrations of these parties have been often cracked down, members of the Communist Party in particular suffered attacks and personal violence in the last electoral campaign and if some frauds happened (as they probably did) votes were stolen from THESE parties, not from the unexisting liberal opposition. Many people tend to forget this in the west.

Fourth. In Russia there are definitely e number of issue on which popular discontent is more than comprehensible, namely: corruption (at various levels, law enforcement agencies stand high in this list as their actions affect everyday life of millions of citizens as well as the economic life of the country; in general corruption works prevents bigger inflows of investments and a better workability of the whole system; finally it slows down modernization), rule of law (many scandals made clear in the mind of many Russians that it depend on who you are and which friends you have what you will hear in a Crout when sued there), backwardness (linked to the first element and to the need for modernization), huge social differences (Russia is still affected by what I would call one of the biggest robbery in human's history, which was the savage plunder of former public-owned wealth; moreover, despite Putin's claim that he'd have eliminated the oligarchs "as a class" this did not happened; finally, a sort of middle class is effectively emerging right now, the so called "new rich", but unemployment rate and the % of people living below the poverty line [15% in 2007] tells us that major parts of the RUssian population still did not see any or saw few improvements since 1991), centralized control (Governors are appointed and not elected).
To these elements we could add now that probably the opinion of the present day leadership is turning negative, given its "self-sustaining" characteristics.

As a conclusion I would say that the reasons why liberals and city youth "uprise" are clear and comprehensible, moreover these very reasons cross for sure the ones which brought more than 40% of the Russian population to oppose to United Russia, but still we must acknowledge some major differences: the overwelming majority of the Russian populationd definitely do not share the same perception of current problems of the "liberal, educated, well-traveled elite that orients itself toward Europe and its democratic traditions". This is one of the main reasons why in my opinion this movement will remain minoritarian and very probably fail, if its goal is regime-change.
I do not think that the discontent which materialized in votes for LPRF, LDPR and SR will appear on the streets. I might of course be wrong, but right now I see these three parties more involved in the process of organizing their dissent in the Duma and its committees, so to "bend" United Russia to some of their proposals, than in planning mass demonstrations.

Then regarding the international response, I would just like to remind the US' far-sightedness in stating they would support the protesters and in making NATO officers name for the first time Georgia as "NATO aspirant state". So smart, Putin sends his thanks.

Finally, my personal opinion. I support Fair Russia's position and stand for further modernization, intrinsecally bounded to a decisive increase of welfare state and redistribution, crackdown against corruption and further emphasis on the necessity of a Constitutional State of the rule-of-law.
However, I still support one of Putin's most forward-looking core statements: evolution and not revolution. If we talk about regime change as a process of incresed competition between different views, I do stand for a more "hard (political) confrontation" between thse very views; but if the idea of regime change is to tear down the existent system till the ground, acknowledging United Russia just as one of the main gear of the system and KPRF, LDPR and SR as "systemic opposition", than I firmly stand against this (besides thinking that this scenario is even far from being in sight).