Barred.

In the news...Russia's reaction to the US Senate passing of the Magnitsky Bill.

On November 16, 2009, an auditor affiliated with a UK-based investment firm Hermitage Capital Management, died in the infamous Moscow Morskaya Tishina (‘Sea Silence’) prison. He had been held just a few days short of a year (when he would have been freed if the case was not taken to court), in connection with one of the biggest tax fraud cases in Russian history. The previous year Sergei Magnitsky had disclosed that Russian officials with connections to the mafia have re-claimed $230m dollars (5.4b roubles) in tax rebates previously paid by Hermitage’s Russian subsidiaries.  Hermitage’s owner, Bill Browder, was expelled from Russia in 2005 after his own probes into state corruption; Hermitage offices were raided in 2007 and the company accused of tax fraud. Magnitsky was hired to investigate these allegations and uncovered the illegal transfer of Hermitage's subsidiary companies to new owners, and the shocking, even by Russian standards, theft. Refusing to withdraw his testimony, Magnitsky was tortured, denied medical care for his heart condition and pancreatitis and, already critically ill, beaten to death with rubber truncheons. He was 37 years old.

Brutality in Russian prisons is not news. But, in this rare case, Magnitsky’s death became an international cause for justice, mainly thanks to Mr. Browder’s lobbying. Magnitsky’s prison diaries became a symbol of honour and courage in the face of total injustice, and he posthumously received the Transparency International award in 2010. President Dmitry Medvedev ordered an investigation into the murder in 2009, and a number of cases have been opened by the prosecution since. Apart of the ex-vice head of one of the three prisons Magnitsky was held in, whose case has been submitted to court a few weeks ago, no one has been brought to trial, or even close to a courtroom.

In the West, however, repercussions have been more appropriately severe. In 2011, Britain, US and Holland have barred 60 Russian officials from the so-called Magnitsky List from entry. In July 2012, an OSCE committee agreed on a resolution to introduce further sanctions against those officials on the Magnitsky list, barring them from entry into the European Union and freezing their assets. On July 18, 2012 the US Senate Finance Committee replaced the 1974 Jackson-Vanik Bill that denied favourable trade agreements to communist countries that hindered freedom of immigration, with the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Bill. The new version of the Magnitsky Bill, spearheaded by Senators John McCain and Ben Cardin, extends not only to those directly involved in the Magnitsky murder, but to officials who are responsible for human rights and democracy abuses, worldwide. The Jackson-Vanik has been viewed by many as outdated, and prevented PNTR (permanent normal trade relations) that negatively affected the US on the eve of Russia’s entry into the WTO this month. The Obama administration lobbied against the broader version of the Magnitsky Bill, thankfully unsuccessfully.

The new version of the bill has been a prickly issue in Russia. A delegation of parliamentarians visited Washington in early July to lobby against the passing of the legislation. They have provided documents containing testimony that alleges that Sergei Magnitsky was an active member of the criminal organisation that conducted the 2007 fraud, and that his detention was lawful. (To add insult to injury, a Moscow court announced in February that it is ready to resume the case against Magnitsky and Bowder, for the first time in legal history – posthumously.) According to Vitaly Malkin, who headed the delegation, Magnitsky had not received proper medical attention, citing ‘slovenliness’: ‘Magnitsky was 37 years old. When a man his age complains of stomach aches, no one takes it seriously. He drank, was not a sporty man. The doctor did not notice that he had pancreatitis. The committee finding show that there were bruises, but he died of pancreatitis.’ The findings of the Moscow Public Observer Committee that conducted the investigation into the death on Medvedev’s orders and has produced a report that detailed the physical and mental abuse endured by Magnitsky on a daily basis, were dismissed. Fortunately, so were the parliamentarians.

As I have previously written, Alexei Navalny – the blogger behind the internet corruption exposure website RosPil has filed a complaint with the European Court of Human Rights following a decision by a Moscow court to assign Navalny a fine of 100,000 roubles for his ‘libellous’ exposure of two officials allegedly connected to the Magnitsky case in a video on his website. Navalny had testified before the Senate Committee, and has displayed yet another video that exposes the details of the fraud case last month. According to the 18-minute long reel, Dmitry Kluyev, who has been accused by Magnitsky as the man behind the illegal transfer of Hermitage’s subsidiaries and tax rebates, and his associates have embezzled a further $400 million from the budget between 2009-2010, bringing the overall sum to a staggering $800million, as disclosed in an investigation by the Financial Times and Novaya Gazeta. These men and women have earned a title of ‘untouchables’ in the Russian blogger-sphere, for a good reason.

Now, in a new twist, the Washington bureau chief of RTVi, an independent channel that hosts the video service for Echo Moscow, has been fired. Vladimir Kara-Murza, who is also a member of the Solidarnost Movement, claims that his dismissal is a direct result of his support for the new version of the Magnitsky Bill, which he had actively lobbied in Washington. In an interview he claims that while the 2010 version of the bill only focussed on the officials directly responsible for the death of Magnitsky, the current edition encompasses those responsible for electoral fraud and other human rights abuses, and this has proven a step too far for the Kremlin. After a brief silence, it was disclosed by Boris Nemtsov – a well-known opposition leader, that the call for the dismissal came from Putin’s administration and, for the first time in recent history, encompasses a ban for Kara-Murza to work in any Russian media. The incident came to light when Kara-Murza was denied access to the staff area of the Russian embassy in Washington, as he is no longer an accredited journalist.

Vladimir Gussinski, the former owner of NTV who fled Russia after raids on the independent TV network in 2001, had sold RTVi in March 2012. The new owner is Ruslan Sokolov, previously head of the media conglomerate ‘Zvezda’, which was formed in 2005 by the Ministry of Defense, which holds 100% of its shares. Sokolov protests that the takeover has anything to do with the Kremlin, citing personal ambitions – all $10 million of them. In an interview to TV Rain, he claimed that Kara-Murza was a freelancer, and that the channel simply decided to stop buying his services starting September. He said he was personally shocked by these ridiculous, false accusations. 

This news story broke at a sensitive time. Prior to the Senate hearing, the Putin administration threatened ‘mirror counter-measures’ to the Magnitsky Bill, and so far enforced a no-entry policy for 11 US citizens – for the 11 Russian officials barred from entry into the US under the current legislation. On July 21^st, President Putin signed the law that equates foreign-funded NGOs to ‘foreign agents’. Under this new legislation, all non-government organisations that receive part or all of their finding from abroad must be entered into a special registry within the next 90 days, will be subject to annual audits, must file expenditure reports every six months, and any publication or mention in the media has to refer to their foreign-agent status. Failure to do so will result in either a fine of one million roubles, or up to four years in prison. (This is according to the 1TV website – details of the penalties vary for different sources.) On July 18^th just five days after the parliament approved the NGOs law, a member of the United Russia party has entered a proposition into the Duma to extend the law to foreign-funded media outlets. 

On July 10^th, Russia’s Wikipedia site went on strike in response to the Duma’s discussion of the new internet information law, veiled as ‘protection of children from information that harms their development and health’. (This is very similar to the anti-paedophilia and homosexuality law that I wrote about earlier. Russian children are becoming the best-protected children in the world.) Under this new law, if passed, all sites with content on child pornography, suicide advice and information on drugs will be blacklisted, and will have 24 hours to close down. Human rights activists claim that the vagueness of the law can effectively be used to close down any site the government deems ‘dangerous’.

Just three days before Putin’s inauguration, followed by mass protests, he signed the law enforcing tougher punishments for misconduct during public demonstrations. The fine starts with 10-20,000 roubles, increasing to 300,000 in case of damaged property or personal injury, and reaches 600,000 for organisers, with 1,000,000 for officials. Given that the average monthly salary in Russia is around 20,000 roubles, this legislation was clearly aimed at dissuading mass demonstrations, so far with limited results.

These measures are hailed as infringements on democracy in Russia, producing world-wide criticisms. Fair enough. But in a country where an honest man, doing his job is subjected to a slow, painful death with no repercussions, where three young girls, two of them with young children, are held without trial for a punk-song stunt (Pussy Riot’s detention has been extended for further six months) and face a seven-year jail sentence, where the head of the investigative committee threatens a journalist with murder, it seems that democracy is not being infringed on – its very existence is in question. Commentators suggest that President Obama will not sign the Magnitsky Bill in its current version, fearing an unfavourable deterioration of US-Russian trade relations. I hope he does, as right now it seems the only way to force Russian lawlessness into some kind of retribution.

The Morning After

In the news...opposition leaders are called in for interrogation after raids on their homes and offices, while the head of the Investigative Committee threatens a journalist.

To those commentators who have been talking about Putin 2.0 and looking forward to the Russian President’s renewed approach to power, the events in Moscow over the last few days must come as an unpleasant set back. To me, they come as an expected shock, but a shock nonetheless. The raids against the opposition leaders conducted on Monday before the rally scheduled for Russia’s Independence Day on June 12^th is, unfortunately, only part of the story. The scandal involving Novaya Gazeta’s Sergei Sokolov and the head of the Russian Investigative Committee Aleksandr Bystirkin exposes a much more sinister side of power in the country, in which free press is not only under pressure, but direct attack.

Today, the editor-in-chief of Novaya, Dmitri Muratov, published an open letter to Bystirkin, calling for guarantees of safety for his staff, following the publication by lifenews.ru website of the conversation between Sokolov and Bystirkin that allegedly took place on June 4 this year. In this short excerpt recoded by the journalist, he begins with an apology for his emotional accusation of Bystirkin’s patronage of a man responsible for destroying evidence concerning the deaths of twelve members of a criminal gang in November 2010. Instead of a two year sentence, the ex United Russia deputy was fined 150,000 roubles. According to Muratov, on a way back from a trip, Sokolov was driven to a forest, Bystirkin appearing shortly. The head of the IC dismissed the security officers and took Sokolov into the woods, expressing his dissatisfaction with Novaya Gazeta, including the activities of the murdered journalist Anna Politkovskaya. (Her own experience in Chechnya, when she was abducted by the Russian Federal Forces, driven to a secluded spot and put through a mock execution for her critical coverage of the Russian crimes against the Chechen population is well known. Her actual murder remains unsolved.) Bystirkin is heard saying that such accusations of affiliation with the mafia caused in the good old days. He then, allegedly, threatened not only Sokolov, but also his family, if the paper refused to publish a redress. Careful not to make a bad situation worse, Muratov claims that he believes that this was merely an emotional breakdown on the part of the official, and would like an apology so that both sides can get over the heated argument without any tragic consequences. Meanwhile, Sokolov and his family had left Russia, fearing for their safety.

Now, today is not 1993, and this is not some distant province of Russia. Aside of being the head of the Investigative Committee, Bystirkin holds a doctorate in law, and is a university professor with many distinguished publications to his name. He is a colonel- general of the judiciary, decorated with two state medals. He also studied with Putin. The corruption and crime in the law enforcement forces is nothing new – it even makes it on the pro-government Channel One news. But if this man, who is responsible for the highest law authority in the country, has the power to threaten an opponent, and then suggest, only half jokingly, that he himself will be in charge of the murder case, crosses all boundaries. No, let me correct myself: there is no more visible legal boundaries remaining. Amen. Suffices to say that today, five Echo Moscow journalists were detained outside the offices of the Investigative Committee before they even began the protest in support of Novaya’s position. They were sitting on the pavement, writing on the banners they brought alone, when they were led away by the police. Luckily, all five were released without charge. So far.

The situation surrounding the opposition figureheads has received coverage in the West, even provoking censure from the US State Department and the European Union. Here is why: on Monday morning the blogger Alexei Navalny and Ksenia Sobchak – an infamous It-girl turned avid anti-government protestor awoke to the sound of armed men knocking down their doors. Navalny wrote today that all electronic equipment was taken from his flat, including his children’s’ photo cameras and some old pagers he hadn’t used since 1994 and kept as a souvenir. The search continued the next day after Navalny spent six hours answering questions at the, you guessed it, Investigative Committee offices, in his RosPil office, which has been sealed until further notice. The blogger claims that his apartment door has been practically sawed in two. 

It probably doesn’t help his case that today, Navalny filed a formal complaint with the European Court of Justice regarding claim of 5.4 billion roubles government theft investigated by his team. In 2010, European Parliament agreed on sanctions that prohibited travel for Russian officials that were listed in the so-called Magnitsy File. (If you remember, the lawyer who alleged tax-fraud sanctioned by numerous Russian officials in 2007, died in police custody just days before the one year limit he could be held without trial expired.) In October 2011, a Moscow court ordered Navalny to pay 100,000 roubles to Vladelen Stepanov and his wife, both mentioned in the Magnitsky list, and to retract the video posted on the RosPil website with details of their crimes. Navalny’s countersuit was declined in December 2011. So this is his next step. Brave? I think so.

The situation with Ksenia would have been amusing, given her celebrity status, had it not had such sinister possible consequences. The ‘Russian Paris Hilton’ has been active in the Millions March movement that started in December, and apparently the search in her apartment was provoked by the fact that another opposition figure, Ilya Yashin, suspected of organising mass protests under Article 212 of the Russian Federal Law (maximum sentence of ten years, nonetheless), is living on the premises. The TV-presenter, still in her nightdress, watched fifteen armed men ransack her home. But what was aimed as an act of intimidation turned nasty when over a million Euros were found stuffed into 100 separate envelopes in the safe. Unable to produce a viable explanation for where she has gotten all this money from – her lawyer was not allowed onto the premises – Sobchak now faces an unfavourable scenario: either the money is hers – after all, her deceased father, Anatoly Sobchak, the powerful mayor of St. Petersburg who took Putin under his wing in the 1990s, was a very wealthy man. But tax evasion is prosecuted in Russia when needs be, and a criminal sentence can be brought if the offender refuses to pay the fine. What is worse, given the way the money was distributed, is that it could have been indeed meant as sponsorship of the protests, which would make her liable under Article 212. Ksenia has already been dismissed as a host for a popular MTV-style show the previous month, as she claims, for her political activity. Now, she has spent hours answering 56 questions along with Yashin and Navalny and the IC, her passport confiscated. And this is Putin’s goddaughter – keep that in mind.

The protests went on without them, regardless. Thousands of people came out into the streets of Moscow – as the political analyst Gleb Pavlovky thinks, at least 15-20% spurred by the raids against the opposition leaders. There were no clashes, and the dreaded OMON kept its distance, and even, according to a Moskovky Komsomolets journalist, was even polite. The mood in the crows was perceptively different from the previous ‘walks’ – more tense, more political. Sergei Udaltsov, who refused to show up for interrogation scheduled an hour before the start of the rallies, unveiled a united opposition Manifesto, in which he called again for the release of political prisoners, concrete political reform, parliamentary and presidential re-elections, adding that ‘Russia will be free!’ to mass cheers. Boris Nemtsov, writing in his blog, said that he could not have imagined that 22 years after he helped vote Russia’s Declaration of Independence into law, he would witness a search in his home and offices. Udaltsov eventually left to be interrogated, and his parents’ flat was searched, along with Navalny’s in-laws home, where his wife’s 85 year-old grandmother was frightened into a stutter by threats to break down the door she refused to open to strangers.

The acute feeling of a bad hangover one gets reading these stories is only part of this narrative. The excitement the country felt when Putin replaced the ever-drunk, slurring Boris Yeltsin is long over and there are no idealistic illusions left. But this arrogance, this disrespect for the Russian people is a hefty mistake. If the Tandem had listened to the opposition from the start, maybe showed some even pretend interest in their claims, maybe this storm would have blown over. But now, with such direct aggression and shameless, personal abuse of power, the people are getting angry. Parallels to Stalin’s 1937 purges are trending all over the internet. And the story where a corrupt government violates basic human rights – to freedom of expression, to a decent education, to minimum wages, to affordable healthcare, to a fair justice system and an ability to choose leaders – rarely ends well. For everybody.

Systems analysis

In the news...two opposition leaders are released from prison after 15 days, but might face up to two more years if found guilty of 'inciting mass disorder'.

In December 2011, Vladimir Putin told the press that his government welcomes non-extremist opposition and is open to dialogue. When a journalist suggested to get the leaders of the opposition together, however, the then Prime Minister retorted that the opposition is too varied and does not present a united political platform, and so negotiating with each group about its specific demands needs to be thought through. Putin was riding high after the United Russia party with which he is associated ‘won’ the Parliamentary election earlier in December, so he could afford to be dismissive. He also had a point. Since the first mass protests took off, following allegations of wide-spread ballot-stuffing in December, three key figures began to dominate the marches. Alexei Navalny, Sergei Udaltsov and Boris Nemtsov have, in the past six months of protests, spent enough time in prison for Amnesty International to take notice. All call for electoral and political reform, control over the actions of the government, release of political prisoners and new, open elections. Admirable goals, which united hundreds of thousands of people. But, taken separately, the three men’s politics are so disparate, it is difficult to imagine them at the same party together, let alone on a political stage.  

Responsible for the catchy epithet ‘party of crooks and thieves’, now recognised by more than 2/3 of the population, Alexei Navalny came to prominence after launching in December 2010 of his RosPil project, which literally translates as ‘sawing apart’ – a website that discloses corruption by public officials by analysing financial documents available online. The project became a mass phenomenon, earning Navalny 6^th place in Time’s 100 most influential people of 2012 list. His approach is to tell it like it is and not take any prisoners, coupled with a background in law, make him for a formidable public figure. But aye, there is the rub.

In 2007, Navalny founded the ‘People’ movement, whose manifesto declares that Russia is facing a national catastrophe as the population ‘degrades and dies off’. To prevent this, the movement calls on national rehabilitation, freedom and justice, and asserts that the Russian people have earned their right to live in a democracy. But that is exactly the problem - the emphasis is on the ‘Russian’. Navalny’s ideal is that of a ‘nationalist democracy’, in which immigration policy is of paramount importance. When he talks about his nationalism, Navalny sounds very reasonable and convincing. He calls for assimilation of immigrants into the traditions and laws of Russia, and envisions it as a ‘bigger, more irrational and metaphysical Canada’. In his interviews, he is either purposely evasive, or he really believes that nationalist sentiments can be indeed have a ‘human face’. The problem jolts you in the face when, in answer to the question whether he agrees with the mission statement of the Movement Against Illegal Immigration (DPNI) – Russia’s answer to the English Defense League that was banned in 2011 as extremist – he says ‘Yes, why, is something wrong with it?’ Navalny may truly fool himself into believing that by attending the Russian March rallies where slogans like ‘Russia for Russians!’ are a staple, he can somehow make them, in his own words, ‘better’. But he occupies an unfavourable public position: the far right sees him as too moderate while the liberal opposition shuns his nationalistic views and currently sees no political future for him. A real shame for someone who managed, so forcefully, to grab the attention and admiration of the Russian public.

Sergei Udaltsov, for all his admirable fervour and resilience in face of multiple arrests, really wants to turn Russia into one giant kibbutz. In 2008, Udaltsov, also a lawyer, was elected onto the executive committee of the Left Front – a political movements whose main goal is the creation of socialism in Russia. The list of grievances is familiar: corruption, disintegration of culture, science, education, health, army and  the police. The way to overcome these problems is to combine public property with true ‘people-power’ – a political and production democracy. Lenin’s call was ‘Land to the people, factories to the workers!’ In the new version, ‘each worker is an owner, and each owner, a worker’. As a side note, the manifesto states that small private property will not be expropriated in this fight against global bourgeois capitalism (oh yes, you heard right) as it must prove itself in free economic competition with public property – whatever that means. The raison d’être of this movement, is, no more not less, to ‘accelerate the movement of history!’

In 2010, Udaltsov founded ROT-Front – United Russian Workers’ Front (a holler back to 1917, again), based largely on the policies of the Left Front and calling specifically for social justice and protection for all – and not just the rich and powerful. There is a call to share the oil and gas wealth with the population, to introduce a luxury tax and access of each individual to objective and accurate information that ‘precludes manipulation of public consciousness’. Just how the movement plans to convince the unconvinced, then, remains a technical mystery. But while the Left Front strictly excludes cooperation with any reactionary ideology – such as nationalism, fascism or liberalism, the ROT-front announces its readiness to coordinate with any political party whose goal is democracy. If you are thinking these view are too weird to warrant cooperation, don’t: Russia’s Communist Party’s presidential candidate Gennady Zuganov, endorsed by Udaltsov, came in second after Putin with 17% of the vote.

Boris Nemtsov, a professional politician who was groomed by Boris Yeltsin as a potential successor before Putin, is probably the better known and most credible face of the three. He has a solid record as a liberal, becoming the first governor of the new Russia in 1991, and is perhaps best remembered by the public for being doused with mango juice by the eccentric leader of the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia (which is neither liberal, nor democratic) during a debate in the 1990s. At the moment, he is one of the 39 committee members of the Solidarnost’ Movement, founded in 2008, whose main goal is to create a competitive economic and political system in the country. The organisation’s 300 Steps to Freedom programme is the most extensive and conclusive, offering a course of European-style development and free parliamentary elections with full access by all parties to the public information systems. In 2010, Nemtsov along with ex-Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov a number of young politicians founded the Party of People’s Liberty – PARNAS, but the ministry of Justice refused to register it, citing contradictions to federal law. If anything, this bureaucratic snub is an indicator of the potential threat of the movement – which attracts many prominent public figures – to the Putin regime.

So far, however, the only idea uniting the three main strands of the opposition is the call to liberalise the electoral system to allow for fair elections and political competition. But with the Kremlin’s power undiminished, and the protest rigour in decline, what the opposition needs is a better focus and a realistic political platform to offer to the electorate. There needs to be a plan for when the protest party is over. Political competition is a great thing, but when there are too many little Davids facing different sides of Goliath, the pebbles might hurt, but most likely will not kill the current corrupt system in place. And this dilemma is what gives Russia’s ‘non-systemic’ opposition a flailing double meaning.

Yes, Prime Minister?

In the news...President Putin signs an ambitious set of decrees.

The Russian Central Election Committee announced on May 12 that the Presidential election has cost the federal budget 10,375,318,000 roubles – that is just under £211m. From the government’s perspective it was, without a doubt, money well spent, given the quick and efficient job swap performed on May 7 by the President and the Prime Minister. But on his first day (back) in office, Vladimir Putin signed a number of decrees that appear to give the people of Russia a run for their money. Reading through some of them, you get the impression that the President has in mind a brand new country, so all-encompassing is the sweep of his suggested reforms.

There is a number of improvements clearly geared at immediate public appeasement: increasing satisfaction with government and municipal services, lowering living costs, increasing government transparency through the use of the internet, creating a fairer system for selection of government official, etc. For instance, the law concerning the improvement of the governing system includes a paragraph that supports the ‘Russian public initiative’, through which suggestions signed by 100,000 citizens will be considered by the government. Keeping in mind the ease with which Russian officialdom rejects as ‘invalid’ signatures needed for registration by presidential candidates, there is little likelihood that the government will be forced into considering anything it doesn’t already want to.

Paragraph K of the same decree calls for a ‘punishment through disqualification’ for any government or municipal worker for ‘rude and multiple’ violations of the standards of the services. Russia is still a country where hot water is turned off for weeks in the summer because of the condition of the pipes – in Moscow, of all places. Either standards will have to be lowered ever further, or the majority of municipal services will soon find themselves ‘disqualified’. Paragraph T calls for an ‘increase of access by the people to the judicial system’ and a further improvement of administrative judicial practices. There is, however, no indication about how this will be done. It is safe to assume that none of the suggestions made by Mikhail Khodorkovski will make it into the amendments.

Then come the more interesting aspirations. The decree concerning the Russian demographic situation opens with a demand to raise the birth coefficient and extend life expectancy to 74. Given that in 2011 there were 11 births and 16 deaths per 1,000, the law that encourages support for working mothers and low-income families makes sense. But the health laws begin to get a little out of hand. By 2018, the government hopes to reduce deaths from tuberculosis, reduce infant mortality rate, deaths from and in car accidents. An increase in public awareness of healthy eating, dangers of alcohol, tobacco and drug abuse are also on the agenda. Increasing Russian publications in international scientific journals to 2.44% and guaranteeing at least five Russian universities to be included in world’s top 100 by 2020 complete this ambitious scientific initiative.

What these decrees demonstrate, apart from an apparent desire to pander to the waves of civil discontent that engulfed the election, is not so much where Russia wants to be, but where it is now. All these endless lists of improvements only highlight the lack of reliable government services, a non-existent health care system, an educational system where diplomas are bought outright, including medical and surgical degrees. Just today, a Russian super-jet crashed in Indonesia. It was on a show mission around Asia, hoping to bring in a lucrative aviation contract. Although the causes of the crash are not known, there is a suspicion that the computers on board failed. The ballistic missile program has become a running joke in Russia, with eight successful launches out of 15 since 1998. The missile kept crashing either into the sea or onto the launch pad, with the only consolation being the absence casualties. Unfortunately, that is not the case in other aspects of Russian society plagued by technical failures, incompetence and criminal negligence. Even crossing the street in Moscow has become a deadly gamble as motorists consistently ignore traffic lights.

When leaders come to power, there is always a rush of optimism, hopeful promises, good intentions, all curtailed by reality in due course. But Putin has been in power for the past twelve years. Nothing prevented him from pushing for these reforms and seeing them into fruition by now. At least some of them.  But although many may argue that the situation in Russia has improved since Boris Yeltsin’s chaotic years – and this is only one side of a long and complicated debate – it is still so very far from the country envisioned in Putin’s fresh batch of decrees. If this is the kind of liberal, democratic, functional state he wants to live in, in his lifetime, he might just have to move to London,  like the rest of those fleeing his regime.

Putin 3.0

In the news...Putin is sworn into his third term as President, amid continuing protests.

'Freedom – it is a unique feeling, which every person understands differently. You know, of course, there is always an element of objectivity in freedom, but generally it is just our own experiences’. If you are thinking I’m quoting Kant, you’re wrong. This is a line from President Medvedev’s last interview that he gave to five TV channels at once. He clearly wanted to be heard. Also, quite clearly, the irony of his philosophising was not lost on the thousands of protestors who came out on May 6 to contest the government’s usurpation of their freedom and right to vote - fairly, protest – peacefully, and think - differently. 

Again, it is hard to tell just how many people participated. The Moscow police place the figure at 8,000, while the organisers claim the ‘March of Millions’ as the protest was officially called, was not smaller than the election fraud rallies that gathered anywhere between 130,000 and 200,000. Ironically, (yes, again – there’s a lot of that today) the organisers filed for permission for 5,000 demonstrators with the city’s authorities. There have been detractions from the march, some from well-known figures, as they faced increasing futility of raging against the machine - so it is not just the government that likes to pretend.

Now, if the number of those in the opposition is debated, the number of police and special forces (OMON) shocked even the well-seasoned commentators. The police line blocking the way to the Kremlin looked like a fight scene straight out of Star Wars. Metal detectors blocked entrance to the main square where protests were meant to be held. However, everything was more or less peaceful when the march started. One journalist said a friend had brought his toddler along, as indeed have others, indicating that the plan was peaceful. Although it is still not quite clear how the clashes started – with protestors trying to break through the police line to get to the Kremlin, or with the police preventing the organisers from entering the main square – a large part of participants became isolated by the ‘Udarnik’ (‘hard-hitter’, nonetheless) cinema and things went awry.

There are numerous videos of police brutality, with OMON using batons to beat protestors unconscious, then leaving them on the ground. These images echo the footage that shocked the world in 2010, when Aleksandr Lukashenko – ‘Europe’s Last Dictator’, put down protests following a rigged election in Belarus. The government side (represented on Channel 1 news) claimed protestors were throwing bits of asphalt at them and, when these endangered the ‘passers-by’, they intervened. Maybe someone did actually decide to go for a walk in the middle of a rally, maybe…It was obvious that things got out of hand, with the media reporting tear gas being used – while state TV has OMON claiming it were fireworks lit by protestors to pass off as tear gas. Isn’t it a useful word, ‘allegedly’? In a moment of sweet revenge, the NTV van got showered with empty bottles and its tires were slashed – an answer to the shocking propaganda film ‘Anatomy of Protest’ the network aired right after the elections, ‘disclosing’ the protestors as fakes, ‘provocators’ etc. Having seen the film, and not condoning violence in the slightest, I think the slashed tires were totally deserved.

The Western media, even this morning, reported 120-150 detained protestors. I was wondering where they got the numbers from as even Channel 1 ran a figure of 250 last night, which it upgraded to 436 today. (The opposition claims 570 arrests). Twenty people were injured, along with twenty-nine police officers. (One of the OMON was interviewed on Channel 1, the reporter apologising for the man’s ‘slow speech’ as he had sustained a head injury. There seemed to be nothing wrong with the man. He was just struggling to string together a publishable sentence.) There have been no reports of deaths, aside from a photographer who fell to his death trying to get a better shot of the march. In an interview on TV Rain, Putin’s spokesman said the police were ‘too soft’. As Novaya Gezeta’s Yulia Latinina points out, people who have used less soft measures have had their foreign accounts frozen.

But, despite all these goings on, Putin was sworn into his third term this noon, in a ludicrously pompous ceremony performed for the first time at the Kremlin by no other but Ivan the Terrible himself. (I got this bit of trivia from Channel 1, so I apologise if it is misinformation, but I couldn’t resist pointing out the gaff.) There were Royal Guards, standing ovations, and a lot, a lot of gold. There were some very unexpected guests. For one, his wife, who Putin was widely rumoured to have divorced during his second term, and who has since been confined in wither a mental institution, a monastery, or both. (I remember catching the article about the divorce on the Washington Post website – the only official source I found carrying the information, only to discover it deleted an hour later.) His mistress – the former gymnast Alina Kabayeva, the mother of at least one of his children, was also photographed outside the Kremlin, though it is not clear from the official footage whether she was at the ceremony. Their affair, conducted in multi-million mansions throughout the country, is shrouded in secrecy. And though everyone expected Berlusconi to be there, Gorbachev was the real surprise. Does anyone remember him saying that Putin ‘castrated’ Russian democracy? Well, I don’t know what he was thinking. But he did not look happy, I can tell you that. The banquet that followed cost a $1million, according to Russia Today. The proceedings have been blessed by Archbishop of Russia Cyrill, who had been awarded a prestigious state medal last year – along with the head of the election committee Churov and the hated and corrupt head of the police, Nurgaliev. Pretty cosy, isn’t it?

And speaking of cosy: the first thing Putin did as President, aside from promising monetary benefits to World War II veterans (the elderly handful always comes in handy when public images need a lift) was to suggest Dmitry Medvedev for the position of Prime Minister. In case someone was wondering who might take over Putin’s old job, the new President did not even skip a beat on this one. And then, after yet another self-satisfied smirk, the President donned on his ice skates and scored the winning penalty in a hockey game against Russia’s Legends Team, a feat even less likely than Boris Johnson winning a cycle race against Team GB.

While the footage of the presidential journey to the Kremlin saw eerily deserted streets, there were more protests today throughout the city with around 300 detained and people were still being arrested while I was finishing researching this piece. Alexei Navalny, Boris Nemtsov and Sergei Udaltsov – the organisers of the March of Millions, were released today and are due to pay either a 1,000 roubles (20GBP) or spend 15 days in prison. I don’t know, what would you do?

A number of opposition media, such as TV Rain and Slon.ru reported hacking attempts to bring down their sites yesterday. Today, while researching, the Echo Moscow website was suspended. Meanwhile, Sunday saw pro-Putin rallies as well as the dress rehearsal of the May 9 Victory Day parade, with the usually impressive show of military force. The way things are going, the administration should have scheduled the inauguration for the 9^th as well – to celebrate the government’s victory over freedom. But maybe that’s too subjective of me to say. 

Under Pressure

In the news...a teacher faces trial and a fine following her disclosure of election fraud. 

Following the two bouts of elections in December and March, the Russian press exploded with allegations of widespread fraud, supported by detailed witness reports, scanned documents and video evidence. Even if some of these were, as the pro-government supporters like to call it, ‘provocations’ from the side of the opposition, the scope of complaints is so great, that there is no doubt in anyone’s mind that Putin did not win the alleged 63.6%. There is also no doubt that he would not have won fairly in any case, but it’s the arrogance of the cheating that infuriates. The press has been having a field month filing more and more witness reports and allegations, to the point of tedium. After all, what did they expect exactly? But the case of a 53 year-old teacher from St. Petersburg facing trial for her disclosure of pressure to defraud the election committee stands out in its callousness and, most of all, its humble heroism.

On January 27, 2012, Novaya Gazeta ran a report uncovering attempts to coerce St. Petersburg high-school teachers – members of the election committee – to ‘do everything possible for the victory of the United Russia party’ during the December Parliamentary elections. An anonymous teacher claimed in an interview that the head of the local education department, Natalia Nazarova, urged the congregation to hold back monitors, stuff pre-marked ballots and, as she added in a later interview, to forge signatures of those who did not come to vote so that the number of votes would match attendance figures. They were offered 70,000 roubles to carry this out – about 1,500GBP – an enormous sum for Russian teachers, who have one of the lowest salaries in the country. Tatiana Ivanova, head teacher with 30 years experience refused the generous offer and contacted the press instead. ‘To just upturn your entire life in one go – that was very difficult. But it would be much harder to live with the feeling of dirt that we were smeared with,’ she says. She was the only head of an election committee who spoke up – in the whole country.

Her story is, in itself, not surprising. The complained filed by Natalia Nazarova, demanding 100,000 roubles in moral damages for her ruined reputation is much more so. First of all, judging by the sum, her reputation wasn’t too badly bruised. Secondly, as Lyudmila Rybina – the Novaya Gazeta journalist charged alongside Mrs. Ivanova – suggests, the initial report was anonymous, so when the charge included not only the author of the article, but named Mrs. Ivanova, it rather suggests that the plaintiff recognised the details of the story, thereby confirming it as true. On April 18^th, 2012 a third preliminary hearing was held in St.Petersburg, with another scheduled for April 26^th.

So far, Mrs. Ivanova was forced to resign from her position, abandoning her senior class in the middle of the school year. The school director tried to resist the pressure, but when Natalia Nazarova threatened to open a corruption case against the school, based on the fact that Mrs. Ivanova’s son is married to one of the teachers and sometimes gets small contracts to repair equipment, Mrs. Ivanova understood that there was no point resisting. There has been a popular Internet campaign in her support, the hash tag with her name actually topping Twitter on the day of the trial; the parents of her senior class have filed a complained with the court, and there have even been a drive to raise money. Her colleagues, however, have abandoned her – ‘like the plague’, she says. In an interview on TV Rain, she thanked her internet supporters, saying that their kind word and even poetry helped her through enormously. But, despite many job offers, she says she is too tired to continue teaching. ‘The worst thing is, I lost faith’ she says. ‘In justice. In truth. In decency.’

In 2010, Malcolm Gladwell wrote an interesting article for The New Yorker, talking about the inability of the social networking sites to will a realistic social movement. Back then I thought he had a point, but wasn’t convinced. This case, however, sadly supports his gloomy argument. What use is it that #tatianaivanova trended in first place all over Russia? Lyudmila Rybina counted about 50 people protesting outside the court. That’s it?

Over the last few days, aside from this hearing, six people, including a ten-year old boy, were detained following a ‘photo-walk’ – a peaceful protest in which people carried photographs taken during election fraud protests – works of art, without any added words. A Moscow court has just extended custody for the punk group Pussy Riot, detained in February following a punk-prayer staged in a Moscow church calling on the Virgin Mary to rid Russia of Putin. One of the singers has been complaining of lack of medical treatment, which she would now have to forgo until June 24^th in the best-case scenario. The court official explain the decision to hold the three girls, all in their early twenties, who now face up to seven years in prison on aggravated hooliganism charges, ‘for their own safety’, as they might become subject of revenge. Around 20 people were arrested after protesting the decision outside the court. Earlier in April, Sergey Kondrashov, a Saint Petersburg lawyer, was arrested for holding up a banner that protested the new anti-gay laws: “A dear family friend is lesbian. My wife and I love and respect her … and her family is just as equal as ours."  He has been detained for 15 days, even though the law only presupposes a fine.

These are just a few examples. This trend of vindictive retribution against those who tried to stand up against the government machine is not very promising, especially since Putin, known for his grudges, has not yet officially taken over.

When her pupils asked Tatiana Ivanova about how they are supposed to go on living like this, she said, ‘don’t let anyone bring you down to your knees, otherwise you’ll spend your whole life on your knees’. A brave woman, who does not think herself a hero – just a ‘normal person’, is very right about that. And she lives by her beliefs, which is even more admirable. Unfortunately, this cannot be said about the thousands, hundreds of thousands people, sitting in front of their computers, doing absolutely nothing to either help her, or the situation. Because in their, or shall I say our case, (after all, what have I done?) there is currently no difference between the backside on which we idly sit, and our knees.

Save Our Souls

In the news...St. Petersburg passes a law that prohibits dissemination of propaganda on homosexuality and places it in the same category as paedophilia.

A Russian actress, Faina Ranevskya, legendary for her piercing sense of humour, has once remarked on the subject of totalitarian states that ‘woeful is that country where one in control his own ass’. Pun fully intended, Russia’s relationship with homosexuality has been fraught not only in the Soviet times, when Stalin introduced Article 121 that presupposed up to five years in prison for sodomy but also, most recently, when gay pride parades have been either prohibited, or assaulted by both the police and anti-gay activists. I have written on this subject before, disgusted and appalled by the ignorance and sheer horror of some of the social mis-and preconceptions about gay people in Russia. But as recently as this month, a new shocking development has taken place: on April 7^th, 2012 the mayor of St. Petersburg has approved a law that prohibits public propaganda of homosexuality – gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender AND paedophilia – among children and your adults.

The law punishes any ‘action of direct and lawless dissemination through publically accessible means of information’ which can ‘harm the health, moral and spiritual development of young people’, quotes the daily Kommersant. So far the punishment implies a 5,000 rouble (just over 100GPB) fine for individuals, 50,000 for officials and from 250,000-500,000 (up to 10,500GBP) for judicial figures. Paedophilia is more expensive: 500,000-1,000,000 (about 20,000GBP) for the top bracket. But apart from a small monetary difference, the authors did not seem to notice that they coupled one of the most heinous crimes known to man with homosexuality. So far, this law is active in three Russian cities, St. Petersburg being the largest, but as of March 29^th a petition has been presented to the state Duma (Russian parliament) demanding universal application. Proponents of the litigation insist that it is not aimed at gay individuals – after all, there is nothing wrong with being gay. The idea is to prevent incitement to join their (presumably) unholy ranks by the vulnerable, sexually-undecided teenagers. Because clearly in a country almost wholly dependent on high oil prices for survival, a failing educational system, a virtually non-existent production industry and lack of health care, an individual sexual preference is what really matters.

To be fair on the government, it is faced with low birth rates and a plummeting demographic, and has already issued monetary incentives for couples to marry and have children. Stalin’s 1934 decree was issued in response to very similar reports. The country needs fresh blood, and condoning homosexuality is not the way to get there. In the words of Vitaly Milonov, a deputy behind the litigation, he has nothing whatsoever against gays: he has gay friends, listens to Elton John (who in Russia doesn’t?) – but he just cannot accept it as a social norm. He cites a dubious statistic: 50% of men in Berlin have had at least one sexual encounter, which is unprecedented. This experimentation is not bad in itself - but only if it happens ONCE. Because - are you ready for this? – ‘according to criminologists who deal with serial killers and homosexuals crimes, after a second or third contact with a partner of the same sex, the human psyche changes so much that he become gay.’ So to hell with all the medical evidence: in Russia, homosexuality is like heroin – try it more than once, and you’re hooked. And in a country with one of the world’s highest consumption of opiates in the world, they should know.

Now, Russia media – particularly television, is full of calls to protect our children. Talk shows aimed at housewives are abundant on every channel, filled with blood-chilling stories of child abuse and brutal murders. And these are the reported cases, concerning heterosexual families, which make Britain’s Baby P. scandal look tame. In light of this social disintegration, caused increasingly by drugs and alcohol, the ‘Historical Process’ panel talk show aired on Russia1 on April 4 to discuss the propaganda laws is a shocking example of blindness, ignorance and – to me – pure toxic evil.

The show’s host, Dmitry Kiselev, a (previously) well-respected journalist, opened the discussion with the declaration that the aims by the gay and lesbian community to take their case to the European Court of Human Rights, along with protests from Westerners like Madonna, are neither ‘hot nor cold’: he says that it is not enough to fine people for homosexual propaganda among youngsters. ‘We must prohibit them from donating blood, sperm and their hearts – in a case of a traffic accident – must be buried in the ground, or burned as unfit for continuation of someone else’s life’. A middle-aged woman in the background shrugs, and applause fills the studio. There seems nothing else to say after this – after all, these word would be condemned as incitement to hatred anywhere this side of the commonsensical. But there are another 90 nauseating minutes left.

‘I empathise with homosexuals,’ declares Kiselev. ‘I do not wish such a fate upon my sons and daughters’. He goes on to cite Western sources on the subject: 78% of homosexual men feel themselves less happy than his heterosexual counterparts, 75% of lesbians experience depression and require psychological help, homosexuals are six times more likely to attempt suicide – as he says, ‘not everything is healthy or happy there’. He goes on to suggest that an average gay man has between a hundred and five hundred sexual partners, while between 10-15% have over a 1,000 and that many of these encounter take place with strangers…in the dark. Only 2% exercise their right to civil partnership in Holland – so the desire for family amongst gays is a myth. And, most importantly, a study conducted in countries with high gender equality, that psychological problems experienced by homosexuals are internal, rather than socially affected – their persecution is not the issue. Then he goes on to praise the FDA ban on gay blood, sperm and donor donation from MSM – ‘men who have sex with men’ – his favourite point.

There is no use delving into the medical accuracy of these claims. It is well known that psychological studies are usually contested and there are many ways of looking at the same statistic that produces very different conclusions. Anyway. Indeed, the ban on blood donations exists – in a number of countries including Britain, America and Canada (where a ban on MSM organ donation has just been introduced in 2008). What he does not mention, is that the FDA and the British Blood Service have been debating repealing this law, as HIV/AIDS and hepatitis C tests become faster and more reliable. This law dates back to the 1980s, where homosexual men represented a high-risk group – understandably so. According to the Canadian Globe and Mail, there have been documented cases of contracting HIV through a transplant – four in Chicago as recently as 2007. But my question, and one that is asked by many gay rights activists is this: how are men in committed relationships less trustworthy than their promiscuous heterosexual counterparts? While the authorities debate these issues, and have yet not voted for the lifting of the ban, it is up to the society to take stock of its values and weigh individual actions, not groups. But perhaps these are just my Western liberal notions that, as Deputy Milonov thinks, are aimed at destroying universal human values.

The part that makes me cringe most is the one about the hearts. Kiselev goes on and on about how in America these are burned or buried as unfit for transplants. Apparently, this is on the FDA website. I looked. All I could find was a Donor Screening section on the FDA website, which states that 90% of donors are immediately rejected ‘up-front’ as ‘unsuitable’. Maybe my internet research skills are poor, but all I could find when I typed in ‘gay organs destroyed’ into Google, was a string of anti-gay anathema that I was not willing to explore. This attitude that puts gays on the same platform as vampires, whose very essence must be destroyed to protect the human race, is so vile and ludicrous, that it seems only superfluous to write about. It would have been, had this programme not been broadcast on prime time television.

In his final remarks, the host brings up the violent, cruel world of the gay community – the death of the advisor to President Sarkozy, Richard Descoings in a hotel in New York being the most recent example. He was found dead, naked, with drugs and alcohol in the room, and he was gay. But what about the violence and cruelty of Dominique Strauss-Kahn, not that long ago, and not very far away? There is a bar that shows number of people calling or texting their support for either side. At the end of the show, Kiselev and his ‘witnesses’ have 34,970 votes. The other side, represented by famous film directors, journalists and historians, earned a meagre 7,577. Their argument that this law, aside from its hateful undertones of discrimination, factually de-criminalises paedophilia by placing a relative small fine on it advertising that fills that Russian internet, fell on deaf ears.

What makes this whole story so repugnant, is the fact that all the statistics of gay repression are cited not in sympathy or calls for change. No. They are used to urge the society to protect its children from a horrible fate, a disease – an appellation. The actual litigation is much milder in nature than the underlying sentiments, which is the horrifying thought. Unfortunately, it is not limited to Russia. The Rolling Stone recently carried an article about Minnesota ‘No Homo Promo’ laws that prohibited teachers from talking about homosexuality in any form in public – a confusing decree that led to teachers being forced to ignore gay children being bullied, and let to a spike in teenage suicides. The human being in me, looking around at a world plagued by war, poverty, famine, disease and environmental issues, takes all this very personally. This litigation is not a case for morality, justice or even plain sexual health safety. This is a case for ignorance coupled with cruelty and disregard for what makes us people – people whose souls, and not whose backsides, need saving.