Echo of Freedom

In the news...editor-in-chief of the main opposition radio station Echo Moscow is due to leave the board of directors in an untimely re-shuffle and other encroachments on the free press prior to the March elections.

Alexei Venediktov – the editor-in-chief of the radio station Echo Moscow – is a bit of a phenomenon or, as some might say, a lucky bastard. Despite having been under the control of Gazprom-Media group (a subsidiary of the oil giant closely connected with the Kremlin) for the past eleven years, Echo managed not only to remain the focal point of opposition broadcasting, but to maintain its reputation as an independent source of political analysis – perhaps too independent. At a meeting with the editors-in-chief of the major media outlets on January 18^th, Vladimir Putin accused Echo’s journalists of undermining Russian national interests by playing into the hands of Western critics and, wait for it, ‘pouring diarrhoea over me, day and night’. Always one for a strong word, the Prime Minister. A month later, the news of restructuring of Echo’s board of directors well ahead of schedule, with Venediktov and his assistant editor Vladimir Varfolomeev due to resign, makes drawing a political connection simply irresistible.

In an interview published by the daily Kommersant, Venediktov calls the situation a pirate’s ‘black mark’ – a psychological pressure on the station, and him specifically. Since the purchase by Gazprom Media in 2001, none of board members held a control package, dividing representation as four members from Gazprom, three Echo Moscow shareholders and two independent directors. But, as Gazprom Media holds the control package of shares on the market, it now insists this be represented in the boardroom. So, Venediktov will leave the board voluntarily, to prevent the loss of independent directors, making the representation five-two-two. The pro-government sources like to point out this voluntary resignation, while everyone else seems to think he had no other choice but to leave or ‘be resigned’. What immediately raises a few eyebrows is the fact that both new independent directors studied law in St. Petersburg (then Leningrad), one of them taking the same course as Dmitry Medvedev, although there are no suggestions of any close affiliation. They were suggested for this position because they have no connection to Gazprom Media, Gazprombank, Gazprom itself – or Echo Moscow for that matter, but hardly anyone doubts the fact that they will be dependently responsible to either the President or the Prime Minister – who, after the March 4^th election, will become the same person, and one who is pretty damn angry at the radio station and particularly its unruly captain.

Interestingly, Venediktov himself does not think Putin gave the order for the re-shuffle, doubting the timeline: the suggestion to bring the election of the board forward from July to March came in December. The public scolding happened in January. There is no direct link, he claims. But surely Gazprom Media was aware of the dissatisfaction with the editorial board in the Kremlin before Putin’s outburst – especially following the harsh criticism of the December parliamentary elections. Perhaps, as Venediktov claims, there was no direct order ‘to kill’ (or ‘drown’ – a untranslatable Russian mix between the two). But now Gazprom Media is directly responsible for his position, as according to the station’s policy a board majority can dismiss the editor-in-chief. The problem is, though, that the new editor has to be nominated either by a share-holder with no less than 3% equity or by five members of the journalistic staff. Then, the candidate has to be supported by no less than 50% of the workforce, who have been at the station for no less than three months. To change this directive, 75% of shareholders’ votes are necessary, and Gazprom currently owns 66% - meaning that it can only change the law with the help of the staff. This makes firing Venediktov a little easier, but replacing him almost impossible. It is hardly likely that many of the journalists, if any at all, will be willing to betray the man who has become a icon of free speech and the fight for democracy in a state which has been continuously antagonistic to both.

Of course there are other explanations for the shake-up. Kommersant suggests it might have to do with Gazprom Media’s dissatisfaction with the advertising policy at Echo, which has so far failed to fully exploit its potential. Another slant is that the attack is directed at the general director of Gazprom Media itself – Nikolai Senkevich. Maybe. Anything is possible. But there has been a number of recent developments that draws focus to the political aspect. December 13^th, 2010 saw the firing of the general director of Kommerstant holding corporation as well as the editor-in-chief of Kommersant Vlast’ (power) following the publication of an election ballot with words ‘Putin, go fuck yourself’ scribbled in red across it on the front page. A potent anti election-fraud statement - and so the paper paid its price. On February 16^th, 2011, within days of the announcement of restructuring at Echo, Mosskovskiy Komsomolets reported a proposed litigation that will allow the Russian internet registration administrator, Ru-Center to shut down any website it considers harmful or unlawful within a secondary .ru domain – so msk.ru, org.ru, which fall directly under its domain. On the same day, the district attorney’s office opened a case against an independent opposition TV station Dojd’ (‘rain’), investigating the origin of funds used for its broadcasting of the ‘For Fair Elections’ protests in December and January. Again, on the same day, Venediktiov was called into the DA’s office to discuss the complaint made by one of the listeners concerning the fact that the station’s policy disallows journalists from being members of political parties. (Apparently, the plaintiff has been rejected from a position at Echo as he was an active member of the opposition Party, Yabloko.)

Gone are the days when SWAT teams with faces covered in black masks used to storm the offices of unwanted media organisations. The independent network NTV was famously subjected to what has become known as ‘Maski-show’ in 2001 – prior to its ‘purchase’ by Gazprom Media. Now the tactic seems to be legal reshuffling and manipulation. Some might think that it’s progress. However, it seems that while previously the government still needed to use obscene force to scare and intimidate into submission, now the unlawful practices have become so cemented in Russia’s political canopy, that just a small nudge from Putin is enough to suggest that this bucket of ‘diarrhoea’ you are holding over his head is about to be tipped over you. Anytime now.

We'll freeze, but we won't forgive!

In the news...rallies against election fraud take place in Moscow.

Snow is on the news in Britain, which is once again paralised by the cold. With its love of talking about the weather, climatic conditions predictably colour the UK media’s treatment of Russia’s anti-election fraud protests, with every commentator pointing out that people are not afraid to leave their homes in minus 20. Indeed, ‘We’ll freeze, but we won’t forgive!’ is one of the many witty slogans seen at the Moscow protests yesterday. But February 4, 2012 was not a day to be proud of being Russian. Defying the consensus of the international community, including the Arab League, Russia and China vetoed the UN resolution that condemns President Bashar Al-Assad’s continued use of force against anti-government protestors. The vote took place on an understandably inconvenient day: thousands of Russians came out to demonstrate against what they consider to be rigged parliamentary elections and to demand a fair representation in the upcoming presidential vote on March 4^th this year.

As was expected, the state Channel 1 opened the February 4^th news bulletin with reports of the pro-Putin rally that took place along the anti-government protests. Well aware of the cynical suggestions voiced by most Western and opposition commentators that the demonstrators were either forced or paid to attend, people were interviewed countering the accusation. Putin himself claimed smilingly that it is impossible to pay 130,000 or 190,000 people to attend. Smug? Yes. But he’s got a point. Despite the fact that the government is becoming increasingly unpopular, it has a wide support base and Russia is genuinely split over Putin’s impeding presidency.

Russia’s liberal media, however, widely report on the non-committal atmosphere at the pro-Putin rally, with confirmed instances of incitements both monetary and alcoholic. Both Novaya Gazeta and Moscow Komsomolets emphasized a solemn attitude in the crowd, with people not paying any attention to the fiery, and at times manic speeches from the stage. Referring to the Ukrainian revolution of 2004, the pro-government journalist Aleksandr Prohanov bellowed: ‘Orange is the colour of piss on the snow!’ People shuffled silently, many of them drinking excessively to fight the -20 degree freeze. ‘Don’t photograph, please, or my pupils will see. This was not my choice’ Novaya Gazeta reports a teacher pleading.

One of Novaya’s leading journalists, Yulia Latinina, has controversially termed the government supporters ‘anchovies’ – marinated in the rich brew of government propaganda, unmoving in their barrels. This comparison is perhaps extreme, but one cannot underestimate the unwillingness of many Russians to demand change, which is potentially disruptive and promises no certain future. After all, few remember the lawless, economically chaotic Wild West years that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union with much affection. But if her claims that most pro-Putin demonstrators were bussed in from outside Moscow are even partially true, it not only shows the government’s determination to misrepresent public opinion on a massive scale, but also demonstrates the mainstream media’s complete abnegation of its journalistic ethos. Hello, Democracy – maybe lunch sometime?

It is impossible to determine the number of protesters at either rally, as the suggested figures say more about the hopes of the sources quoting them rather than the reality. According to the BBC, the official figures number the protesters as low as 23,000, while claiming that it seemed more like the numerous December rally that attracted 120,000. The leading Moscow daily, Kommerstant, quotes the official figures at 33-34,000 for the opposition and 138,000 for Putin’s supporters, while unofficial figures are given at 120,000 and 35,000 – a diametric reversal in numbers. Channel 1 claimed 36,000 for the opposition, while the pro-Putin rally was estimated to draw 138,000. With the 15,000 anticipated, the organisers now face a criminal charge and a fine under the ‘disturbing the peace’ clause – which the prime minister told them on state TV not to worry about, as he is more than willing to chip in. Which, after the last year’s disclosures by Wikileaks which show Putin as the richest man in Europe with personal wealth of $38bn, he can clearly afford.

November 20^th, 2011 marked the first major public outcry against Putin when he was jeered at the ‘no rules’ heavyweight bout at the Olympic sport complex. The whistling and calls for the prime minister to resign were silenced on the state news report, but the video went viral on the internet. In Russia, where the electorate tends to be docile and apolitical, this was a worrying and promising sign. The world wide web is full of unpublishable calls for Putin to go, with websites such as protiv-putina.ru (against-Putin) and putinvotstavku.org (Putin resign) branding 156, 327 and 125,680 signatures respectively. Not an overwhelming number, perhaps, but the sentiment is telling: as Natalya from Pskov writes on protiv-putina.ru, ‘I wish Putin would live on my salary, 4,000 roubles!!!’ At least people were getting paid for protesting in Moscow, another commentator mourns.

Perhaps the bitterest blow to Putin’s image is the protest song by the Russian Union of the Airborne forces – an elite part of the military. Desantniki, as they are called in Russia, representing the veterans committee of the Airborne services, have in their own words become outraged by the lies and corruption of the government, saying that the ‘boys can’t take it anymore’. ‘Look us in the eye and close your mandate’ they sing. ‘You are just like me, a man, not a god, I am just like you, a man and not a fool’ is a line the prime minister hardly wants to hear. Especially given his projection of his tough man image – riding on horse back bare-chested, flying destroyers and attempting to bend an iron frying pan with his bare hands, this snub by the toughest military regiment in the Russian army, watched by hundreds of thousands on YouTube and receiving massive cheers from the protest crowd, is an indicator of just how deeply people’s disillusionment with the government has spread.

But the state media would not be state media if it did not try to brush over and under the carpet any visible inconvenience. In an unveiled attempt to both counter the protesters’ accusations and discredit the anti-Putin presence on the internet, the head of the investigative committee announced in a public statement on February 4^th that the ministry of internal affairs had conducted an investigation into the videos showing blatant proof of ballot stuffing abundant on YouTube and concluded that these videos carry ‘traces of editing’ and all originate from one server in the United States. The ministry is now determined to locate the producers of these libellous materials. One has to give credit to Channel 1 for admitting that YouTube offices, responsible for publishing the content, are located in California, thus explaining their US origin. But still. One only has to remember Putin’s bizarre statement that Hilary Clinton was largely responsible for inciting election protests in December to wonder just how many complete idiots the Russian government thinks make up its electorate.

If he is worried, however, Putin’s inscrutable face, made ever more enigmatic by botox, gives little away. ‘I don’t think he cares about what people think of him in the West’ his spokesman Dmitri Peskov has told the New Yorker. ‘He who pays the piper calls the tune.’ These cynical words describe the current political climate in Russia more eloquently than any lengthy political analysis. Russia’s position on democracy is clearly stated in Vitaly Churkin’s speech at the UN, where he claimed that ‘many influential members of the international community…undermined attempts at a political solution, calling for regime change, setting the opposition on the government, unashamedly provoking and fuelling armed resistance’. What in the words of William Hague ‘marked an hour of shame’, claiming more than 5,000 Syrian lives to date, Russia views as hypocritical pressure on the Assad regime. Understandably nervous about the Arab Spring, the Russian government’s attitude to civil disobedience is not promising for the protesters. His public snub of the white ribbons worn by the opposition as ‘unwrapped condoms’ is a shocking disrespect of his own people, who are tired of living in a country of outlandish corruption, repression and election fraud. One can only hope that the people, like the elderly lady who came wearing three layers of newspapers wrapped around her feet to protect her from the cold, will not give up any time soon.