Ukrainians show character

Last week The Day drew the reader’s attention to an important message from Russia’s Mikhail Fedotov — about the necessity of de-Stalinization of the society. This week was marked by two more topics that are important for Ukrainians, and which fit the context of the complex process of de-Stalinization. The first one is the attitude of Ukrainians to the sensitive problem of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army’s (UPA) warriors who fought against Stalinism. The second topic was voiced during the show Big Politics with Yevgenii Kiseliov. This is the revival of the call for a common Ukrainian-Russian history textbook. This time Ukrainians showed character. The Day continued the discussion on the topic with Aleksandr Podrabinek and Liliya Shevtsova.

WHAT SHALL WE DO WITH STALIN?

Aleksandr PODRABINEK, editor-in-chief of Prima information agency, Moscow:

“Mikhail Fedotov, the newly appointed head of the Russian president’s Council for Civil Society Institutions and Human Rights called the de-Stalinization of social consciousness one of his priority tasks in the new capacity. He also declared his intent to assist judicial and police reform, but this was more of a regular speech by a newly-fledged official who, no doubt, cannot help praising the new toy of the president.

“Obviously, behind the words of Fedotov about the de-Stalinization, there is not only his worldview as a politician and journalist, but also his plans for the near future. The idea of a new de-Stalinization campaign somewhat shook up Russian society and even resulted in some discussions, albeit not heated and not for long.

“The Stalinist consciousness in modern Russia is a kind of multilayer pie, the layers of which differ from one another in quality and taste. The most visible and stinking layer is the Stalinism professed by the generation of unyielding Communists with party membership cards of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, who are already passing into oblivion. On “red holidays” they still sometimes appear on streets and squares of our cities with portraits of Stalin to affirm, in public, their faith in the dead cause, which they sacrificed all their conscious life to. De-Stalinizing them is no good and makes no sense. They do not play any considerable role in society, and they stay afloat only owing to the federal government, which makes sure it looks good against the background of something truly terrible.

“People who aspire to simple solutions represent another layer of the Stalinist consciousness. These are not necessarily bad people — political villains dreaming of washing Russia with blood. They are reasonably indignant at the corruption, lawlessness and absolute power of bureaucracy, the omnipresent bribery, the passivity of law enforcement bodies, the corrupt judiciary and many other things which people with democratic worldviews are exasperated by. However, unlike the latter category, they see the only way out of the current situation in severity bordering on cruelty. No doubt, this is a Stalinist way of solving problems. For being late for work — five years in the camps, for a picked up spikelet — ten years, for a joke — 25 years. Other people like this are indignant at the spread of drug addiction, prostitution, the freedom of behavior, homosexuality, sectarianism, modern artists, labor migrants, Caucasians, Jewish Freemasons, nudists, obscenities, radiation, and UFOs. They would gladly exile to Siberia or to the better world all those who spoil their view of the world. There are representatives of different generations among these people. They are united not by the elderly age, but by a low level of education and the inability to think independently.

“One more layer is rather thin but very dangerous — politicians, public and cultural activists who offer society Stalin’s recipes of political regime of the country. They fight for the history textbooks where Stalin is represented as an “efficient manager”; they revive numerous Soviet myths about the social prosperity and successes of socialism; they oppose attempts to revise the history by throwing away lies and keeping the truth.

“And, finally, the top layer, not very noticeable in this pie, but the key one in all this construction — the supreme government. No, they do not speak about their love for the “mustached father” and do not admire his methods in public. On the contrary, when opportunity arises, they can shed crocodile tears for victims of political repressions, lay flowers on the Butovo firing ground or in Katyn. They even speak about the supremacy of law and that freedom is better than no freedom. But at this, they will consistently and carefully do the following: strictly control judicial power; control television and other mass media; subordinate large businesses and destroy small ones; rig elections to dictate their will to the parliament; nullify the activity of all political parties except for the ruling one; ban opposition meetings and demonstrations; conduct a policy of intimidation regarding neighboring countries and support totalitarian and terrorist regimes.

“They will be indignant if they are accused of Stalinism, but they actually practically implement Stalin’s recipes, adjusted to the new time and change of circumstances. Ideas of strict governance, distinct bureaucratic hierarchy, barrack-like discipline, and absolute absence of social criticism and political competitors are close to them. They still cannot afford saying it out lout, but the implicit grief for Stalinism does appear in the public sphere, either in the form of the revived Stalinist anthem, or in the form of new memorial plaque for activists of communism, or in the form of a caring for monuments to Bolshevik executioners.

“So against whom is Mikhail Fedotov’s idea of de-Stalinization directed? Against the most efficient Stalinists who head the system or the least harmful ones, roaming around with mildewed portraits of their chieftain? Of course, time will show, but I have an inkling that the advisor to the president Fedotov will hardly reveal the elements of Stalinism in the activity of the President Medvedev or Prime Minister Putin. Everything depends on him.”

UKRAINE IS AN EXAMPLE OF DE-STALINIZATION FOR US

Liliya SHEVTSOVA, senior associate at the Moscow Carnegie Center:

“Any historical event discussed in the Russian mass media and belonging to the topics of public interest and, of course, above all the role of Stalin and the necessity or lack thereof of de-Stalinization does not have a mere theoretical, philosophical or historical importance for Russia. This is, first of all, a political issue. Stalin, symbols of Stalinism, and the entire problem of Stalin’s past is the most important modern factor used by the ruling elite of Russia in its survival formula. This formula of Putin and Putin-Medvedev can be ascribed equally to both. This means that the Kremlin’s leaders in turns addressed different segments of the Russian society; chauvinists, statists, left, right, and liberals and tried to send them their own message, creating a kind of multi-layered image, a rather broad basis for Putin’s consensus. Putin’s consensus includes very different political forces: from Stalinists to anti-Stalinists. This formula of self-preservation worked until recently. But at present, after the global financial crisis, the Kremlin’s elite, and above all the ruling tandem, is contemplating the modification of the old formula for next year. They look for new means of preservation of the old status quo. Naturally, it happened after the need of economic revival appeared. They realized that the economy did not work and the current economic model created by Putin led to a deadlock. They realized they had to look for new sources, first of all external sources, of economic growth in order to survive. Naturally, there is a need for a look for this old, puffy, and rotten face of the Russian political system. Or, as Medvedev says, there is a need to turn a ‘smiling face’ to the West, replacing the severe, cold face of Putin’s steel eyes. Generally, there is a need for Medvedev’s modernization talk. So Stalin, the former euphoria around Stalin, and the lenient attitude to Stalinism (Stalin as a ‘great manager’) no longer correspond to the need of a more modern image of Russia.

“Therefore, to be short, Putin and Medvedev, and first of all Putin, betrayed Stalin. He betrayed the ‘chieftain’ of peoples already last year when he came to Poland and started building bridges with the Poles, and actually started solving the Katyn problem. Therefore Medvedev’s anti-Stalin rhetoric this year and all anti-Stalin fervor at the Yaroslavl forum, which was held under the aegis of Medvedev, are quite clear. They fit the course of the formation of the new, more civilized, more progressive and liberal kind of Russia, necessary for realizing a new model of the system’s self-preservation. This covers the old system, the old ruling team, the old principles. They decided to get rid of this husk. That is the explanation to the rather truthful level of anti-Stalin discussion in society. Destroying and discarding Stalin, denying Stalin became permissible when Dmitry Medvedev himself does it. But this also influences the fact that Russia actually did a lot to find mutual understanding with Poland regarding Katyn. That is the rapport with Poland was achieved through recognizing Katyn as a tragedy and admitting to the sins and crimes of Stalinism.

“However, one can notice that the Russian ruling elite is ready to admit Stalin’s crimes first of all in relations with neighbors, Poland, and the West in general. Russia holds this discussion at different round tables with Western political experts. But we don’t see this discussion in Russian mass media and pertaining to Russian society.

“Thus, this de-Stalinization is a kind of export product of Russia. We have very few products we can export. In my opinion, the de-Stalinization is a new export product which is supposed to show a more modern face of the Russian government. But at the same time this so-called de-Stalinization export didn’t change much inside the country. History textbooks, in which Stalin is still depicted as a great manager, are not revised. Moreover, attempts to find justification for Stalin’s crimes, glorify Stalin’s role as a victor in WWII, all these things are kept in our school textbooks and in history books for higher education. In addition, the Russian elite never took the step Ukraine had dared to take — during Yushchenko’s presidency it not only condemned the Holodomor, but also Stalinist crimes, and gave a legal character to this condemnation. The Russian elite never had their Nuremberg Trials. Generally, such a political condemnation of Stalinism, de-Stalinization for the sake of opportunistic interests, can turn out to be a very temporary phenomenon. Stalin was repeatedly condemned in Russian and Soviet history. Under Khrushchev in 1956, and later under Gorbachev and Yeltsin. This did not prevent Putin from approving some elements of Stalinism. Therefore the absence of a legal condemnation of Stalin and only, so to say, a political game with de-Stalinist mottoes shows the current state of the Russian system. We remain in the past. There was no complete rupture with Stalin so far.

“The condemnation of Stalin’s regime as an organizer of the Holodomor in Ukraine is a big deed. Your country together with Baltic states are the only independent states which made a legal assessment of their past, which Russia has not done so far and is not going to do.

“Does Putin want to de-Stalinize the country? Power concentrated in one person is the main remnant of Stalin’s Russia. Both Stalin and his past still legitimize the current government. And Putin is not ready to repudiate this concentration of power. Therefore Stalin, in some form, is still needed. The process of de-Stalinization will not start from above if it is not demanded by the people, as it happened in your country in 2004.

“What Ukraine undertook shows a way for us. Ukraine is in many ways a good example for us. Despite what happens in Ukraine, you maintain pluralism. This is something to emulate. In spite of everything, you have a peaceful fragmentation of political life, you find compromise, this is also an example for us. But, most of all, in regards to de-Stalinization you did much more than we did. We are still sitting in the old dressing room, with old makeup, with portraits of Stalin, simply applying lipstick not to look too ugly.”