Stagnation-era Secretary General was the best ruler…

The Russians have chosen Leonid Brezhnev, former CPSU Secretary General, who was born in Dnipropetrovsk oblast and ruled the USSR between 1964 and 1982, as the 20th century’s best ruler of Russia. As is known, the Brezhnev era was dubbed “stagnation,” which in fact means that absence of any important reforms eventually resulted in a collapse of the Soviet system. The years when the four-star Secretary General was in power saw a partial rehabilitation of Stalinism, an increased role of the KGB and tougher repressions against dissidents, and the outbreak of war in Afghanistan.

A poll conducted by Levada Center in April 2013 among 1,500 respondents in 45 regions of Russia revealed that 56 and 29 percent of those polled were taking a positive and negative attitude, respectively, to Brezhnev. Stalin ranks second on this list (50 for and 38 against), Nicholas II third (48 for and 35 against), and Nikita Khrushchev fourth (46 for and 35 against). Vladimir Lenin ranked the last, with a mere 5 percent of the Russians taking a positive view of him. At the same time, the Russians consider Mikhail Gorbachev and Boris Yeltsin the worst rulers – 66 and 64 percent are taking a dim view of them, respectively.

“Sociologists asked respondents about their attitude to each of the 20th-century rulers who were in power long enough to be judged fairly,” Levada Center Deputy Director Aleksei Grazhdankin said, explaining the methods of this survey.

“People tend to associate Stalin with victories and Brezhnev with affluence,” political scientist Sergei Cherniakhovsky says about the results. Meanwhile, Valery Solovei, a professor at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations, points out that “although nobody would like to live in the Stalin era, he embodies what is now in shortage – justice and equality in fear.”

As for the votes for Gorbachev, “this shows a lack of historical knowledge and historical reflection – people speak about myths rather than real-life figures,” Interfax quotes Jan Raczynski, member of the international society Memorial, as saying.

The Day requested some Russian and Ukrainian experts to comment on what the survey results mean and why the Russians are taking this attitude to the abovementioned USSR leaders.

By Mykola SIRUK, The Day

COMMENTARIES

“BREZHNEV IS A COLOSSAL LACK OF CONFIDENCE IN TOMORROW”

Viktor MIRONENKO, advisor to Mikhail Gorbachev; manager, Center for Ukrainian Studies, Institute of Europe, Russian Academy of Sciences; Candidate of Sciences (History); editor-in-chief, journal Sovremennaya Yevropa:

“Why is Leonid Brezhnev the most popular among ordinary people? Maybe, because of the nature of his era. Repressions had ended. To be more exact, they still remained, but not on the scale of the 1930s or even the 1950s. It was a time of relative prosperity, when high oil prices were bringing in petrodollars and gas dollars. The living standards and product supply improved. People are now missing that quiet and prosperous time. The majority puts prosperity above freedom.

“It is also clear to me why Stalin ranked second. I would put this down to a colossal property gap. Both Russian and Ukrainian elites are flaunting ugly hedonism, when there is a pay gap between 150,000 rubles a month of a State Duma member and 15,000 of a top-skill doctor at an ordinary inpatient or outpatient hospital. This popular reaction to the name of Stalin is only natural in this situation – I can well understand them, even though I don’t approve of their choice.

“What struck me the most in this information is that the Russians are taking the dimmest view of, say, Mikhail Gorbachev. It is basically a problem of the attitude of the respondents (and Russian society as a whole) to freedom. In other words, far from all people look on freedom as an opportunity to do something and use it for themselves and for society.

“By force of the Russian historical and cultural tradition, most people are not accustomed to freedom. This historical (I would even say genetic) memory is making itself felt.

“As for Gorbachev, there is a serious point which he, I, and others who were involved in those reforms, may have underestimated. If you set a goal to release human energy and give people a considerably higher degree of freedom (and this goal was really set), you should be aware that this must not be entrusted partially or selectively to a certain social stratum, group, etc. In other words, if you are going to widen the boundaries of freedom, you should remember that you will widen them not only for positively-motivated people, but also for people with an antisocial and egoistic motivation. As a rule, the latter will have an advantage at the initial stage because these people are always more energetic and have a better view of their objectives.

“This survey shows that 20 percent of the polled consider [Gorbachev’s] contribution to the history of Russia as ‘positive.’ It is a colossal growth in the past 15 years.

“I led his election team in the 1996 presidential elections. He polled in fact a little more than 10 percent of the votes, although the official report mentioned 1.7-1.9 percent.

“Unfortunately, not a single individual who brings in freedom can expect to get a fair deal. Brezhnev is a semi-conscious form of being discontent with the existing situation. But the main thing is that Brezhnev is a colossal lack of confidence in tomorrow. Experts know only too well that the current relative Russian prosperity and a relative growth of incomes in the past few years rest on a very shaky ground – world prices for energy resources.

“Everybody has standards of his own. This is a psychological law. People’s wishes are endless and diverse. As for the seamier side, people tend to compare it with what they consider the most difficult times. Any person has quite a clear idea of how bad things used to be. But when it comes to defining what is good, there are as many opinions as there are people.”

“EVERYTHING WAS STABLE, ON THE ONE HAND, AND BAD, ON THE OTHER”

Andrei YUROV, humans rights activist, expert at the Council of Europe:

“There are two categories of the Russians who voted for Brezhnev. The first category is those who were young when he ruled. It is quite normal because people remember that things were good when they were young, the grass was greener, and girls were prettier. The second category may be some young people for whom the Soviet Union was an ideal of sorts (on the basis of older persons’ tales). All they can see are beautiful pictures, without any blurred spots, which the people who lived at the time in not always posh conditions remember very well.

“It is not surprising for me that Stalin ranks second in this poll. I think it is the ‘Weimar syndrome,’ a favorite discussion point of psychologists in the past 15 years. The problem is that in this case there is nothing else to do but hanker after what allegedly used to be an enormous empire. People believe that there once was a colossal great country made and run by a great leader. In reality, people do not know what was there. It is very difficult to imagine this, but there is a sensation of grandeur. It is nostalgia for the ‘golden age’ which villains eventually destroyed. But – at the time – things were nice, and all were afraid of and respected us… For many young people, it is a mythological time of sorts. They regard Stalin as a mythological person rather than a real-life tyrant with an incredible number of neurasthenic and mental idiosyncrasies. It is normal for infantile awareness.

“It is very difficult to decide in our country what the norm is and what is a criterion for comparison. I think all the years, with the exception of the mid-2000s, were rather a difficult period for many people. When we are speaking of some relative stability and peace, we should not forget that life in the 1980s was quite hard in the provinces. There was an acute shortage of food, and one had to travel to Moscow to buy some. Everything was stable, on the one hand, and bad, on the other. Therefore, I do not know what I can compare things with. I think many people associate that period with a certain peace of mind and predictability.”

“THE RUSSIANS ARE GOING THROUGH RE-SOVIETIZATION AND RE-STALINIZATION”

Yurii SHAPOVAL, professor, Doctor of Sciences (History):

“Only those who do not know much about that era are opting for Brezhnev. To me, a person who lived at that period, this seems strange – it is a symptom of the ongoing idealization and retouching of the Soviet past.

“The Russians are striving for what we in Ukraine call stability. Paradoxically, democracy never brings on stability. You know that people often end up in dire straits even in the United States of America, the country that considers itself the most democratic in the world, because it is payment for democracy and freedom which may result in not only positive, but also very negative things. The Russians are very afraid of this, for it does not fit in with their national mentality. It is not part of their societal tradition. Therefore, this part of society tends to identify stability with a ‘strong hand’ and a concrete leader. And Brezhnev was just the one, taking onto account that his false cult began in 1973, when his chief ideologue Suslov issued a special instruction, ‘On Increasing the Secretary General’s Prestige.’ From then on, Brezhnev was the embodiment of that system. Let us not forget that it was 1973-75, a more or less stable period in the Soviet Union, for it actively exported weapons and oil. Yet what is considered a positive Brezhnev era (in reality, a very short period) was a time when the entire country worked for the defense sector, i.e., for a war against the imperialist world. A country that is preparing to fight against the whole world cannot possibly embody at least some stability.

“The Russians are going through ideological re-Sovietization or re-Stalinization. For them, the world is still closed, and Russia’s biased attitude to the rest of the world is prompting people to lean to a worse experience rather than to the standards by which a considerable part of this world lives and is guided today. This ideological aberration is the root cause of this phenomenon.”

Interviewed by Ihor SAMOKYSH, The Day