From servility to revolt, non-stop

For Russia, 2008 is becoming a litmus test that, plunged into the glass of Russian reality, is exposing the actual situation: a new president has been elected and the project to choose “The Name of Russia” is underway. In the following interview with The Day , Sergei Kovalev, veteran Russian dissident, human rights champion, Russia’s first ombudsman, president of Russia’s Institute of Human Rights, coauthor of Russia’s Human Rights Declaration, who is known for his consistent and outspoken criticism of the Kremlin’s policy in regard to Chechnya, comments on the maturity of Russia’s civil society, the Kremlin’s attitude to Stalinism and the Holodomor in Ukraine, and human rights and liberties. Kovalev, who has never belonged to Russia’s “silent majority,” remains a controversial figure in his own country.

SLAVISH PSYCHOLOGY

You mentioned the project “The Name of Russia: Historical Choice 2008.” How do you explain the fact that the Russians’ top choices are Tsar Nicholas II, Stalin, and Lenin?

History is the first thing that comes to mind. Our history, which is bloody and dishonorable, has left its mark on a number of generations, and it will be years before it is erased. The question is how all this came to pass? Why did these historical hardships have such a strong effect on the Russians? I have a genetic explanation, so to speak. Many people are aware of the widespread image of Russians as being disgustingly servile. But there is also another type of reaction on our part to what is going on around us: it is the revolt about which Alexander Pushkin once wrote: “The Russian revolt is absurd and merciless.”

There are no intervals of peace and quiet between these different stages, just as there have been no attempts to formulate democratic procedures that would allow Russia’s society to influence the government without resorting to rebellion. When I mention the genetic factor, I mean what’s in the genes of our national character. We know that a selectionist who is determined to develop a new plant species often has to apply a provocative technique. For example, you want to grow plants that will be immune to certain diseases. You take these plants and expose them to some diseases. Most of them will die, but some will show a bit of resistance. If you consider the many stages of Russian history, you will see an example of selection against a provocative background. The most illustrative example is Stalin’s prison camps.

Many people ended up in the camps simply because it was their sad lot, although most did so because they were different from the general background. These people had no heirs, whereas all kinds of “sons of bitches,” who knew how to adapt to the system, had sons and daughters. Their baseness secured them a decent life. Not the finest sort of people prospered while high-quality citizens disappeared without a trace.

I believe that this circumstance had a strong effect on the national character and mass psychology. And this merciless revolt in Russia is actually germane to all slaves; it is an element of slavish mentality. As regards Ukrainians, they were exposed to no fewer repressions under the Stalinist regime, but certain differences have been preserved among them. Ukrainians have said to various spin doctors: “No, we are not cattle. We don’t want to be duped.”

To this day Russians have not done anything along these lines. Nevertheless, Ukrainians do not have anything special to boast about. I believe that they, and we, have attended practically the same school of life.

History has developed in such a way that Ukrainians were oppressed, while Russians were seemingly not oppressors, yet it was constantly drummed into their heads that they are the “elder brother.” This elder-brother mentality has become deeply engrained, and it helps Russians feel as though they are the masters.

In this sense, I think that Russification and oppression have kept Ukrainians pure. They have been exposed to some outside pressure. As I see the situation now, western Ukraine appears to be more freedom-loving and independent. In Ukraine’s eastern territories one finds a protest against this pressure, but a servile trend is clearly present as well. I believe that if polls were conducted in the Donbas or Kharkiv oblast, like in Russia, then Stalin would get pretty good ratings there too. But I repeat: Ukrainians are distinguished by the fact that you recall the Soviet period as one marked by a degree of suppression of the Ukrainian language, culture, and traditions, while the Russian proletarians remember this period somewhat differently, although there are distortions of history and simplified notions on both sides. Russia’s celebrated poet Mikhail Lermontov once wrote: “Fare thee well, Great Russia, inhabited by slaves and lords. And you blue [police] uniforms, and the common folk who do as they are told.” Pushkin wrote, “Why do these herds need freedom’s gifts? They should be butchered or sheared.”

“I AM ASHAMED TO CALL OUR HISTORY BOOKS TEXTBOOKS”

What role has the current Russian government played in the fact that Stalin and Lenin have such high approval ratings?

The current political situation in Russia is pushing people who don’t think much in that disgusting direction. I am ashamed to call our history books textbooks. They constantly mention our heroic past, our achievements, but they devote half a page to the bloodiest stages of our history, arguing that yes, this did happen, but on the other hand, what choice did we have? Our current government is horrible; it doesn’t deserve a single word of praise.

Do you think that the Russian government is interested in preserving this servile approach?

Unfortunately, all governments want to have great opportunities. People in power love power, so it’s important to have a civil society that is capable of maintaining control over this power. Of course, the Kremlin wants to have an obedient society. A society whose idol is Stalin is servile, there is no denying the fact.

“OUR ENTIRE POLITICAL LIFE IN RUSSIA IS SIMULATION”

So why don’t we hear from Russia’s intelligentsia or civic organizations?

There are certainly a great many people in Russia who would place Sakharov in first place, but their numbers are small. After all, well-educated people with a clear conscience are always numerically fewer compared to others. I believe the situation is the same outside Russia. America, for example, is a very democratic country, but I can assure you that the average American knows nothing about democracy; he lives on gossip, rumors, and mistakes. But this is a democratic country.

What does it take to become a democracy? It takes two things: first, a law that would not simply be proclaimed but implemented. Let’s say that the current Constitution of Russia is not a bad one. But it states that the highest goal is freedom of the individual. That would be great, if only it were implemented. The problem is that Russia’s current constitution, like the Stalinist one, is needed outside rather than inside Russia, so that the government can show it off and say: “Look at our constitution!” Our entire political life in Russia is simulation! What we actually need is effective legislation as well as critical mass of people who understand what democracy is. Of course, I don’t know what kind of critical mass it should be, but the only important thing is for it to be influential; it must consist of people whose opinions will be heeded.

“WE WANT TO DRESS UP HISTORY AND MAKE IT MORE ATTRACTIVE”

Why are Russian politicians and the government resisting Ukraine’s efforts to tell the world the whole truth about the Holodomor? Our distinguished historians and public figures have repeatedly stated that we are not blaming the Russian people but the Stalinist regime.

We want to dress up history and make it more attractive, because many people get the shivers when our history is mentioned and we want to look attractive. Already during the Soviet period we became used to distorting history, so we continue distorting it. As regards the Holodomor, this is undoubtedly a heinous crime. It should be noted that there are very many examples of genocide in Soviet history. Take, for instance, the execution of Polish officers at Katyn. There were tens of thousands of them! This is a typical act of genocide because people were killed on ethnic grounds. Or take the deportation of nations. Up to 30 percent died during the deportation. As for the Holodomor in Ukraine, it is a horrible crime, but was it an act of genocide? There is no direct evidence of this, no arguments that Ukrainians were killed by starvation because they were Ukrainians, not for any other reasons. There was death by famine also in Kazakhstan and Russia’s southern regions, and in those places there were also blockades to prevent people from escaping. It is quite possible that this was the general policy of the government toward fertile areas. Ukraine, however, suffered the greatest number of victims. There are perfectly well-intentioned historians who insist that it was not genocide but the horrible process of collective farm construction.

“THIS WAS THE VICTORY OF A MISANTHROPIC IDEOLOGY”

Stalinism is being condemned in many countries today and compared with Nazism. Why does Russia have a different attitude to this issue? Is this the result of official propaganda?

Russia’s stand is that we won the victory over Nazism. This is a myth. Who began the Second World War? Hitler and Stalin. It didn’t start on June 22, 1941, but on Sept. 1, 1939. The Soviet Union started taking part in it on Sept. 17. History would have taken a different, probably a much more complicated, course if Hitler had not been so sure of himself and had not initiated hostilities on the Eastern Front. What did Hitler invent? A degree of anti-Semitism; he turned anti-Semitism into a law. Although Stalin didn’t make anti-Semitism into a law, there was state anti- Semitism, which was practiced on a broad scale. Incidentally, had Stalin lived a little longer, there would have been a deportation of the Jews. It was already prepared, and noted Jewish figures were being forced to submit requests about leaving cities.

Concentration camps existed long before Hitler. Do you know where Ukrainian culture was being destroyed? In the Solovky Islands. How many Ukrainian cultural figures were buried at Sandarmokh! What kind of struggle against Nazism was it, considering that half of Europe was enslaved? What was happening on the occupied territories? Specialists were taken away like slaves, together with equipment. There were also bloody purges. Some victors over Nazism! And what was the price of our military victories? What other army has ever had rear security units to prevent troops from deserting? All our military strategy boiled down to burying the enemy under the bodies of our men and drowning him in our blood. How can the victor’s losses be many times those of the defeated army? This was a common ideology relying on force and mass repressions. I would say that this was a victory of a misanthropic ideology that threatened the whole world.

THE TRUTH ABOUT RIGHTS

What is the current human rights situation in Russia?

Generally speaking, the human rights situation in Russia is very bad. These rights are solemnly proclaimed, although in reality there are quite a few political prisoners. An exhibit at the Sakharov Museum some three years ago displayed the portraits of 69 political prisoners, and this number was selected after long and careful consideration. This far from exhausted the list at the time. Now their numbers are even larger.

How do you assess your contribution in the human rights sphere while holding the post of ombudsman?

As Russia’s first ombudsman, I carried this function out during the war in Chechnya, for which I was quickly relieved of my post in the State Duma. The Duma dismissed me because I opposed the war. Later, the Duma (a different convocation but principally the same membership) tried to retire Yeltsin by starting impeachment proceedings. At the time there was a small shortage of votes on the start of the war in Chechnya. And so they first removed a person who disapproved of the war and then tried to remove the man who had started the war. That’s the way things happen in my country. This is our format, although you seem to have problems with your ombudsmen too. * * *

Serhii A. Kovalev was born on March 2, 1930, in a railway worker’s family in the town of Seredyna-Buda (Sumy oblast, Ukraine). In 1932 the Kovalevs resettled in Podlipki, a large village near Moscow. In 1954 he graduated with a degree in Biology from Moscow State University. He is a biophysicist specializing in neural networks. He lives and works in Moscow. He is the author of more than 60 scholarly works. He defended his dissertation in 1964 and received the degree “Candidate of Biological Sciences.”

Starting in the mid-1950s, Kovalev took part in the struggle against “Lysenko’s teachings,” an unscientific doctrine predominant in Soviet biology and supported by the Communist Party. In 1968 he joined the human rights movement that emerged in the USSR. In May 1969 he became a member of the Initiative Group for the Defense of Human Rights in the USSR, the country’s first independent human rights organization. In 1971 he became one of the leading organizers of Khronika tekushchikh sobytii (Chronicle of Current Events), a typewritten information bulletin published by Soviet dissidents.

On Dec. 28, 1974, Kovalev was arrested on charges of “anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda.” In 1975 he was sentenced to five years in a strict-regime prison camp and three years of exile. He served his term in the Skalninsk camps (Perm region), then in Chistopol Prison (Tatarstan). From his place of exile he was sent to the Kolyma region. After serving his term he settled in Kalinin (now: Tver).

During perestroika he returned to Moscow and took part in various public initiatives. He was a member of the organizing committee of the International Humanitarian Seminar (December 1987), was instrumental in founding the Glasnost Press Club, and took part in the founding assembly of the Memorial Society (in 1990 he became its co-chairman). In 1989, on Andrei Sakharov’s recommendation, he was appointed co-chairman of the Soviet section of the Human Rights Project Group at the International Foundation for the Survival and Development of Mankind (later reorganized as the Russian-American Human Rights Project Group). He then joined the Moscow Helsinki Group.

In 1990-93 he was a member of the Congress of People’s Deputies of Russia, member of the Presidium of the Supreme Council of the Russian Federation. He was twice elected to the State Duma (1993 and 1995). In 1996 he became a member of the Russian delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.

In 1990-93 Kovalev was chairman of the Human Rights Committee of the Supreme Council of Russia; chairman of the Human Rights Commission under the aegis of the President of Russia (1993; he tendered his resignation in 1996). In January 1994 he was elected Russia’s first ombudsman. In March 1995 the State Duma relieved him of this post.

Today Kovalev is president of the Institute of Human Rights (IHR), an independent non-profit organization specializing in research and education in the sphere of human rights. IHR was founded in late 1996 by a group of private individuals and the Russian-American Human Rights Project Group.