Andrei Illarionov’s remarkable act of speaking truth to power (I posted on it earlier) has gotten some remarkable coverage in the world press. The New York Times (requires simple registration) and the Wall Street Journal – Europe (requires subscription) today had remarkable editorials in his defense.
For those who cannot access the WSJ-E editorial, it contained some remarkable language, including:
In a very public outburst, something little heard in a country with no vibrant free press or opposition, Mr. Illarionov presented a spirited indictment of President Putin. The seizure of Yukos’s prize asset, he told a press conference, was “the swindle of the year” carried out by “monstrously unqualified and unprofessional people . . . [with] a desire to expropriate private property.”
He scoffed at the Kremlin’s bungled campaign to put its man in power in Ukraine through fraudulent elections. He used economic reasoning to criticize Mr. Putin’s concerted efforts to centralize power in the Kremlin. “Limited competition in all spheres of life leads to one thing,” he said. “To stagnation.”
We don’t know whether political calculation or frustration motivated this deliberate attack. The consequences were predictable enough. But in one sense, his “fall from grace” is welcome — it should destroy any lingering delusions about Mr. Putin. The Russian leader is no democrat or reformer. It also suggests that some ambitious Russians believe that the time may be ripe to stand up and fight Mr. Putin. It was not just Russian liberals who could nod their heads in agreement with Mr. Illarionov; surveys show that a growing number of Russians are not happy with where their country is heading.
Having watched the Ukrainian revolution on their television screens last month, the Russians should feel encouraged that they also could do something about finding better leadership if they put forward sufficient effort. By striking the first blow, Mr. Illarionov has already accomplished far more to influence Russian politics than he ever could do by giving Putin good advice that went unheeded.
It’s sad. But it’s neither shocking nor a surprise. Putin’s desperate, hurried, and harried power grab is taking place not just in the political realm, but the business realm as well. His government admits nothing about the Yukos’s auction, but isn’t it convenient that out of nowhere comes Baikal Financial and even more convenient that soon after the auction is final Rosneft announces its purchase of BFG. This is just a pattern of things to come. The only good to come out of this situation is the confirmation that there are some liberty-minded Russians not afraid or oblivious to speak out.
A public outing to the West is all well and good, but did Russians in Russia get to see any of this on their state-dominated television stations?
That one indie radio station carrying Illarionov in Moscow reaches at most the 8% of Russians that live in Moscow; what about the rest of the country? Were those in St. Petersburg or the lesser cities able to witness the severity of his defiance?
Kevin,
I don’t quite understand your point. Illarionov did his best to reach both Russians and the rest of the world with his message, which touched not only on the Yukos Affair, but on other issues more sensitive than that, such as the war in Chechnya and the post-Beslan move to abolish elective governorships. The print media is still relatively free in Russia and they covered the whole thing quite extensively, as did internet sites. Some radio carried it. The politically alert throughout the country and throughout the region heard it. Most average and politically uninvolved Russians who depend on television for news probably did not, thanks to Putin’s systematic squeeze on the broadcast media. If Illarionov could have first freed up that media before denouncing the Kremlin’s policies, he would have, but he couldn’t. Your remark sounds a bit like making the best the enemy of the better.
Tom,
I was astounded by Illarionov’s courage in offering a principled & scathing rebuke of Putin’s oligarchic rule. If only Russia had 100 more like Illarionov in the top echelons! But my emotions quickly turned to sadness; Illarionov is alone and powerless.
My point is simple: Whether or not Russians heard or saw his defiance, they knew a fly had been swatted.
Is that not, in fact, how both the masses and educated, politically-minded Russians perceive the situation?
I hope I’m wrong; I fear I’m right.
Then I misunderstood your meaning.
I don’t think that you were quite right about how the politically minded Russians perceived it. The fact that Illarionov congratulated the Ukrainians on their victory (over the Kremlin-backed candidate) said to Russians that they should not give up hope in Russia. The Ukrainian victory seems to have buoyed the hopes of many classical liberals in Russia.