March of Dissent Co-opted
Troop Transports Lined Up Along Pushkin Square
As I wrote earlier, the “March of Dissent” was held on Saturday. Originally, the organizers had wanted to hold the rally in Pushkin Square, the traditional Moscow location of protest. The government eventually denied the request, and told them to hold the rally in a location further from downtown. Plenty of people were still planning to meet at Pushkin Square, so I decided to go and see what would happen. It’s no secret that I don’t particularly like the organizers of this march. I don’t agree with most of their politics, and I don’t think that they offer any sort of reasonable alternative to Putin. Unfortunately, what I saw on Saturday has me much more sympathetic to them than before.
On Friday, as I was waiting to meet a friend on the square, some cameramen from The Associated Press came over to ask me some questions about the march. When they found out I was a foreigner, they told me I could answer in English, though the question was posed in Russian. They asked, “It is estimated that 20,000 police will be in Moscow tomorrow, brought in from other regions. Is that an appropriate response to the March?” I answered that I didn’t care how many police the government brought in, the important thing was that the protesters be allowed to march freely. If that happens, then the number of police is not an issue. I didn’t know it at the time, but I was foreshadowing the next day’s events.
As I got to the metro at 11:30 in the morning, it was packed with people, way more than is normal for a Saturday morning, and there were cops everywhere. I decided to take a picture from the top of the stairs. As I walked down, I was approached by a policeman, who gave the traditional half-hearted salute that they all give when addressing a civilian. The officer asked for my documents, and was surprised, but didn’t show it very much, to find out that I was American. He told me that it was illegal to take pictures in the metro, and that I had to delete them. I remembered that in St. Petersburg it was illegal, but I was told that in Moscow you could take pictures. Ok, I said, and started deleting pictures. The entire time he was glancing back and forth from my passport to the crowd around the station. He sent me on my way, and told me that normally I would have gotten a fine. He decided that I wasn’t what he was looking for, a young Russian agitator. Though all in all, he was rather polite. Firm and distant, but polite nonetheless.
Elsewhere, the police were busy telling people in groups to disperse. A crowd-control security tactic, useful in both anti-terrorism and anti-demonstration actions, it was portrayed as a public service measure. This was actually a main theme of the government’s response to the March, portraying it as a public nuisance. Remember, in Moscow people often meet downstairs in the metro, and it is not unusual to see groupings of people waiting for others. These groups are not normally broken up. The police officers said to one group of three people, “Break it up, don’t gather in groups. Don’t be an obstacle to passers-by” (не собираемся в группы, разходимся. Не создаем препятствия идущим людям). The people were standing in a corner, clearly not in the way of anyone. Blatant lying about the reasons for an action is one of the things I hate most about government. Everyone knows why the police were breaking people up, yet the cops said it in all seriousness.
When I finally made it out of the station, there were people everywhere. It’s hard to describe Pushkin Square, because it has several streets running through it, and an underground passage with numerous exits. There were cops and soldiers on every inch, about two thousand, controlling access. You could cross from one side of the street to the other, but you couldn’t actually enter the square. From afar, I could see a bunch of people on the square with flags and a stage. At first I thought it was protestors who arrived early, and cops were just stopping more people from joining. I didn’t, however, recognize the flags. I tried to get closer, but was constantly rebuffed by the police. In fact, the cops were still in the process of cordoning off more and more territory. They actually had a pretty neat tactic to clear areas with minimal force. When they wanted to annex a new section, they would encircle it with officers, and not let anyone in. The people who were already there, walking down the sidewalk, for example, were allowed to leave. As such, they would take over a section, and then it would slowly empty itself.
You Can Leave, But You Can’t Enter
Here, again, the police were lying to citizens in an effort to disperse them and passively deny access to the square. Each time I found some sort of access point to the square and tried to enter, an officer would tell me that I couldn’t enter here, but if I walked 20 meters to that entrance, I could get in. Needless to say, I just ended up walking the perimeter, looking for the legendary passable entrance. I even got caught in one of the cordoning actions. As I left a sidewalk, approaching an entrance I had been assured was passable, the police let me out.
Police Run to Extend Their Perimeter
When told for the fourth time that I could enter if I just continued further down the street away from the square, I decided to head back towards the metro. As I approached the sidewalk from which I had just come, the OMON officer held his hand up and pointed to the South (the Metro was North and East). I told him I had just come from this sidewalk and wanted to get to the metro. He told me to walk a block South and then I could turn and get back to the metro - a familiar story. Two things to understand here. First, a city block in Russia is much larger than in America. We’re talking sometimes a half a kilometer long. Second, I had seen the congestion on Tverskaya, and knew that after going south and turning east, I wouldn’t be able to come North up the street. The officers were moving their perimeter outwards, and pushing away any civilians. I’ll give the officers the benefit of the doubt here. Some of them may have honestly thought that there really was a passable entrance just around the next hill. Others, however, surely knew that they were lying, and didn’t care about any inconvenience caused to civilians.
The Last Access Point to the Square
I had no choice, and I set out on my Southern trek. After about 100 meters, I noticed a construction site paralleling the square, with a passage open. I took it, and ended up on the far side of the square, behind the first wall of police. There were still two streets, a few fences, and a final line of officers guarding the actual demonstration, but I was intent on getting as close as possible to see what was going on. At about this time, all the cars on the street surrounding the square had been stopped, and some people had stepped out to see what was going on. I saw a chance to jump the fence onto the outer portion of the square. The police were guarding the entrances, but I mingled with the drivers and got to a section of fence unnoticed. It would be impossible to get to the inner portion, which was across another street, and the entire perimeter was protected, even where the fence was.
I Made it Behind the First Perimeter
I decided to get as close as I could to the scene and see what was going on in the demonstration. I was still under the impression that it was marchers who showed up early. Instead, I saw that the whole thing was a show by the “Young Guard” (Молодая Гвардия). Then a speaker came on stage and I realized with disgust what was going on. It was propaganda production tailored for the media age. From my side view, I saw that the crowd was not very deep. There couldn’t have been more than 100 activists total, and every third had a flag. The Young Guard is the youth wing of “United Russia,” the dominant party in the Russian political landscape. Since President Putin came into power, there has been a systemic campaign of consolidation of power in the Russian Federation. This is not necessarily bad in and of itself, but it does have certain worrisome characteristics.
No Spontaneous Supporters Allowed
There is one main political party, “United Russia.” It is known as the “Party of Power,” and supports President Putin. Technically, the President is not supposed to be in a party, but it is widely understood that he controls it. “United Russia” dominates at both the federal and regional levels across the country. In fact, in many ways, Russia is a one-party state at this current time.
Just Try Getting to the Square
The Youth Guard is not the largest youth movement, but it is the official one of United Russia, and as such is as close to the Kremlin as they get. The “March of Dissent” is organized by a group called “The Other Russia,” which is a conglomerate of several Russian organizations ranging from hard-left to hard-right, the only thing they have in common is that they are anti-Putin and out of power. None of these groups are represented in the country’s parliament. Argue what you want about whether you agree with their platforms or not, but it is the closest thing Russia has to an independent opposition.
An Officer Looks Bored as He Guards the Truck Where They Put Protesters
What disgusted me most about the actions on Saturday was that the government abused its power by moving a peaceful assembly out of the center, and replaced it with its voice for youth propaganda. There was another, larger event by the Young Guard going on at Moscow State University, but that wasn’t enough. Any dissent had to be stomped out and replaced. Instead of dueling rallies, we have the government apparatus forcing its own dominance. Yes, the Young Guard kids were probably paid by the government. Yes, they were told what to do and say. That’s not my main problem. The disproportionate dismissal of the opposition is the worst act committed.
The Way The Young Guard Portrayed Themselves
The speaker was like a violent, angry MC at some awards show. He yelled out several slogans, all directed against the opposition. He was professional, and did his job very well. Though I felt the conviction of a sophist, not a true believer. I hate chanting at rallies, no matter what the cause, and this was no exception. It wasn’t even spontaneous, you could tell from the way the sound came from the crowd that there was someone goading the kids on. You could hear it rise and fall at different times in different sections. Here are a few of my favorite slogans:
“Freedom, Russia, Sovereignty!” (Свобода, Россия, Суверенитет)
-What about freedom of speech and the freedom of assembly? This cry of “sovereignty” has been very popular in elite Russian political circles for some time now. The premise here is that the March of Dissent is supported by foreign groups and therefore any true Russian patriot shouldn’t listen to them. Ok, if that’s true, then what about the sovereignty of Moldova, Georgia, the Baltics, and Ukraine? Russian regularly interferes in the internal affairs of these countries. I would translate this slogan as “Double-speak, Nationalism, Hypocrisy!”
“We don’t need another Russia!” (Нам не нужна другая Россия!)
-This references the coalition organizing the March of Dissent, “The Other Russia.” This chant still makes me think of Tina Turner’s “We don’t need another hero.” Could you imagine a government sponsored march in the states yelling “We don’t need a Democratic (or Republican) Party!” Any functioning democracy needs an opposition. Anyone who wants otherwise is, by definition, authoritarian.
“There is no other Russia!” (Другой России нет!)
-Those in power are doing their best to make this true.
“When we’re united, we can’t be defeated!” (Пока мы единны, мы не победимы!)
-That’s right, keep up that one-party rule. It worked so well last time.
“Glory to Russia!” (Слава России!)
-Look, we’re nationalists too! You don’t need those crazy ultra-super-extreme nationalists. I go to a Russian protestant church, and often in hymns you can hear “Glory to God,” “Glory to You”, “Glory to Jesus,” etc. This was the first time that I’d heard “Glory to Russia.” The government is, like in the past, trying to create some semi-religious attachment to the state.
I left relatively early, after about an hour, because I didn’t want to stand around and watch paid youth agents listen to mind-numbing propaganda. As I was leaving, some of the “Dissenters” got on to the roof of a building facing the square and unfurled a banner that read “Hello to the March of Politically Funded Prostitutes” (Привет Маршу Политических Валютных Проституток), and proceed to throw flyers into the air. I didn’t get a flyer, so I don’t know what was written.
Even the Police and Conscripts are Laughing at the Dissenters’ Banner
The MC responded to this by yelling out, “See how disrespectful they are! They won’t pick those up themselves, they’re make our brave civil servants do it for them.” This, of course, continued on the theme of how the Marchers were unruly band of thugs who wanted nothing other than to cause public nuisance. “What do they disagree with?!” cried the MC, “Russia’s progress!” That’s right, the Marchers, quite a number of which are extreme nationalists, hate the fact that Russia has made progress since the 90s.
OMON Blocking Pushkin Square
This whole event was a blatant misuse of power and a revolting display of nascent government worship. I had planned on writing a different article this week, one about how the Marchers had no real political plan for the future, which I still believe is true. Unfortunately, however, the actions of the government have persuaded me that they aren’t as deserving of praise as I previously thought. The government tried to portray this who event as a public nuisance of criminals. The 2,000+ police officers blocking off downtown and throwing random people in jail disturbed the peace far more than a measly 200 protesters would have. Moreover, the government has shown that it will tolerate no opposition, not even weak opposition that has no chance of effecting any change.
It’s kind of interesting to compare your previous post on Dissenters’ March to this one. It is as though there are two different Owens !
Owen A: “Well, I understand that free speech is important and whatnot, but the government needs to step in to protect law and order. Surely, it is reasonable to limit the dissenters’ ability to assemble, they’re kinda shady…”
Owen B: “Holy crap ! The government brought in police and shut down free speech ! Who could’ve foreseen this !”
Firstly, in Russia, it would be surprising if things went any other way. Secondly, this is why I’m so afraid of the PATRIOT act, blanket surveillance, “free speech zones” (oh how I wish this was a joke), etc. Americans have always lived in a free country; they have no innate resistance to dictatorship, unlike Russian expatriates. Recently, a war hero was denied his boarding pass (and his luggage was confiscated) because he happened to participate in a peace rally at some point… And still, people here don’t seem to care.
Comment by Bugmaster — April 20, 2007 @ 2:24 am
Oddly enough, America beats Russia by only one party. They have one, we have two. It’s kinda sad.
Comment by Bugmaster — April 20, 2007 @ 2:26 am
Bugmaster,
Relax pal. Japanese Liberal-Democratic Party rules last 60 years in Japan and Japs do not suffer of it.
Comment by Pietari — April 20, 2007 @ 6:24 pm
WHATTA HORROR STORY! You are a brave man, James Bond.
Owen,
Are you a Freedomhouse employee and NGO “Another Russia” cashier? Or what the hell are you doing here?
Why the lying, hypocrite western media still haven’t said a single word about the LEGAL nazi-march in Krakow which also held on 14, April?
http://serwisy.gazeta.pl/kraj/1,34317,4061625.html
I think I know the answer- cause the polish sanitary engineer is the best friend of american cowboy. What I really found funny was the use of the Confederate naval jack !
Who is the boss in da Russky houz? Yeah man,- his name is Volodya. But Kasparov is the bullshitter, Limonov is glamour faschist, Kasyanov is 2% pilferer. What a cresset of democracy in Russia! They wanted a clash- they got it,- it was the black PR in front of the numerous western cameras.
Позвонил своим армейским друзьям в Москву.
- Ходили на марш?
- Ходили. Хотели посмотреть как менты демшизу пиздить будут.
Comment by Pietari — April 20, 2007 @ 6:50 pm
Bug, it’s not two different Owens. It’s a rational Owen and a surprised Owen. Owen A makes a reasonable statement: Police can be used to make sure that free spech involves words and not baseball bats. Owen B is surprised that said peace-keepers subverted the demonstration, instead of protecting (both sides of) it.
As for the party system, one is bad, two is decent. Any more than that, and you start running into plurality. With a legislature based on plurality, it is really hard to get anything done. They’ve shown in Britain over the years (who run a plurality based parliment) doesn’t get as much done as (legislatively) as the US. In theory, though, this can be a good thing. If your government can’t get a lot of things done, it can’t get too big. Unfortunately, the government now realizes it’s being “ineffective” and starts “fixing” things. And the government gets really big anyway.
What’s universally bad, however, is that in the last 80(-ish?) years, we (the US) have the same two parties to the exclusion of all else. Previously, there were small flips or changes in parties, or there was the occasional “we hate the other party” party (and it actually seemed to flush out some of the political stagnation at the time). But now both parties are the “we hate the other party” party first, and the ideological party second. And thus neither of them go away, so there is no flushing, just a toilet full of crap.
In other news, I love the fact that comments are back! But I’ve mentioned that before.
Comment by Jason — April 20, 2007 @ 11:18 pm
Bug: Too often in America right now people use their “free speech” to deny it to others. On several campuses, for example, minutemen have tried to give presentations. They are invariably hijacked by activists who physically disrupt the meeting at shout so that the presenter can’t be heard. That’s not free speech, its the opposite. So in terms of that, the “free speech zone” may well be justifiable. Jason pretty muchs sums up what I meant to say. Providing security for a peaceful event is one thing. Closing down the entire march and replacing it with government stooges is something entirely different.
It’s more correct to think of our two parties as coalitions. Each one encompasses more diversity than any typical European party. It provides for a more stable government while preserving the spirit of opposition. Multiparty systems are invariably weaker, and give disproportionate power to minority parties. An entire government could fall because a tiny party in the governing coalition decides to leave.
Pietari: This is the sad state of Russian “patriotism,” or perhaps more appropriately “nationalism.” Anyone who criticizes the government is obviously a foreign agent seeking to harm Russia. In functioning democracies even those you disagree with are allowed to voice their opinion. You, however, would prefer that everyone just stay home, shut up, and do what the government tells you. You shouldn’t have to jump over a fence to see a rally. If people love the government so much, why is the pro-government rally closed to the public? Japan, by the way, is an ethnically and religiously homogenous country. Russia is a multi-ethnic and relgious state. That makes a difference.
Comment by Owen — April 21, 2007 @ 1:27 am
Bugman,
I hear all this talk about the Patriot Act from so many people who do not believe that it is needed to protect you and me from terrorism. I have yet to hear of anyone being imprisoned or having their civil rights violated due to the Patriot Act. And you can bet as soon as anything like that happens the ACLU will be all over it.
If we do not do all we can to combat the threat from radical Islam, global warming will not matter we will all have to become Muslim or pay the Jizya.
Quran: 009.029
Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
Comment by John — April 21, 2007 @ 2:12 am
Yes, this is what I meant. As Owen himself would say, free market is good. Two parties is not a free market, it’s a duopoly at best. Don’t blame me — I voted for Kodos !
Comment by Bugmaster — April 21, 2007 @ 2:09 pm
Re: Islam:
As an atheist (and, therefore, the obvious agent of Satan etc. etc.), I personally don’t care which radical faction wins: Islam or Christianity. If your solution for combating Muslim fundamentalism is to out-fundamentalism them, then, IMO, you haven’t solved anything, you’ve just re-labeled the problem.
As to the PATRIOT act and its equivalents, consider, the example I’ve alluded to above; there are many others, such as Bush’s admission that yes, he’s illegally wiretapping everyone, and yes, if you don’t like it you’re a terrorist. In general, I don’t think that terrorism is such a serious threat that protecting me from it justifies any measure. I’m with Ben Franklin on this one.
Regarding Free Speech Zones, the very concept frightens me. At some point, our entire country was a free speech zone, you know ? Yes, there’s a need to keep protests from turning violent, but disallowing protests altogether is not the right solution.
Comment by Bugmaster — April 21, 2007 @ 2:19 pm
Re: The Two Owens:
I don’t think it’s logical at all to expect an anti-government protest to not be co-opted in Russia. Well, ok, I take it back — I expected all of these people to be arrested, so, yes, the relatively mild reaction from Putin’s forces did come as a surprise. Come on, this is Russia, what were you expecting ? Glasnost’ ?
Comment by Bugmaster — April 21, 2007 @ 2:22 pm
Here’s a recent example of Russian freedom of speech, fresh off the wire.
Comment by Bugmaster — April 22, 2007 @ 5:09 am
Regarding Free Speech Zones:
Yes, the whole country used to be a free speech zone. But we also used to be polite enough to a) not attempt to physically harm those who have different views (at least 98% of the time), and b) not call for the immediate impeachment/assassination of the person who happens to lead at the time. I’ve heard call for both even in the most (statistically) conservative part of Texas. Which is Lubbock.
Additionally, I would have you watch these coming elections. The front runners of the Democratic Party (as of now Clinton and Obama) represent two “never before elected” types. If the republicans win (maybe Giuliani actually has something to him. McCain’s finance “reforms” have made him unelectable to me), it will be because everybody in the US is stupid. If the democrats win, We either “hate blacks” (if Clinton wins), or we’re “still prejudiced against women” (if Obama wins). It should also be noted that only Republicans/conservatives will be said to hold these views. If neither make it through the primaries (as unlikely as that may seem), it’s because Republicans sabotaged it.
Just watch. I’m already hearing stuff like this on campus (again, in the most conservative part of Texas). When asked what I thought about candidates for this next election (some poor kid’s poli-sci project), I replied that I didn’t really find any from either party particularly electable to me. The response was that I was a racist, misogynist, idiot. Well, his phrasing was not half as polite.
Comment by Jason — April 23, 2007 @ 5:24 pm
What is wrong with my nationalism? Nationalism in the first place is the love to the nation, instead of hatred to another’s. I met the American, Swedish, French nationalists and we had very much heart-to-heart talks in between.
My girlfriend is Tatar, her father is retired Russian Army Colonel and he’s very religious. He respect me only because I was in Afghan and was wounded there. He’s VERY, VERY Army man. We have a long and hard talks about my, his, his daughter, our with her future kids talks. And I say- he’s MORE Russian nationalist than I’m. Why did I remember him? He just called to me: “The bastard (Yeltsin) died!”……. I do not share his joy,- but it is his opinion and it is opinion of a lot of officers and soldiers whom Yeltsin has sent in Grozny slaughter-house in 1996.
Yes, we are multi-ethnic and let us own to solve the problems.
We Russian are afraid to name ourselves Russky, instead of it we name ourselves Rossiane. We are afraid to say a word Jew, -because we afraid to be accuesed in anti-semitism.
I puke from what Jews have done Palestinians, but I cannot tell it openly. So, about what FREEDOM you are talking?
Comment by Pietari — April 23, 2007 @ 8:48 pm
Bugmaster ,
I admired the Clinton Nazi Net (CNN) which brainwashed you yankz on the eve of Yugoslavia bombing.
Do you remember Colin Powel in the UN office with the “white powder” vial? What was that? Oh, yeah,- the FOX NEWS!
P.S. I think I’ll change my handle to the Sand Nigger or the Towel Head. Which you like more?
Comment by Pietari — April 23, 2007 @ 8:57 pm
I think you just did, no ?
Comment by Bugmaster — April 23, 2007 @ 9:11 pm
Yes, it’s sad that there are idiots, but they have a right to free speech like everyone else. You don’t want some government official to decide who’s an idiot, and who’s not.
Speaking of the elections, I personally don’t think many candidates are particularly appealing, either. Personally, I’d probably vote for Hillary — not because I agree with anything she says, but just for the entertainment value of seeing Bill Clinton as the First Lady.
But I think that this meager crop of candidates is a symptom of the diminished political marketplace that we now have. There are only two viable parties, and, let’s face it, most people will vote either Democrat or Republican religiously, regardless of what their candidates are actually like. And they’re getting more and more similar every day, anyway… Things would be much more lively if we had some real competition.
Comment by Bugmaster — April 23, 2007 @ 9:19 pm
Vote for Leonard Peltier!
Comment by Pietari — April 23, 2007 @ 9:25 pm
Bug, I totally agree. Well, I won’t vote Hillary, because I don’t agree with anything she says (regardless of the entertainment value of “First Lady Bill”).
But we have a stagnant political landscape, and some sort of fetish with what I call “lazy traditionalism.” I ran into it all the time on my mission. At least 50% of my conversations would end up like this:
Random Dude(-ette): I think that’s great what you guys do. Talking about God and stuff. I don’t really go to church, but I think that’s great what you do.
Me: Will you let us talk with you about our beliefs, and why we think they are important?
RD: No, that’s ok. I was raised [insert christian denomination - typically catholic or baptist].
Me: But you just said you don’t go to church.
RD: I don’t.
Me: ??
The political version is the same. So many people vote democrat because their parents did. They don’t particularly know one way or another if they agree with [insert democrat talking point]. Likewise with republicans.
A two-party system isn’t inherently bad, though. But up until the last 80 years, the parties were always different (at least in name, if not some core values). But it was still two. Occaisionally a third popped up, but it usually lost.
Comment by Jason — April 25, 2007 @ 4:29 pm
To be quite fair, I deal with missionaries in a similar way. “Yes, yes, you guys are great. Now, there’s a house right next door where you can go. See ya !”
But I think that a two-party system is inherently unstable, because there simply isn’t enough competition. The two parties only have to worry about each other. They no longer need to achieve any results; they just need to make their single opponent look bad — and, as the result, they create a quasi-religious fervor in their followers.
That is not the case with multiple parties, because there are simply too many opponents. You can’t knock them all down, so you’re left with the only option of making yourself look better. At least it’s a step in the right direction.
Comment by Bugmaster — April 25, 2007 @ 7:30 pm