Novaya Gazeta: "The week’s highlights with Vladimir Kara-Murza"
There is no plan, no future, but there is something to lose.
Below is our talk with political scientist Andrei PIONTKOVSKY
"Ten years ago the nation learned that Vladimir Putin would become Prime Minister. How much of a surprise was Boris Yeltsin's choice?"
"I remember that day very well. Journalists were calling me and desperately begging me to say something positive about it. The fact was that there was a consensus among commentators that the appointment was another of the President's antics. I obliged because Boris Yeltsin in his speech had indicated for the first time that he would not seek a third term and that he was offering the country his successor, a wonderful man who would make a good Prime Minister and in due course a good President. By the way, Yeltsin's recommendation had no impact on the presidential campaign. Until the events of September nobody noticed Putin. Luzhkov and Primakov were the favourites, and one of them was to become a presidential candidate. Zyuganov and Yavlinsky were only slightly behind them."
"Was Vladimir Putin beholden to the Family in any way?"
"I think he still had commitments to Abramovich, Voloshin, Yumashev, Dyachenko and others. He probably had some obligations to Berezovsky, but he behaved in a way that made a showdown inevitable (Berezovsky claimed that he had made Putin President). But all the other members of the Family are fine."
"How do you see the future of Putin's project?"
"The project started in August 1999. That social-political system is now coming to an end because the peak of the leader's popularity is behind us. And another thing: during his first term many liberals talked about authoritarian modernization. Today there is no plan and no future. The most optimistic hope is that we will again supply our oil and gas to the West. The top nomenklatura of the Putin project -- multimillionaires who have a lot to lose -- do not see themselves outside this system.
* * *
Highlights of the week
The Russian Prime Minister's active holiday in front of TV cameras made one think of the situation ten years ago when the new head of the Russian Cabinet of Ministers needed to gain political weight.
By the summer of 1999 Russian society had become accustomed to the antics of the Kremlin incumbents, journalist Stanislav KUCHER recalls:
"By that time Boris Yeltsin had become famous for his ability to startle the public. I was much more surprised by the choice of Sergey Kiriyenko as Prime Minister than by the appointment of Vladimir Putin."
Historian Nikolai SVANIDZE attributes Boris Yeltsin's choice to his foresight:
"Yeltsin was looking for somebody he could trust, who could gain popularity in the country and who could stop the relentless bid for power on the part of Luzhkov and Primakov. Yeltsin picked Putin. At the time the nation did not know Putin, but many of those who did know him were not surprised by the choice."
"Political scientist Dmitry ORESHKIN has vivid memories of the time:
"I felt that Putin was a successor to Yeltsin's course, young, energetic and competent, with a grasp of how the economy works. In fact, I rather liked him during the first two or three years of his presidency."
Journalist Shod MULADZHANOV realized which way the wind was blowing by the end of autumn in 1999:
"In November 1999 I published in Moskovskaya Pravda a parody of the slogans that used to be published in the Soviet times on the November 7 holiday. One of the slogans was that "Putin is our everything." That forecast has come true.
* * *
In the absence of Alexander Solzhenitsyn, who died a year ago, the fighters against distortions of history have reared their heads.
While Alexander Solzhenitsyn was alive, apologia of totalitarianism which flourished in every area of social life was impossible. The writer was out of sync with the democratic sentiments in the mid-1990s when he returned to Russia, thinks political scientist Stanislav BELKOVSKY:
"Alexander Solzhenitsyn had to come to a compromise with Putin's Administration in order to weather the 1990s. Unexpectedly he found himself in the minority even though the nation had been waiting for him and for his opinions for decades. In terms of Alexander Solzhenitsyn's personal project, Putin's Administration was acceptable, he would not have challenged those who today are fighting distortions of history."
"The writer's authority was, over a certain period, a deterrent to those who wanted to whitewash the Soviet past, says the leader of Yabloko Party, Sergey MITROKHIN. "Solzhenitsyn was a towering figure. If he were alive today we would not be witnessing the farce of the heads of special services, people who have nothing to do with the study of history, with a couple of historians thrown in, roll up their sleeves and start delving into history to determine what is truth and what is a lie. I think Solzhenitsyn would have condemned it. Perhaps it would not have happened in his lifetime."
Author Leonid MLECHIN sees no contradictions in the fact that those who are rewriting history extol Solzhenitsyn:
"Present-day society has no equal in terms of hypocrisy. One can shake Solzhenitsyn's hand and at the same time praise Stalin. In our society these things miraculously coexist."
The writer Zakhar PRILEPIN offers a paradoxical view of the connection between Solzhenitsyn's work and attempts to distort history:
"In a sense Alexander Solzhenitsyn is one of those who falsified history. I do not know whether he was more hindrance or help. The GULAG Archipelago should be published with a forest of footnotes indicating where the author exaggerated the figures, where he was recounting a prison joke and where he was telling the truth. I do not think that he stood in anyone's way. In general I doubt that even Solzhenitsyn could stop present-day inventors of great Russian myths."
"Solzhenitsyn's mission was far more important than day-to-day intrigues, claims journalist Yevgeny KISELYOV:
"Only those who did not realize what role he played in the history of literature and the history of the country could expect Solzhenitsyn to be a political activist. He wrote The GULAG Archipelago and One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich for which we have to thank him. And I think he can be forgiven for not engaging in politics."
