In his article “Russian Opposition. A Sketch For A Political Portrait” published in Novaya Gazeta on 20 March, Pavel Voshanov reasons whether there is any Russian opposition at the time being and what its prospects might be. Unfortunately, having set about writing on the topic, the author did not notice that the opposition he was writing about has not been opposition for long. The author judges about the opposition using the obsolete terms. We are living in absolutely different political configuration now and describing it we should proceed from the answers to very simple questions like “Who is to be considered opposition in today’s Russia?”  

The outcomes of handing down the power and the political picture

Undoubtedly, two dates will be fixed in the modern Russian history – that’s 2 December 2007 and 2 March 2008. Formally, these are the dates of elections to the State Duma and the Presidential elections. In reality, on those dates the consolidation and legalized arrangement of the political regime was done, the regime that can be fairly called a dictatorship. The essence of the arranged regime is as to follow:  

1. The Constitution of Russia does not work, which means actual absence of the state constituted by it. Today’s Russia has nothing to do with the jural, social and federative state described in the Constitution, the state where full authority would belong to the people of Russia.  

2. The standing authority ruling in Russia is no legitimate and no lawful. First, this is so because, as it was said above, it was elected not in accordance with the Constitution, and the way of handing down the power, called “successorhood”, is neither lawful nor democratic and is only characteristic of monarchies. Second, the current authority relies on enforceable suppression of the dissident and on the persecution of those criticizing its legitimacy. Thus, today’s Russian authority relies on the force, not on the law.     

3. The main institutions do not meet the standards of independency and autonomy. Although existing, they do not work, i.e. do not perform the functions assigned to them initially in accordance with the law. Our court is not the institution where citizens can be provided with just trial and equality given to all the involved parties. Our parliament is not the place where the laws intended for the common wealth are worked out on the basis of the discussion going on between different groups and interests. Our police is no institution to guarantee protection for the citizens. Our state bureaucracy is not the tool to help arrangement of the relations between the citizen and the state. On the contrary, it hinders it and puts obstacles on that way through increasing the number of necessary arrangements, licenses and permissions. Our correctional, penal and pre-trial system has only assumed the punitive and tortural – not correctional – function which is proved with the practice of the European Court overloaded with complaints from Russia. In substance, we are facing the severe institutional crisis in Russia.      

4. The key reason for that crisis is non-working institution of elections that in its nature is intended to provide for replacement and controllability of the authority. In the recent years, the elections in Russia have not been free, fair, and transparent, and made in accordance with the rules equal for everyone. What happened in Russia on 2 December 2007 and on 2 March 2008 was no elections. It was a show having nothing to do with a democratic procedure. Here we should mention another non-working institution of democracy – that’s the referendum. In the last Putin’s years the amendments have been done to the law on Referendum, making it impossible any independent initiation of referendum, not sanctioned by the authority. Today, like it is about the election where only “approved” by the Kremlin candidates can take part, any referendum is possible only with the approval by the authority. That means no questions undermining the resources or opportunities of the standing power can be put on referendum.    

5. The illegitimate authority controls all the key directions necessary for its existence and continuation of being in power. Here are the basic fields: control over the law-making process, control over the judicial system, and control over prosecution bodies. It is important to note the connivance and often it is direct order by the authorities given to the police and OMON to violate the law. Undoubtedly, the authority also holds the control over elective commissions that learnt long ago to prevent undesired candidates to take part in the elections even at the municipal level. The registration of the public movements and political parties is also controlled strictly and the authority has made a reliable barrier for undesirable associations of the citizens.   

Pseudo opposition

There is no space for anyone and anything unsanctioned by the Kremlin, in the political regime described above. This is why even those who are called “opposition” by the official media, are just “pocket” opposition in reality, as their actions are necessarily arranged with the Kremlin. 

For example, many consider CPRF (Communist Party of The Russian Federation) to be oppositional. That’s a mistake. CPRF could be recognized as the opposition at Yeltsin. And at Putin its leader Zyuganov always visits the Kremlin. Declaring the unfairness of election, CPRF nonetheless takes part in it permanently. Stating itself to have been stolen the votes, CPRF agrees anyway to the outcomes made up by the Central Elective Commission. And its agreeing just makes the State Duma to be legitimate.    

CPRF – that always spoke for people’s authority – factually submitted to elimination of its real tools: election and referendum. After that, is there any talk possible about the citizens’ social rights! CPRF having been present in the state Duma for over 10 years, the social rights of our citizens have been reduced to the principle “you pay, or you don’t get anything”. 

Unlikely from real opposition, CPRF is not persecuted in any way. Its members are not arrested under hollow pretext, its offices are not searched, agitation materials are not taken away, and its meetings and processions are not dispersed. CPRF can act legally just because its activity is no harmful for the Kremlin and standing authority. While CPRF is tame, the authority is free from having to be anxious. Incidentally, many CPRF members, especially those in the provinces, where they are closer to the real people’s needs and not to the Kremlin, they consider this cooperation with the authority by their leadership not only to be wrong but even killing the party itself, as it is capable of making it collapse, because the pocket party works for its master, not for the elector.   

The Yabloko party cannot be considered opposition either. The recent visit by its leader Grigory Yavlinsky to the Kremlin proved his willingness to cooperate with the authority despite the accusations made by him about violation of human rights, oppression of liberties etc. At the same time, Yavlinsky is against any cooperation by his party with the real opposition. It should be noted, however, that a significant part of Yabloko members nonetheless participate in the activities by Other Russia taking part in Marches of the Dissenting and in other actions.       

SPS again cannot be called an oppositional party yet, due to the fact its founder, Anatoly Chubais, is the head of a large strategic state corporation RAO EES, and in the near future he is likely to head another Russian state corporation for nanotechnologies. Another SPS founder, Egor Gaidar, who prepared the concept of the economic reforms and regulations for the Putin’s administration, is trying to attract the attention by the successor so that to have opportunity for influencing on forming the economic strategy at the new president. Chubais, Gaidar and some other regional leaders of SPS have always been a part of standing authority and cooperated closely with it. However, at the moment a significant part of SPS has an oppositional attitude due to the actions by the state structures that carried out a campaign against SPS during the two last elections. Many party members, headed by its current leader Nikita Belykh, take part in the Marches of the Dissenting. However, the whole party is still split on the topic if it should become oppositional or built-into-system one. No doubt, the final decision about that must be taken in the immediate future.      

I reckon it to be of no sense talking about Just Russia as oppositional party. Everyone realizes this is the Kremlin’s project organized by those who were ousted during sharing out the pie at the process of creating the United Russia. 

Of course, only those who do not see the many-year faithful service by Zhirinovsky to the Kremlin, they can believe his LDPR to be an oppositionist. 

There was another allegedly oppositional patriotic party, named Rodina (fittingly, Motherland), but it allowed to attach itself to the Kremlin’s project that later was formed into Just Russia. And its leader Dmitry Rogozin having made some “oppositional movements” finally got a nice post in Brussels in a non-tiring Russia-NATO council. That’s the right place for the true patriot, isn’t it!     

All those above listed “oppositions” never risked to go out beyond the limits established by the power. Within the frames of this game, they are allowed a TV debating and even careful criticism towards the authority, but all the key positions are still to be arranged by them in the Kremlin. 

Real opposition

It was said above that those political structures, that are considered to be the opposition, actually cannot be recognized oppositional. To follow are the criteria that could be suggested for defining whether this or that public or political force is oppositional.     

1. The real opposition cannot be present in our today’s parliament (the State Duma) as only approved by the Kremlin political forces could have taken part in the last election and the outcomes of those elections were arranged too.

2. The real opposition has no moral right for making any arrangements with the authority, for any contacts with it or for asking any posts. Any above mentioned action would be equal to recognition of the standing authority to be legitimate and it would mean recognition that all the violations of the law, human rights and liberties, sanctioned by the Putin’s regime, were insignificant. We must not forget about the crimes that caused a huge number of casualties: second war in Chechnya; Nord-Ost and Beslan tragedies. So everyone cooperating with the standing authority becomes the actual accomplice of the culprits.

3. The real opposition is being oppressed judicially and in terms of law enforcement actions, by the authority. Unfortunately, this criterion is imposed by life itself and it proves a very simple thing: felonious authority will be destroying consistently exactly those who really threaten its omnipotence and totalitarian control. And it will never affect those just pretending to be oppositionists, shown by television. 

4. You will never see the real opposition on the pro-Kremlin’s federal TV stations; Pervy Kanal, Rossiya and NTV. Access to television is one of the chief resources of the standing regime. There are so called “black lists” where included are the politicians forbidden to be allowed on the main TV channels. 

5. The goals of real opposition differ from those by the pseudo one. Today the real opposition struggles not to win in the Kremlin-controlled election; it struggles for carrying out real elections with the unified rules of the game, fair and transparent. The real opposition struggles for restoration of the basic democratic rights and liberties, and the main institutions of a democratic society.  

In fact, very few organizations meet the above listed criteria. First of all, this is the coalition named Other Russia, composed by United Civil Front and Eduard Limonov’s supporters. This is also some number of the left organizations not related to collaborationist’s leading top of CPRF. Independent Trade Unions and a number of public and human rights organizations can also be included.   

On methods of struggle

The real opposition does not have many opportunities for action under conditions of the current political regime that has eliminated the basic rights and liberties and has stamped out the Constitution. Our basic principle is “all the ways are good except those related to violence”. Take a note that despite the pressing and enforcement and putting our members to prisons, the Other Russia does not allow itself any responsive reaction. No window has been broken during our Marches of the Dissenting, and that’s the brightest way of opposing the authority that uses violence for protection of its interests. The March of the Dissenting is our kind of protest. In a democratic society this would be a signal for the authority that something is going wrong. And even if it’s only 5,000 people to go out, that’s the true way of awakening the civil society. Today’s 5,000 will increase tomorrow. The more people we involve, the less will be the influence by the authority and the less will be the risk for those protesting. The authority can manage our protest while we are in 3,4 or 5 thousand. But today we have to bring our point of view in that way, despite the constant bans put on our Marches by Moscow and regional authorities.  

Besides the Marches, where we forward our demands, Other Russia has set about restoration of missing democratic institutions – that’s the parliament first of all. According to the Constitution, the parliament is not only legislative, but also representative body. That means it must represent the whole range of the political forces and interests in the society. The parliament cannot perform this function under the conditions where independent politicians are not allowed to take part in the elections, where the election outcome is made up by the central elective commission. In our case the parliament cannot be democratic and represent different points of view. Significantly, according to the polls, the Russian citizens do not trust the State Duma as to institution of power. It will be so till the elections become real elections in accordance with the notion of it as a mechanism of changes and replacement of power.      

It’s in May that we are planning carrying out the first meeting of the alternative parliament that we call the National Assembly. All the spectrum of non-present in the State Duma political and public forces – from left to right – will be included. Practically all the forces listed above as the real – not decorative - opposition will be working in the Assembly.

The alternative parliament is to become a new public institution where constant fruitful discussion will be going on and the agenda for the whole country will be worked out. The National Assembly is to formulate what the Russian political system can look like, and that is going to be its first document made. 

Shortly before the National Assembly a conference of the liberal forces will take place in St Petersburg on 5 April, and a conference of the left opposition in Moscow on 6 April. Significantly, even the preparation for those events has caused the nervous and negative reaction by the Kremlin. That’s understandable, as it is going to be the gathering of the opposition uncontrollable by the Kremlin and it cannot be demanded just to stop “unauthorized” activities. It’s only really brave and independent people that rank now the real opposition – the left and the right one. Those people hold on to their own position, and they are ready to stand for it despite any pressure persecution made on them.   

If we manage, working jointly, to make the National Assembly work properly, then a unique democratic institution would appear in Russia allowing people with different political views to have the common base for taking Russia out of the cul-de-sac. If we manage to realize our program for uniting the oppositions and to create uncontrollable by the Kremlin structure that would be a real step on the way to making strong political opposition.    

Garry Kasparov,
the leader of the United Civil Front