By Constantine Ukhov, exclusively for Vestnik Kavkaza
Every society needs an indisputable authority, a spiritual guru to trust. Especially in times of change. The guru should see farther and deeper than others, needs to be honest. There is a small set of ethical requirements for such a person to reassure his unmistakable chosen-ness. Such people were Dmitry Likhachev, Vladimir Vysotsky and Rasul Gamzatov. Alexander Solzhenitsyn wanted to be one too. But it is hard to put anyone on their level. Although many would want to be there.
In difficult times of the country, people need to go above rights and lefts, reds and whites, greens and blues. Not everyone can do that and not everyone wants to. Leaders of the Russian opposition are among those who want to judge “in the name of the people.” The problem is that they took the role of accusers, not judges. Following the logic of a trial, a prosecutor needs to find fault in a defendant’s actions. It would be impossible to imagine a prosecutor seeking for rationalism in a defendant’s actions. Life for the opposition is a black and white photograph. Voters feel it, as can be seen in the results of many elections.
Boris Nemtsov and Mikhail Kasyanov, for example, have been mercilessly criticizing the Sochi Olympic Games for wastefulness and corruption. Yet, when they were holding key posts in government, such prestigious international events were unimaginable. The Olympics are serious foreign policy. It is a world-level strategic step. The opposition says that oil-earned dollars should be used properly. In the 1990s, Russians lived a lot worse than now, when the Olympic Games and first place became a reality. Excuses about lynchpin years and the flaws of the reforms of Yeltsin’s times have no grounds, because the living standards of Nemtsov and Kasyanov did not drop in the 1990s, compared with the 1980s. Moreover, a lot says that it improved dramatically.
Changing the social rules that allowed the elites to become super rich and the lower class (about 80% of the population) to scrape a pathetic existence is not reform. It was a trick played under the leadership of Yeltsin and Gaidar for the favour of the 5% of the chosen, not a reform. Nonetheless, according to the leaders of the opposition, Putin is associated with all the bad in the country and Yeltsin with light and hope. Real life rejects such ideology. Life is a colourful photograph. Personally, I would only trust a critic of Putin who could give convincing pros and cons of the president’s work. Depending on whether there will be more pros or cons, I will decide who to vote for at the upcoming elections. I see many pros of his rule myself, I do not trust the cons in anti-Putin reports or the speeches of Nemtsov and Kasyanov. They are not spiritual gurus for me.
Similar processes are happening in “our” Caucasus Region, particularly in Azerbaijan, the closest state to Russia in the Caucasus. We have a group of professional oppositionists here, using Western money to say that everything the Azerbaijani authorities do is regressive. It appears that the more Azerbaijan does, the more desperate the criticism from the opposition and human rights activists gets. The country is transforming, hydrocarbon money is invested in the real economy, jobs are created, high-scale construction is ongoing. According to the logic of the professional oppositionists, it is all bad. Even the 2012 Eurovision Song Contest was heavily criticized. Leyla Yunus, the director of the Institute for Peace and Democracy, for example, started the “No to Eurovision under authoritarianism” campaign. Now she slams the European Games that will be hosted next year, for the first time in history.
There is no foreign policy without major actions
The European Games are scheduled to start in July, 2015. By deciding to host the games, the country has become world-famous and an essential part of the Olympic movement. No other former Soviet states except Russia are able to gain such a success. Azerbaijan has declared itself to be one of the prominent countries of the world. This move will have a serious pragmatic effect. No foreign policy can be successful without such major actions. Moreover, any country's image has great economic significance. Rezo Chkheidze once said that during Soviet times Georgia did not spent a lot of money on cinema in vain. On the contrary, Georgian officials used the popularity of Georgian films to their advantage and the advantage of the republic during negotiations in Moscow.
Despite all these things, Leyla Yunus called on the European Olympic Committee not to allow an authoritarian state to host the games. She announced that the Centre for the Struggle against Repressions of the Institute for Peace and Democracy had started a boycott of the games.
Let us recall the boycott of the Moscow Olympics. The idea was suggested by US President Jimmy Carter, who in 1980 had to run against Ronald Reagan. In the year and half before the elections Carter suffered a major debacle, First the Islamic revolution in Iran brought to power anti-US forces and US diplomats in Tehran were held as captives, then the Soviet Union sent troops to Afghanistan, changing the balance of power in the region. Carter decided to boycott the Moscow games, but the move was not successful. The Azerbaijani opposition is also interested in such a boycott.
There are many forces interested in Azerbaijan's hydrocarbons
Of course many countries are worried about Azerbaijan's increasing wealth. There have always been many forces interested in Azerbaijan's hydrocarbons. But why are there people inside the country expressing the same kind of anger? Is there any connection between the two?
I remember the famous Soviet musician and actor Vladimir Vysotsky. He was the conscience of the people. He had everything a person can dream of - money, fame, popularity. His songs were sung both in the street and in the Kremlin. But he rebelled against injustice and lies. His every word was precious. Still, he never criticized Brezhnev, never called for a boycott of the Olympics. He was far from politics. He was wiser than the present-day oppositional figures. The people need such individuals rather than "professional critics".
Of course an opposition is necessary for any country of the world. So that the authorities don't feel inviolable. In fact, it was the absence of an opposition that destroyed the USSR, in which no one was able to challenge the Communist Party's aging leadership. Still, the people need a fair and honest opposition which demonstrates the real character of a ruling authority, but does not work for foreign grants.
