This year is the year of celebration of the 1150th anniversary of Russian statehood. President Medvedev commented that the Jubileum is being celebrated later than it should be. The 1000th anniversary happened to take place in a very complex and dynamic period of our country’s development. It was the time of the so-called ‘Great reforms’ that defined the future development of our state. Back then the Jubileum celebrations, initiated by the emperor Alexander II, were aimed at bringing the rulers and the people closer together. A VK correspondent discussed the symbolic and realistic aspects of this date with Nikolai Zlobin, political expert and historian who heads the Department of Russian and Asian programs under the US Center of Defense Information.
- In your opinion, why precisely in 2012 did we start thinking of Russian statehood and decide to celebrate this jubilee? What might it be connected with? What historical and political motifs are behind it, on your view?
Nikolai Zlobin, political analyst: I think that with these kind of jubilees historical motifs play a secondary role. One can always find a point from which to start a history of statehood, of this or that event. In my view, rather more political motives played their role. As historians, we understand that a stage is an institution which appears at some point, proceeds through the stages of evolution, and disappears. Everything disappears in its time. And if the political map of the world doesn't change, we perhaps would still be living under Hammurabi, Ancient Egypt, Babylon and Mesopotamia. States disappear, new political geographies appear. The Soviet Union disintegrated, other states also disintegrate. This is a normal historical process and we, historians, understand this. For politicians this is a big problem: the breakup of a state, even the realization that the state is not eternal. It can disappear; the borders can change, as happened in post-Soviet space. By the way, I think that the disintegration of the Soviet Union is not finished, it will continue, and the borders of Russia and other countries in post-Soviet space will still be changing. But for a politician this is an important question, because politicians operate with somewhat different categories. And today it is very important for Russian citizens and for the Russian elite to understand what the Russian State is, how it came to such a life, how it will change, will it manage to survive, and in which borders. And the best way to do it, in particular for politicians, is to concentrate attention this year upon this question, the question of Russian statehood. You know, in the U.S. they often ask me, and not only me – this question is often discussed in American historiography – why you Russians are so clever, so wonderful, you created great culture and literature, you have the best mathematicians, the best physicists, the best scientists, the best musicians in the world, but for the whole thousand-year history of the existence of the Russian state you did not succeed in creating a system of power with which you would be satisfied. As soon as you create a new system of power, you immediately start criticizing it, shaking it, and destroying it, and then you create yet another one. Why can't the Russians, who seem to be so clever, find a state which will exist normally and guarantee the normal development of the life of society, the development of the economy, and the citizens of this state would be satisfied at least with the arrangement of the system of power. Indeed, it is an interesting question which demands discussion. Look at the U.S. – from the beginning the American Constitution has not been changed, and what was created by the founding fathers continues to exist. In Russia every new generation starts with destroying the previous system of power, the previous state, and creating a new one. This is indeed a problem. I think this is the main thing that bothers Russian politicians and the Russian establishment today. Second, in the framework of globalization there is a project of dissolving of what is called a state. The global economy, the global political system, the global ideological, if you will, informational system, leads to the fact that from the state, as it was understood in history for centuries, little remains. Basically, today it is not clear enough what a sovereign state is, what it exists for, where its borders are, what it controls. And in these conditions it is also important to understand where development goes, how to manage the territory of today’s Russia, how to modernize the Russian state to make it appropriate to today’s situation, tomorrow’s situation, and to guarantee that it will not disappear in 20 years, will not break along national borders, as happened to the Soviet Union. Thus, in fact, speaking seriously and without propaganda, the question of statehood is today, perhaps, the most important for Russia. Not the stupid Russian statehood with the point of view: “Let’s keep Russia in its current borders,” but creating an effective state, so that the people, both the government and the citizens, will not always be afraid that it will a). disintegrate, b). deceive, c). disappear or blow up in a civil war. Therefore yes, I believe this is today the most crucial question of Russian life, in what state Russia will live during the next generation, will it be able to preserve itself, will it not break up, but at the same time will it manage to find a new form of statehood, not trying to return to what was in the Soviet Union, or in the 19th century, because this is also a dead end. Therefore I find this concentration upon the question of state to be important. Another question is whether this year will be productive. Because the imitation of productivity in Russia has reached the level of a high art. Any politician knows how to imitate his activity and his success. The case in point is not productivity, but Russia’s survival. If Russia doesn’t manage to preserve the foundations of statehood and to modernize them to the level of the global world, it will disappear. And it can disappear in the next 2-3 generations. The question is actually quite acute even for our generation.
- You touched upon a very important question. In Russia – and not only in Russia, this is a world-wide practice – initiatives often conducted quite formally are good. What do you think, what should happen, and what is to be done precisely by the History Department, in the context of this year, in order to make out of the formal planned events, the productive events, which would remain not only for this year. Because, indeed, the initiative is extremely important and very useful.
Nikolai Zlobin, political analyst. I think that people in Russia do not understand at all, why they need the state. They don’t like the state, they’re afraid of it, they don’t respect it. The state is the thieves-bureaucrats, the corrupt, the police who do not follow the law. The state is the politicians who lie, the government which governs fictionally. So this image of the state which exists in the country contradicts the very concept of statehood. And people don’t need such a state. Therefore, perhaps, the productivity will be in the attempt to understand what state is needed today for the citizens of the Russian Federation, first of all. Not for the politicians, not for the elite, not for the oligarchs – it is clear what state they need. What state is needed for the citizens of this country, what state are they able to create without falling into illusions about our greatness and influence in the world, about our historical role, special way and other stupidities. A real, normal, effectively functioning state that will be adequate for the people who live in this country. If such an understanding will be found, then I think this will be a very useful year. If this will be reduced to top-level declarations and a couple of conferences in the Kremlin, to talks about the past… Actually, politics is about the future. In particular, this is a big problem of Russia that all the discussions of politics are reduced to the search for historical examples of success and attempts to find analogies for the current situation in the past. This will be fatal. If we manage to break this vicious circle, I think this will be useful, if not – then this year will pass in vain.
