BBC Brings Democracy Debate to Russia

By Galina Stolyarova

Staff Writer

Democracy in modern Russia was described as “electronic,” “conventional,” and “theoretical,” but still a major step forward from the country’s totalitarian past, by participants in a debate held in St. Petersburg this week.

The event was organized by BBC World Service Radio with the support of the Regional Press Institute.

As St. Petersburg gears up to host the G8 summit in July, the event, which is to be broadcast on Sunday on the World Service, was the first in a series of discussions focusing on Russia’s commitment to democracy and its place in the world. The local session will be followed by similar debates in Tomsk and Moscow.

The debate, chaired by BBC diplomatic correspondent Bridget Kendall, attempted to address the concept of “managed democracy,” a term coined to describe the current political environment in Russia.

Is Russia as committed to democracy as the seven other members of the G8 club? How much control do Russians feel they have over their lives? And do Russians in fact want democracy at all? Kendall sought answers to all these questions from top local politicians, business people, journalists, scientists, historians, human rights advocates and students.

Artyom Gordin, a student at the International Relations faculty of St. Petersburg State University, described democracy in Russia as “electronic” alluding to the free exchange of opinions on the internet.

He claimed this freedom was absent in the mainstream media, especially television. The cut and thrust of debate was not always sharp. In the Russian tradition of rhetoric, a number of participants answered Kendall’s questions obliquely, by giving examples, noting historical parallels or using metaphorical comparisons, rather than giving brief and direct answers. But some of the allusions were compelling.

Olga Starovoitova, a historian and human rights advocate, and a sister of late democrat politician and prominent State Russian Duma deputy, Galina Starovoitova who was gunned down in St. Petersburg in November 1998, said that while it’s the convention to say Russia has achieved democracy, it exists only on paper. She illustrated her view with her own experience of dealing with the Russian legal system.

“In theory, I had the right to request and examine all the documents in the murder case of my sister Galina. But in reality I haven’t been able to get access to these materials,” she said. “In theory, the court hearings in the case were made open to the media, but the hall was too small and most reporters couldn’t get in.”

Mikhail Tolstoi, one of the leaders of the local branch of the Union of Right Forces, used Russia’s history to explain Vladimir Putin’s high popularity rating, which exceeds 70 percent in a number of regions. The politician said many Russians are longing for a strong leader because it’s in their blood.

In Tolstoi’s opinion, many Russians idolize President Putin just as their ancestors deified Russia’s tsars because people have long been used to living under authoritarian leaders and their own voices being neglected.

Serfdom had was abolished unitl 1861. Until that time, more than 80 percent of the population were slaves. Then after a short interval, Russia was pitched into communism for seventy years, Tolstoi said.

“Russia was a monarchy for almost a millennium, and, in the days of old, [people believed] the tsar was always good but the court always corrupt,” he said. “Similarly, these days people perceive President Putin as being good but the environment surrounding him in the Kremlin as bad. The mentality of most Russians hasn’t changed.”

Viktor Yevtukhov, a United Russia member of the St. Petersburg Legislative Assembly, offered another view.

“Russia has made a big step forward. Remember television reports showing starving miners blocking railroads just ten or fifteen years ago!” he said. “A lot of young people trust Putin.”

Discussion of human rights during the debate was limited to concerns over freedom of speech and the new law on NGOs, which comes into force on April 18. The law, introducing tighter control over foreign funding of Russian NGOs, was severely criticized by debaters representing human rights groups, but strongly backed by pro-Kremlin politicians.

“Foreigners shouldn’t be allowed to fund Russian human rights groups,” said Yevtukhov. He insisted that NGOs had nothing to worry about unless they were funded by foreign spies.

Predictions for the future from participants in the debate varied.

“In twenty years’ time I see Russia as an international superpower, a strong and successful country,” Yevtukhov said.

“I hope that in twenty years’ time we will be living in a state where membership of state-controlled, politicized groups like the Soviet-era pioneers or Komsomol aren’t mandatory, and where people won’t be forced to take part in elections,” said Olesya Turkina, an art critic and modern art projects curator with the State Russian Museum.

Anna Sharogradskaya, head of the Regional Press Institute, said she was thrilled to see students taking a very active part in the debates. “It is encouraging to see they are not indifferent to what is happening in Russia,” she said. “Even participants with extreme views have demonstrated a willingness to make life in Russia better, albeit according to their specific ideas. I also take this discussion’s tolerant atmosphere as a positive sign.”

www.bbcworldservice.com
http://www.sptimes.ru/index.php?action_id=2&story_id=16906