« | Home | »

‘I’m a liberal,’ he said. ‘It can mean anything!’

Tags: |

A panel from 'Super Putin' by Sergei Kalenik.

A panel from ‘Super Putin’ by Sergei Kalenik.

‘Keep punk bands out of this zone,’ said a banner in Amsterdam during the Russian president’s visit last week. ‘Putin might be offended.’ Thousands of LGBT demonstrators with rainbow flags lowered to half-mast shouted ‘Putin go homo’ as they protested against the Kremlin’s latest move to ban ‘homosexual propoganda’ (which might include the rainbow flag). A few days earlier in Germany Putin had been rushed by topless Femen activists with the words ‘Fuck you dictator’ scrawled on their breasts: a statement, Femen said, against the Kremlin’s ‘patriarchal authoritarianism’. Putin must have been delighted.

Ever since demonstrations began against electoral fraud and corruption in Moscow in 2011, the Kremlin has been trying to spin a potentially universal opposition message into a phoney culture war: it would much rather discuss the future of feminism in Russia than answer hard questions about stolen billions. In all the hubbub around Pussy Riot and the Orthodox Church’s absurd statements that femiminism could ‘destroy’ Russia, everyone seems to have forgotten that in 2011 the Kremlin promised to investigate all claims of electoral fraud.

It’s true that Russia is casually, squalidly and boorishly homophobic and misogynistic (though many of Putin’s closest advisers are gay and he has more women in his cabinet than Cameron), and reform on these issues is critical. But the country isn’t in any danger of turning into Iran, or even Texas: few people who call themselves Orthodox ever go to church; women have state-sponsored access to birth control and divorce is easy.

In its attempts to stoke a culture war, the Kremlin has borrowed the language of the United States, contrasting ‘conservatives’ with ‘liberals’. But what do these terms actually mean in Russia? What is a Russian ‘conservative’? Not a Marxist-Leninist, though that’s what Russians over thirty were brought up to be. The Kremlin probably wants to imply something vaguely associated with the recently resurrected Orthodox Church, which has tended to avoid serious social issues, focusing instead on the mystical aspect of the Godhead and always supporting the state in all its endeavours. And perhaps ‘conservatism’ simply means conforming to the rulers’ whims: if the state says it is ‘democratic’ you say you’re democratic, if it says it’s ‘patriotic’ you say you’re patriotic. The only thing the Kremlin really wants to ‘conserve’ are the assets of the new oligarchy created by Putin over the last ten years.

As for ‘liberal’, the word has been so abused after ten years of managed democracy, with authoritarian or Kremlin-controlled politicians routinely applying it to themselves, that it has lost any coherent meaning it may once of had. The other week I met with a young pro-Kremlin activist, Sergei Kalenik, who made his name a couple of years ago by drawing a really rather good Manga cartoon in which a superhero Putin and his sidekick Medvedev do battle against zombie protesters and evil monster anti-corruption bloggers (Aleksei Navalny’s trial began yesterday, to muted coverage; the Kremlin is getting what it wants from the culture war). Medvedev liked the cartoon so much – a nice case of the Kremlin trying to get the ‘cool’ people on its side – he met with Kalenik personally and the cartoonist’s career as a spin doctor was launched. ‘Politics is the ability to use any situation to advance your own status,’ Sergey told me with a smile. ‘How do you define your political views?’ I asked him. He looked at me like I was a fool to ask, then smiled even more broadly and said: ‘I’m a liberal: it can mean anything!’

Comments on “‘I’m a liberal,’ he said. ‘It can mean anything!’”

  1. Neil says:

    “As for ‘liberal’, the word has been so abused after ten years of managed democracy … that it has lost any coherent meaning it may once of had….. ‘How do you define your political views?’ I asked him. He looked at me like I was a fool to ask, then smiled even more broadly and said:‘I’m a liberal: it can mean anything!’”

    One must admit that the Russians are fast learners. One aspect of liberalism is and always has been that of a deceptive, self-deceptive and opportunistic political ideology. Strip away all the cant and hypocrisy in what way is the above vignette and conclusion any different to the Western ‘democracies’?

  2. Laurie Strachan says:

    When I last looked we weren’t serially murdering journalists who criticised us.

  3. flybye88 says:

    – no Need to murder Journalists when the (partially-self-imposed)D-Notice system works so well and mainly unnoticed!

Comment on this post

Log in or register to post a comment.

  • Recent Posts

    RSS – posts

  • Contributors

  • Recent Comments

    • name on Who is the enemy?: Simply stating it is correct doesn't make it so, I just wish you would apply the same epistemic vigilance to "Muslim crimes" as you do to their Hebrew...
    • Glen Newey on Unwinnable War: The legal issue admits of far less clarity than the simple terms in which you – I imagine quite sincerely – frame them. For the benefit of readers...
    • Geoff Roberts on The New Normal: The causes go back a long way into the colonial past, but the more immediate causes stem from the activities of the US forces in the name of freedom a...
    • sol_adelman on The New Normal: There's also the fact that the French state denied the mass drownings of '61 even happened for forty-odd years. No episode in post-war W European hist...
    • funky gibbon on At Wembley: If England get France in the quarter finals of Euro 16 I expect that a good deal of the fraternity will go out the window

    RSS – comments

  • Contact

  • Blog Archive

  • From the LRB Archive

    Edward Said: The Iraq War
    17 April 2003

    ‘This is the most reckless war in modern times. It is all about imperial arrogance unschooled in worldliness, unfettered either by competence or experience, undeterred by history or human complexity, unrepentant in its violence and the cruelty of its technology.’

    David Runciman:
    The Politics of Good Intentions
    8 May 2003

    ‘One of the things that unites all critics of Blair’s war in Iraq, whether from the Left or the Right, is that they are sick of the sound of Blair trumpeting the purity of his purpose, when what matters is the consequences of his actions.’

    Simon Wren-Lewis: The Austerity Con
    19 February 2015

    ‘How did a policy that makes so little sense to economists come to be seen by so many people as inevitable?’

    Hugh Roberts: The Hijackers
    16 July 2015

    ‘American intelligence saw Islamic State coming and was not only relaxed about the prospect but, it appears, positively interested in it.’

Advertisement Advertisement