#10
Nezavisimaya Gazeta
November 28, 2991
"Whitish" and "Blackish" Citizens
A Police State Is Safer Than a Bandit Community
By Leonid Radzikhovsky
(therussianissues.com)

It seems clear that in itself, the Civic Forum that Putin described: "an activity" will have no after-effects. The irrepressible Pavlovsky is conjuring for himself a new and costly toy - the bureaucracy that was in charge of "the forum" will be going over to the next "activity." And without the efforts of bureaucracy, we can have no "civil societies" (hereinafter - CS) per se.

Moreover, in the given case it is presumed that the State is guilty while the CS is presumed innocent. In general, they are talking about CS in approximately the same way they used to talk about Communism - it is "just as radiant and far away" as Communism was. The only difference being that it was necessary to talk about Communism "very enthusiastically," whereas it is necessary to talk about CS with bitter irony.

The reasons for taking such an attitude towards CS are understandable - this is a form of self-publicity, a decent form by way of which the speaker is able to enhance his self-esteem.

After all, those who talk about CS are, as a rule, those who apparently rank themselves to "the cream of the crop" - democratic-minded and liberal-minded intellectuals.

It is, after all, indecent to heap praises upon oneself. However, to praise oneself (and one's "ilk") under the codename of "CS" is not simply decent, it is in fact an element of "civic courage." Indeed, CS is always praised only in contrast with bad Authorities (= bureaucracy, administration, the State).

And so, the psychological desire "to pat CS (themselves) on the head" is humanly normal. But alas, as is so often the case, emotions and reason do not always go hand in hand.

And indeed, the contrast between "CS and the Authorities" is usually painted in the following way. On the one hand, there are "the intelligent doves" while on the other hand; we see the "bureaucratic hogs." Sure, it gives a vivid and impressive picture - no doubt about that. However, this is nothing but primitive demagogy, a very coarse juggling of the facts.

Because if we jettison emotions, then what actually is CS? CS is made up of all the nongovernmental and noncommercial associations of citizens.

Of course, if one picks out of this whole mass the whitish "angels" (a human rights advocate with a PhD) and compare them to the blackish representatives of bureaucracy (a tough-looking traffic cop) then the advantageous of CS stand out like a sore thumb.

But what if we go about this in the reverse direction? Let's take the rowdy football fans (quite a large segment of CS after all) and compare them to officials from the Foreign Ministry's press service.

After such a comparison, one seems to be less eager to build CS and to give it (CS) part of the functions of the state bureaucratic machine. This is something that can hardly be denied.

It is practically impossible to gauge the actual ratio between "the whitish" and "the blackish" in our real society because every individual classifies "the whitish" and "the blackish" on the basis of his/her own prejudices.

But the first conclusion is already evident: if one speaks about CS then it is necessary to speak honestly and to try to draw the entire picture rather than portray just intelligent people with neatly manicured fingernails and having the gift of gab. Only society as a whole must be compared with the State - that much is quite clear.

So, they say that beatings at police stations are commonplace - but what about the recent rampage of hooligans at a Moscow market?!

And if one takes such a compact and expressive segment of life as "prison," then who does the ordinary convict fear most of all - the prison authorities or the "local society?"

I've spoken to several convicts, and all of their answers were different, and most of them were horrified not by the prison guards but by their "comrades by misfortune," i.e., their cellmates.

And serving in the army is in a class by itself - no matter how terrible the sergeant may be, the "old-timers" are, as a rule, much worse.

The army and prison are, of course, "unusual" places. But in "peaceful life" I would warn against heaping praises on CS in counterbalance to the State.

But to that, there is a banal reply - no one is counterpoising anything to anything else. It is simply that the State has its own tasks and CS has its own as well. They must simply be separated one from the other and efforts must be made to start a dialogue between them as equals, and so on and so forth.

What is lacking today is the main condition for "a natural existence" of CS, with its quite definite bourgeois-humanistic-legal ideology. There is no numerically and psychologically dominating, boring and law abiding, replete and reasonable-minded, precisely sanctimonious in all respects middle class - that highest product of Christian-European civilization.

Understandably, there is such a class in Russia. For example, such a class is made up practically by all us, i.e., writing journalists and the lion's share of our readers.

However, it is not this class that is dominant in the country by its numbers, by its economic impact, by its psychology. As everyone knows, it is the poor folk that are dominant by their number. It is precisely the social-psychological "notions" of "the kids" that have long ago set the trend for the ordinary people's understanding of the world around them. And one must admit that the ordinary people are worlds away from "the kids."

That is why our society is sick. That which is defined as belonging to CS should form its "brain" - those very same political parties, public organizations and so on - absolutely do not uphold the values of a loyal bourgeois CS.

True, there are no statistics but all who travel not only from St. Petersburg to Moscow, but also those who travel about Russia, can tell you: the real (political) parties that exist in the backwoods are if not the Communist Party (thank you), then more and more the LDPR or simply some kind of quasi-Nazi or quasi-bandit parties with the corresponding lion's share of the local press behind them.

Formally, these are the foundations of CS - parties, the press and nothing else! But in reality, who can imagine CS with the ideology of fanatics, skinheads, and "kids" as such, and patriots wearing armbands depicting a special kind of swastika?

It is quite obvious that such elements hate the values of CS much more than any bureaucrats (incidentally, the bureaucrats on the spot are quite capable of finding a common language with such elements).

I do not want to prophesy ill but I fear that it is precisely this riff-raff and not the loyal civil rights champions that add the sour taste to our "civic broth."

And in conclusion, a couple of words about the State. No matter how you look at it, it is precisely the State (why? is already different subject) brought into Russia the seeds of CS from Europe.

The State planted these seeds, cultivated them, then trampled upon them and burned them. Then it planted the seeds again and so on and so forth.

If the State today has set its mind to build CS, then it should not conduct a dialogue with all public organizations without exception - it must first weed out the field by relying on its own administrative resources. It must separate "the blackish" from "the whitish" in society, and only after that, it must not confuse the two, start helping "the whitish" and not "the blackish." It is possible to build CS only with the help of administrative pressure, with the help of administrative resources.

But, of course, the main thing is to change the economic situation. Until we have real conditions for the emergence of a mass, dominating middle class, there is no point in seriously dreaming about a civil society. Until we achieve that level, the only thing remaining for us to do is to hold forums.