Showing posts with label history. Show all posts
Showing posts with label history. Show all posts

January 7, 2010

2000s for Democracy in Belarus: a Decade of Disappointment



January 1, 2010 will not be just the beginning of a new year but the beginning of a new calendar decade. It is a formal and conventional event, but that’s the way our perception is constructed – it is easier for us to view history in decades. Swinging Sixties, Greedy Eighties, Noxious Nineties. The 2000s (or “noughties”) will be a separate segment in systematized history of mankind.

For Belarus, it was a decade of dictatorship. The first full calendar decade under the unlimited authoritarian power of Aliaksandr Lukašenka.

We have entered 2000 under the red-green flag of the Lukašenka regime and leave 2009 with it still over our heads. In the 1990s the key year for Belarus was 1996, when, after the infamous referendum, Belarus turned into a country where the whole power is concentrated in the hands of one man. 2006, with its tragic and disgraceful defeat of the opposition at the presidential elections, has become a landmark year in the 2000s. The lesson we should learn from these years is that 2016 is either unlikely to become the year of Belarus’ liberation from dictatorship.

In 2000, that seems so recent, one might have thought that Lukašenka is there for not a long time. A year, or two, or three, and Belarus will at last be free. Ukraine’s Orange Revolution in 2004 has spread much hope that was not destined to turn into reality. The noughties have been a decade of disappointment for Belarus, a decade which has completely turned Belarus into a very special country on the European continent.

Thirteen years have passed since the coup d’état of 1996. During this time a whole new generation of Belarusians has grown up – another generation of people with Soviet mentality, even though it’s been almost twenty years since the Soviet Union itself doesn’t exist any more. We may remind ourselves of 1957, thirteen years after the Nazi occupation of Belarus has been replaced back by Soviet occupation. By that time the anti-Soviet partisan movement in Belarus and neighbouring Soviet republics has almost completely vanished. Perhaps, this was not least because the society had realized that the Soviets came to stay. The same can be said about today’s Belarus, with its tired, demoralized and split opposition; with the fact that Belarusians have mainly concentrated on consumption and primitive physical survival so that even the economic crisis does not initiate political protest.

In 1999 there could still be doubts, but the noughties have proven one thing to us. Belarus might have gained juridical independence simply following the trend set by Baltic countries and Ukraine, who had really struggled for it. However, we couldn’t have got democracy the same way. A whole range of specifically Belarusian problems came into play: weak national self-identification of the people, lack of political culture and absence of national elite, the unfinished process of formation of the Belarusian nation as such. All the dark legacy of the Soviet age, which might not be so noticeable to an outside observer, has realized its potential in the 1990s and became institutionalized in the 2000s.

Belarus enters 2010 as a very specific European country. A political system that rather resembles the relationship of a feudal and his serfs. An archaic economy, where the government has woken up with reforms twenty years after liberation of the socialist camp and where it is not clear, if there is still something to be reformed. A nation that missed the train of 20th century’s romantic nationalisms and represents a mechanistic community of pragmatic and indifferent people without native language and historical memory.

Any difference is a potential advantage. Belarus may be able to transform its difference into an advantage, to realize its potential as a land untouched by investors in the middle of Europe or as a cradle for a post-nationalistic pluralistic traditionalism. Otherwise this potential will be spent in vain with sad consequences for the country. There is no third option, and there’s not much time left till we find out the answer. It is, of course, necessary to hope for the better, but it may be far more useful to be prepared for the worst.

http://belarusdigest.com/2009/12/30/2000s-for-democracy-in-belarus-a-decade-of-disappointment

Read more...

February 20, 2009

Confederalization is Russia's only chance to survive

A brilliant article in today's Gazeta.ru:

http://www.gazeta.ru/comments/2009/02/19_a_2945783.shtml

I fully agree with the author.

Russia is a country too large to be effectively managed in a centralized way. And this means that the country has to be decentralized, has to be truly federalized (what it isn't now) or even confederalized.

You can't manage any problems in a same way in the Islamic Northern Caucasus, the Finnish borderlands and the semi-inhabited far eastern Kamchatka that have completely different economical, geographical, cultural conditions. It's impossible to even have a single educational system on a territory that large. Therefore functions should be transferred from the Federal power to local administrations, the more the better.

People should have the chance to achieve real changes on local level and not just to migrate to Moscow or St. Pete for opportunities and career. They should have the freedom and the responsibility instead of relying on the Federal government. The Federal government has to encourage people to develop their home regions - and the only way to do so is to decentralize the country.

Otherwise we will see Russia falling in parts as soon as it faces a serious economic crisis where Moscow starts lacking resources to control the regions. And this process would be accompanied by terrible wars that would make a second Yugoslavia, if not a second Rwanda, out of the Northern Caucasus and the Volga region.

On the other hand, there is the problem that confederalization and decentralization of a country like Russia may end in its collapse. We're used to be forced to live together and every loosening of the brutal binding power creates the temptation for the local elite to break away completely. Especially this relates to regions that are able to live separately like Yakutia, Kaliningrad (former German Eastern Prussia), Tatarstan, Vladivostok.

This means that some other motivation should be created for the regions to be loyal to Russia. One should not be proud of being Slave of an Empire, but should enjoy being a free member of a Federation that gives opportunities and is an attractive example for the neighbouring states.
Read more...

January 22, 2009

Moscow yuppies and the economic crisis

It seems to me that our generation of young Russian twens will be psychologically hit the hardest by the economic crisis. Today's Moscow yuppies and recent university graduates - how can they be ready for a crisis?

We were to young to feel whole gravity of the 1990s in Russia - no matter how hard it was, we were still children then and had our parents to care for us. I remember how we got humanitarian aid handed out in school in 1991 or early 1992. It was several tins of Danish Tulip meat conserves and a pocket of dry milk for every pupil and it was really the first time since very long before that we drank milk (no matter how bad) and ate meat. And - strangely - I did not feel suffering at that time. To the contrary, after that for a long time (psychologically the feeling went away only a couple of years ago) I had some inner impression that having bananas or yogurts on our table is luxury and that one could perfectly live without these now seemingly simple food products. And we really could survive without them and as a child I wasn't stressed about that.

In the crisis of 1998 many of us were still teenagers with our parents caring for us. I can not say for that time because we left to live abroad exactly 5 months before the August crisis.

Anyway, today my generation is a generation who became truly adult and economically active in the prosperous 2000s with oil prices above USD 100 per barrel enriching whole Russia and our sweet home Moscow in first line. It's only tiny 8 years since 2000, but the ones who just really started living in these years could get the impression that these wealthy years would last forever. It's bad when people take "special" for "normal".

We're not used to live in a crisis, we're used (or started getting used) to have our vacations in Egypt or, better, Spain, to take loans and buy cars and apartments. Our generation is a generation of young glamourous Moscow investment bankers, fund market analysts and brand managers. But it's not only about the top young bankers and analysts - there are much more middle class young people who work as white-collars in small (or big) companies just doing their jobs from 9am to 6pm and renting a flat, and they are going to be hit much harder than top professionals.

Psychologically many of us do not really know what it is to live in a crisis, to get fired having a loan to pay back. Only few of us can imagine what it is to go and work as a construction worker or to trade vegetables on a bazaar (*lol* I hope it won't get that bad, but still).

Of course, people have survived in worse times than these. Our grandparents had survived a world war and our parents survived the hopeless totalitarian USSR. What is a stupid economic crisis compared to a war or to decades of an isolated totalitarian system that seemed to stay there for centuries? We'll survive the challenge anyway and will hopefully remember these times as interesting and adventurous.
Read more...

November 30, 2008

The Soviet Story (Padomju stāsts, 2008)

The Soviet Story (Padomju stāsts), a 2008 Latvian documentary about Communist crimes (in English and Russian with Latvian subtitles). Includes interviews with Russian and European historians, a Finnish EU Parliament Member, a former member of KPSU Central Committee, with the Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky. Very worth seeing.


Part 1: http://irc.lv/video?id=YrHosaqsKcUW

Part 2: http://irc.lv/video?id=q8Fyk1CH4vUw


The very good thing about this movie is that it underlines that roots of Soviet terror lay in Marxist ideology itself. Stalinist USSR was not a misinterpretation of Marx' Socialism - it WAS Socialism just as Socialism was supposed be.

Hitler was a National Socialist and the Soviets claimed to be "International" Socialists. There's no difference as all of them were fans of social engineering and constructed totalitarian states that should define and control all aspects of a person's life. Hitler killed people according to their ethnicity, Stalin killed people according to their social status. I'd call that difference a matter of taste.

There must be a Nuremberg Trial for Communist crimes. Not really to forbid something - but for people to get the right attitude to the USSR and to left-wing ideology. Although it's "uncool" today to be a fan of Hitler and "not very cool" to be a fan of Stalin, it is still completely acceptable to be Marxist or Maoist and even "cool" to be a fan of Che Guevara. While there's not really a big difference between them all.
Read more...