Navalny case: who needs terrifying stories about Stalinism?

Author: us-russia
Comments: 0
Navalny case: who needs terrifying stories about Stalinism?
Published 22-07-2013, 16:51

Dmitry Babich

Dmitry Babich is observer of Voice of Russia

No one was more excited about the guilty sentence to Alexei Navalny, than those Western and domestic media, which have been for many months supporting the theory of "screw-tightening" in Russia. This theory says that "tightening of screws" in Russia began with the election of president Putin last year.

This excitment of "Russia-as-new-dictatorship" theorists about Navalny's sentencing is understandable. Every believer is happy to see the signs of his faith being true. However, this theory is at variance with many facts, for example, with appointments of Gaidar-type liberals to key positions in the Central Bank and in the government, Putin’s cautious position on the situation around Snowden, which was fairly respectful to the US, continued operation and even the growth in number of anti-Putin media outlets in Russia, etc. For these doomsday theorists, ever longing for signs of ascendant totalitarianism, this verdict of a court in the provincial city of Kirov was a Godsend: popular opposition activist, just 37 years old (most probably a "young reformer") taken into custody in the courtroom! Poorly concealed satisfaction is visible in the indignant headlines of Western media: their authors are glad that everything turned out exactly as they had expected. For example, here is a heading of an article in the American edition of the Forbes magazine: «Putin declares himself dictator with the Navalny verdict». And the Polish daily "Rzeczpospolita" compared the trial of Navalny to Stalin’s show trials of the 30s. "Rzeczpospolita" never bothered to remind its readers what would have happened to people who would try meeting convicted politicians with flowers and pancakes in Stalin's times, as Navalny's supporters did after his release. (Under Stalin, people were executed for milder "offences.") For truly impartial analysts, the severe verdict of the judge in Navalny's case (5 years), was a surprise. Editor-in-chief of the English edition of the Krakov-based "New Eastern Europe" magazine, Adam Reihardt, offers a bold idea: maybe the sentence was severe just because the district court in Kirov so decided:

"I was convinced that Navalny would get a suspended sentence. It was kind of a surprise that he was given prison time. Apparently, the Russian judicial system turned out to be more independent than it is usually portrayed in Western press. And may be the prosecutor's office was simply not prepared for such a strict sentence. So, the incident can be viewed as proof that in Russia prosecution and court are actually better separated than we in the West are led to believe”.

Why was it the much demonized prosecutor's office, and not the defense that filed a petition to release Navalny from custody? At first, the supporters of the «tightening of screws» version could not explain, why the very body which they said drove the screws, came to the defense of the imprisoned young man. Then a revolutionary explanation appeared: the authorities were allegedly scared by the appearance of protesters, several dozens of which police detained in the center of Moscow and released before dawn. (Not quite the Stalinist way to do it.) No one bothered to read article 108 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which says that a person, accused of embezzlement or several other mild crimes, is not considered convicted, but only as an accused one, until the court's verdict takes full legal force. This article also says that this kind of person should not be taken into custody or, worse, placed in prison. And this is exactly Navalny's case: he was found guilty by the court, but pending appeal his verdict did not get full legal force. The prosecutor's office pointed to this fact, and Navalny was set free. Now he is back in Moscow under the written pledge not to leave the city. On Saturday, Navalny said his campaign for the position of Moscow's mayor will continue.

But questions remain. For example, what is so surprising about Navalny’s release from custody? Why was it such a disappointment to some well-oiled "protest machines" in Russia and the West? Could it be that some well-to-do gentlemen would prefer Navalny to be a jailed martyr rather than an acting "dull" candidate at a local election? We have already seen similar tides during the Pussy Riot case, when lawyers obviously preferred some loud and scandalous jailing of their clients to these clients' quiet and dull release. It seems no coincidence that during the whole trial of Navalny, almost all Western media writing about Russia and some of their Russian colleagues were in fact waging a campaign of "preemptive discreditation of any possible court verdict save a total acquittal. Any other judhement by the court was declared unjust in advance. Russian MP Andrey Klimov considers this practice a form of pressuring the court:

"When the British urge us to establish the rule of law in Russia, they should not be hypocritical. In a state with the rule of law politicians do not have the right to influence the court, including foreign politicians”.

 

In this context, alarmist warnings of diplomatic missions of the USA and the EU demanding to stop "the tendency of suppressing the civil society in the country” (quote) sound somewhat ambiguously. The West might have noticed that attempts to put pressure upon the Russian authorities usually produce the opposite effect. For example, US Vice President Biden’s statement made a few years ago in Moscow that the US would not like to see Putin’s return to the Kremlin, on the contrary, contributed to this return. As we see, then the pressure was put on the executive power, now it is applied to the judiciary. But the result may be the same. So there is no need to save us from ourselves and to make irresponsible statements "return to Stalinism": totalitarianism and Stalinism were really horrible things, and there still are people in Russia, who know them not from hearsay.
 
Voice of Russia
Comments: 0
Experts' Panel
Save the Planet Expert`s Pannel
Presently a growing number of people, including well known and...
Save the Planet Expert`s Pannel
Top
popular in the journal
RUSSIAN FEDERATION SITREP 6...

RUSSIAN FEDERATION SITREP 6...

KAZAKHSTAN. Major trouble. Started, they say, with the doubling of the price of LPG but now clearly another "colour revolution”, complete with a "leader” who ...
Searching for an end to the...

Searching for an end to the...

Some important talks are set for next week between Russian and U.S. officials. These talks will start in Geneva on Monday, followed by a NATO-Russian dialogue in ...
RUSSIAN FEDERATION SITREP 23...

RUSSIAN FEDERATION SITREP 23...

ULTIMATUM. Moscow has had enough. "Do they really think we do not see these threats [угроз]? Or do they think that we will just stand idly watching threats ...
Andrei Sakharov: Second Coming to...

Andrei Sakharov: Second Coming to...

If the legendary scientist, peace and human rights activist Andrei Sakharov was alive today, he would have ...
What Russia Says About Its...

What Russia Says About Its...

Russia has detailed its security demands to the U.S. and NATO in form of two draft treaties.