Кто владеет информацией,
владеет миром

Ingush Revolt As a Check on Reliability: What Reaction Should Be Awaited on the Demands of Zyazikov

Ingush Revolt As a Check on Reliability: What Reaction Should Be Awaited on the Demands of Zyazikov
Еgor Kotkin 04.09.2008

Situation in Ingushetia where holding a meeting youth demands resignation of the current president of the republic Murat Zyazikov is not simply a regional crisis and problems of unsuccessful head of the region, it is a tricky question to all Putin's vertical. Delayed silence of the federal authorities - is confirmation of it.

Perhaps, they are silent because it not their business? Ostensibly, what for should the Kremlin fritter away its strength  for regional problems?

There is a reason. Firstly, that is the logic of all Putin's vertical of authority which since 2005 includes all the regions. The cancellation of elections of governors was necessary so that the federal center could supervise what's going on places. It means to bear responsibility.

Ingush revolt - is a challenge to the Kremlin also therefore removal of the governor is a prerogative of Moscow. In present conditions - only of Moscow because without sanction on any succession of events unpopular in the republic and dependent on apparatus Zyazikov will not go anywhere. So, Moscow will have to say something.

While federal center is keeping silent. Why? It is possible to assume that Меdvedev doesn't want to be soiled by one more political (even if not by underlying reason but by consequences) murder. If Politkovskaya and Litvinenko are not enough for them. Probably, the Kremlin carefully weights its position owing to the general complexity of region - war is near. But, on the other hand, Medvedev-Putin's mode has now sicker skin, than it used to be at Putin. Death of the political journalist for it - the same as a needle. Especially in circumstances of unequivocal domination of a foreign policy question.

The president who says that he is not afraid of returning of cold war could afford himself to have under his belt not only journalistic corpses but also whole GULAG. The problem is different. Zyazikov, may be is not the best head of the region, but the very internal logic of a present mode prevents Medvedev and Putin from making concessions to those who hold a meeting. The essence of it - a hybrid of chekist code of honour (and Zyazikov is also "the one from" KGB) and the Soviet nomenclature traditions - consists basically in the principle "we do not hand over our people".

Putin has been building system for 8 years independent from external influence. Both on the country as a whole (the concept of "sovereign democracy" to counterbalance "controlled" democracy) and on own people on authority.

The basic feature of Putin's states - closeness. We cannot know, what processes occur inside of it - we can only guess seeing the waves on a surface of a carpet and we have no right to influence them. In such context the requirement to remove unpopular Ingush president - is no longer a local conflict but an attempt on basic principles of system.

It, certainly, does not mean that Zyazikov now couldn't be removed - if it will be necessary, he will be removed. But only after suppression of the conflict and owing to a reason demonstratively not connected with it. It's, certainly, a big problem of Putin's vertical which Medevede received by right of succession - it's not flexible. The authority itself narrows a field of its maneuver depriving itself of such a rich for any, even the most democratic mode, theme as a game on populist moods.

Our president is as though higher than it - he does not participate in debates and won't fritter away his strength on gratification to the requirements of opposition - either federal, or regional. But it is necessary to understand that such position is caused not by some mythical fortress of chekist-bureaucratic nucleus of the mode (not at all rallied on closer examination) but by banal oil-and-gas well-being. While people are keen on expenditure of growing incomes, authority can play in autocrats.

Nevertheless, self-confidence of the mode in its indestructibility is obviously disproportionate to a threat of crisis caused even by falling of prices for oil. There is a chance that the mode will easily stand out until when the growth of not-oil-and-gas sector of economy will allow to go through such falling without special losses. Stabilization Fund, besides, backs up. But in fact it can fail to get luck - what will then be the answer of authority to credibility gap and national indignation? Then experience of compromises with public and manoeuvering on a populist wave could be useful - in fact bad authority is better than good revolution as a result of which the authority which will come is even worse. But Putin has no such experience, he had a lot of luck when being the president.

It's impossible to guarantee that Меdvedev will be the same way lucky in 2010 - 2012. It's high time to lay straw as experience of the first compromises with opposition, to find a way to satisfy their requirements not having lost face thus. We'd really appreciate if would be found out that delayed silence of center could be explained by a search of such decision.

Though fearlessness adjoining to recklessness in foreign policy applications of Medvedev and Putin obviously signals that they are sure in the cloudless future of their mode. In fact, no sane authority would conflict in such conditions not building upon solid back. Only time will show - whether the mode is mistaken in estimation of prospects to hold authority in long-term prospect or not. In the nearest future with a high degree of probability is possible to assert only one thing - there will be no indulgences and Ingush opposition has no chances to achieve what it wants.


From editorial board: Affirmation of the author that "we cannot know what processes occur inside of it - we can only guess" is not quite true. Probably, it is not known to the author because of his being far from authority (though he makes conclusions which are, in general, practically indisputable) but for this reason there is an expert community which shouldn't guess but should know - no, we are talking no about inside (though it also happens). Simply being from this very imperious nomenclature experts can have precise representation how their former colleagues and, probably, personally familiar people will think. Well, understanding algorithm of decision-making and having on hands initial data is possible not to guess but to know.

The logic of the state machinery is very simple: you do not know how to react - do not react. The story with Evloev's murder is so incredibly ridiculous that trying to understand how this situation will be justified by the Kremlin propagandists editorial board of FORUM.msk came to the conclusion - in no way. It's impossible to do it truly and without losing face. It means, there will be no justifications.

Authority considers itself strong enough not to notice some very appreciable things. It has been understood since Yeltsin's times, especially after events of 1993. Earlier, at Gorbachev and early Yeltsin they tried to build a dialogue with society, to explain and prove. Execution of Council House put an end to the necessity of dialogue between authority and society - the reason was natural, to explain events of October, 1993 convincingly and not to look idiotic was impossible. "Democratic" authority, having made "democratic" revolution, closed all oppositional newspapers for 4 months and entered rigid censorship, on such background it carried out the first elections to the State Duma and a referendum connected with Constitution of the Russian Federation. All turned out well - authority understood that dialogue with society is not only non-obligatory but also simply harmful - certainly to authority, not to the society.

Then mortgaging auctions passed - how to explain solidly and intelligently that tomorrow the public property will be transferred at the 1% of their cost to Berezovsky and Potanin, Khodorkovsky and Аlikperov? Therefore the same year absolutely all federal mass-media earlier belonging to journalistic collectives were handed to the property of large corporations - the ones which became large corporations the same year as a result of mortgaging auctions.

Then there were whole two Chechen wars, nobody were asked about them. There were changes made into Constitution as a result of which democratic procedures turned into decorative ones, the country became true Third Rome - only in the first Rome the republic was replaced by principate, while we have - institute of "successors".

Naturally, enriched with such experience of "dialogue" with people, authority will further continue picking "the same gateway" - inconvenient question could possible not be heard. Authority cannot say: "We do not know!" without risk of dropping its authority which keeps not only on bayonets and OMON batoons, but also on "hypnosis of authority". When hypnosis dissipates, batons can't save any more. Authority knows about it, it's already skilled.

However, absence of the answer in such situation is also the answer. That very forbidden: "we do not know!" Authority does not know. Therefore it's silent.

Do you remember a saying: "No wisdom like silence!" So, they want everybody to consider them clever. Or, at least, strong.

However, the situation with Evloev's murder by representatives of "law and order", moreover actually in presence of the supreme officials of the republic is so scandalous that it's impossible to be silent for long. It will be necessary to say (make) something. It is necessary to continue to set this, same inconvenient to authority question. Until it will fail to keep silent.

- What's up with your submarine?

- It sank.

- And what about Evloev?


Аnatoly Baranov, editor-in-chief of FORUM.msk


PS. In Separatorny settlement of Makhachkala on Tuesday evening a car of the journalist of Islamic broadcasting company "ТV-Chirkeh" Теlman (Abdulla) Аlishaev was fired.

"Attacking persons came to the car in which the journalist was and drought down fire from Makarov gun", - "Interfax" informed the press-service of Makhachkala Department of Internal Affairs. The journalist was brought to the hospital, nothing has been said about his condition.

There was attack on the editor-in-chief of independent "Newspapers of the South" Мiloslav Bitokov in Nalchik, ITAR-TASS transfers. He was bitten near the torch of own house, he had been also hospitalized, in edition of the newspaper informed.

"Bitokov was attacked by three unknown persons in the porch of a house where he lived, at the same time the son of the victim garaged a car", - the employee of the newspaper told. He added that earlier Bitokov was threatened by unknown people, he connects it with professional work of the journalist.

The representative of the newspaper added also that the son of the editor saw those who attacked when they ran out from the porch but he could not assume that it's malefactors. Now Bitokov is hospitalized with craniocereberal trauma and breakup of a nose. Relatives of the victim addressed militia.

Perhaps, it is the answer to a question "What's up with Evloev? "

Читайте также:
In other::