Maksim Kononenko & the Great White Hope

Kononenko dreams of a brighter future

I recently read a very interesting interview with the always-provocative Maskim Kononenko, an insanely active Russian LJ blogger, journalist, and creator of the wildly funny vladimir.vladimirovich.ru short stories saga. The original text of this “Russkii Zhurnal” interview can be found here, and my translation appears below.

One thing I’ll note about Kononenko’s comments is that he seems to overlook the fact that Aleksei Naval’nyi’s history does involve extensive collaboration with the liberal democrat “traditional opposition.” (I’ve written about this before here.) Evgeniia Chirikova seemed like someone who might build bridges between the opposition and the authorities, but one wonders if this is still possible (or even something she still desires) after the highway through Khimki forest received the green light from the Kremlin, despite a temporary halt to the construction and a dashed effort to consult civil society. Furthermore, Naval’nyi is not at all shy about promoting Vladimir Milov’s political party (DemVybora), though Kononenko argues that people like Milov are yesterday’s news.

This leads one to suspect that Kononenko’s categories (“old” vs. “new”) are somewhat artificial, and that the “traditional” roots of the Russian opposition are perhaps wider-reaching than he wishes to admit.

That said, the hope for a new political discourse offered by figures like Naval’nyi and Chirikova is very real. And in that regard, Kononenko’s interview is highly worth reading.

Иголки для власти (“Putting the Authorities on Pins and Needles”)
January 6, 2011
Русский Журнал

From the editors: In recent days, the subject of the Russian opposition has come to the forefront. This is tied to the arrests of a large group of highly visible oppositionist figures after a series of new political protests and the rather harsh reaction from the authorities. Journalist, writer, and author of the satirical novel “Den’ Otlichnika” (dedicated to the Russian liberal opposition), Maksim Kononenko, sat down with “Russkii Zhurnal” to discuss the Russian opposition, its status, and its prospects.

Russkii Zhurnal: What in your view is happening with the “non-systemic opposition”? What generally is the opposition in the context of modern Russia?

Maksim Kononenko: The opposition, even if it’s called non-systemic, all the same became part of the system a long time ago, and is now an integral part of the political landscape, not unlike a parliamentary opposition party. This year, the traditional non-systemic opposition made one more attempt to regroup. [This is presumably a reference to the Partiia Narodnoi Svobody (AGT's note).] It’s still too early to discuss its success or failure, but it seems to me that [their] time has passed. While these people were negotiating, new leaders emerged, who are far more interesting and attuned to the public. This is, for example, Evgeniia Chirikova and Aleksei Naval’nyi. So far, they haven’t exhibited any [personal] political ambitions, but it seems to me that they will be compelled to become political leaders. And, in this, they’re far more attractive than the tired and boring figures like Nemstov, Milov, and even Yashin, who just a year ago was still somewhat promising.

Russkii Zhurnal: But neither Evgeniia Chirikova nor Aleksei Naval’nyi have declared any political ambitions. Does this mean that the opposition in Russia will stop being political and abandon its political demands?

Maksim Kononenko: No, of course not. The opposition will remain political, but there’s currently a change of leadership underway. The problem was this: for a long time, the opposition simply didn’t renew itself. We were dealing with the same people we had ten years ago. This was dreary indeed. People stopped paying attention to the traditional oppositionists — they were bored of them. As I remember it, Surkov even tried to resuscitate the oppositionists, in order to make them just marginally attractive, but unfortunately even he failed in this. But now a new non-parliamentary opposition is emerging that could well prove to be constructive. Chirikova, for instance, is a very reasonable person. It seems to me that the authorities should be working and negotiating with such people.

Russkii Zhurnal: What today plays the decisive role in determining who becomes a leader? Maybe it’s a matter of the ecological movement having become more important, which has granted its leaders greater weight?

Maksim Kononenko: Movements haven’t become [more] influential, but new leaders have appeared that have learned how to speak with modern society in a language that’s agreeable and clear. That is to say, both Chirikova and Naval’nyi speak to the public the same way Putin does. The ideas aren’t important: it’s the people that matter. If someone other than Naval’nyi was doing this anti-corruption muckraking, it wouldn’t carry such resonance. That is because, other than having the [right] materials, one needs the proper presentation. And now there are people emerging who know how to talk to a crowd and deal with journalists. This is not unlike our history with “Eurovision”: after many mistakes, we’ve learned how to conduct ourselves there. Take Yashin as an example: he’s a young guy, but he speaks to the public just like Nemtsov. And this doesn’t work anymore. It’s all the old rhetorical tricks and an old manner of speaking that’s outdated and uninteresting. But Chirikova and Naval’nyi talk to the public in the language of equals. This is very important.

Russkii Zhurnal: So the key thing isn’t even personal charisma but some kind of distinct approach to talking to the people?

Maksim Kononenko: Personal charisma by itself doesn’t inspire trust. It might make someone somewhat appealing, but the people won’t go for someone who’s only this. Take Viktor Stepanovich Chernomyrdin: a very charismatic individual, but as a public political figure, I think, he’d get an ‘F.’ He was unique and it was neat to watch him, but people didn’t line up behind him. With Chirikova and Naval’nyi, it’s not a matter of charisma — it’s that they’ve found those needed words and that needed approach. And they weren’t looking for it — I’m sure — it happened on its own. Meaning that, of the great many people reaching out to society in recent years, society chose the two people it actually likes. Maybe the next generation of politicians will learn from Naval’nyi and Chirikova, who are just naturally talented people whose careers have been unintentional.

Russkii Zhurnal: And what about Edinaia Rossiia, which (according to the President) has “bronzed over.” Might it split into multiple parties, creating sources for future opposition forces?

Maksim Kononenko: No, hardly. Edinaia Rossiia is an extremely complicated mechanism. There’s a political part and a bureaucratic part. The political part, where there are some internal sects, isn’t really that big. But the bureaucratic part is far bigger, and it couldn’t care less about politics — it’s only interested in the places Edinaia Rossiia is able to perform [litterally: "obespechit'," or 'provide for']. Right now, the party is a symbiosis of a political core with a bureaucratic-nomenklaturic packaging. In the future, this bureaucratic-nomenklaturic part could either mutate or break off, but dividing Edinaia Rossiia into different parties is impossible. This is because Edinaia Rossiia would immediately lose its various strongholds: no left-wing of the party could defeat KPRF, though its right-wing factions would have a chance of beating LDPR and the new Pravoe Delo party. Edinaia Rossiia needs to assert itself in the niche it currently dominates. Actually, apart from the right-wing of the party, no one is really staking a claim on this niche. Indeed the left-wing — Spravedlivaia Rossii, KPRF — needs to be consolidated and have its position strengthened.

Russkii Zhurnal: What do you think will be the new decade’s main political problem inherited from the 2000s?

Maksim Kononenko: Right now there’s formed a kind of system that is naturally aging. It’s unclear how to get away from it. There is Putin, and there’s Medvedev, and not much of anything else. This is a very serious problem — there aren’t any new leaders. The establishment is currently built in such a way that a change at the top is impossible without a political crisis. Not a change from Putin to Medvedev, mind you, but a change from one political force to another: from Edinaia Rossiia, put in crude terms, to the social democrats. In this regard, the system is incomplete, and I think it needs to be completed.