How Do You Slay A Dragon

Secondly – and this follows on from the first point – before we can demand change from others we have to be prepared to change ourselves. Each of us has inside us some poison that we have to squeeze out of ourselves.

If society’s energy is all focussed solely on searching for and punishing “the guilty”, while we ourselves remain unchanged, then nothing good will come out of this battle for justice. It’s only if we’re prepared to be more honest with ourselves and more tolerant towards those who are different from us, that we can avoid falling into yet another social extremism, simply replacing one lot of satraps and thieves with another lot.

A third point, developing this idea further, history shows that forgiveness can sometimes be cheaper than punishment. If given free rein, the natural and just desire for revenge turns into an all-engulfing fire, destroying not only those on whom we seek revenge, but ourselves, too. Revenge, including social and political revenge, should never become the dominant idea in society, its all-consuming passion. If it does, you will never escape trouble. When we’re blaming and scourging the regime, which is considered an essential element of cleaning it out, we must nevertheless remember that forgiveness is more important than punishment, and that everyone has the right to repentance. You’ll never build a new society on bitterness and revenge.

Fourthly, we have to distinguish between the “first disciples” and those who “lived like everyone else”. Their role has not been identical, and thus their fate should be different. For a quarter of a century a corrupting, amoral matrix has been developing in society’s behaviour. In this matrix, good and evil, black and white, have swopped places. Tens of millions of people were drawn into this matrix and lived according to its rules. Many of these were totally unaware that they were participating in the crimes of the regime; many did, but acted not on their own initiative.

However, there were “first disciples”; those who created and nurtured this matrix. They corrupted the nation, developed the mafia state, and became its main beneficiaries. There should be a different approach to them.

Finally: we must be aware that although remaking society is harder than shooting those responsible, remaking is what we must do, convincing people to live differently, playing by the new rules.

We can’t bring down from the Moon a different race and swop those we have for “ideal citizens”. Nearly all of our officials are corrupt; not because they were born to be such monsters, but because in the matrix that developed there was no other way to operate. If you didn’t steal, you wouldn’t survive. And we can’t simply sack all of our officials in one day. The ranks of those who could do their work are very thin. If anyone were to try to do this the country would become ungovernable in an instant.

Incidentally, Lenin understood this very quickly, when within 18 months Communist Russia collapsed into ruin and starvation. Even if we could sack all the officials and put in their places new and fresh people, we would very quickly see that these new people would rob the people worse than their former “masters”. We’ve seen this in Russia more than once. Our task has to be not to sack and ostracise, but to show people how to work in a different way. And that’s much more difficult.

This all encourages me to give my thoughts on two of the most important topics in the social discussion in recent years: purges and revolution.

Purges. There is a partially justified view that the compromises of the revolution carried out by Mikhail Gorbachev and Boris Yeltsin, especially as regards the ban on the activities of the Communist Party and the purge of members of the USSR KGB, played a significant role in the history of post-Communist Russia and led us to where we are now. This seems entirely plausible, considering the role that former members of the KGB played at the start of the twenty-first century in decisively restoring the Soviet regime, and the opportunistic role that the self-appointed heirs of the Communist Party are playing today, rolling back the years to “Orthodox Stalinism” and the “populism of the Black Hundreds”.

Is there a lesson to be learnt from this for the future? When the regime collapses (and sooner or later it will collapse; it’s just a question of time), should we bring down a sword of punishment on all law enforcement officers, judges, prosecutors and so on? Should we finally ban the Communists, and at the same time remove the right to work in government service from members of United Russia, A Just Russia, followers of the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia, and the activists of the All-Russian National Front?

It looks tempting. But maybe a warning sign is that when they did something similar in Ukraine and Georgia it didn’t really help.

For the reasons given above (“you can’t shoot them all”), there’d be no one left to do the work;

There’s no guarantee that those who take their places would be much better;

Many of those who work in the power structures these days carry out their roles honestly and, at great risk to their lives, fight against terrorism and criminals.

It’s true that our judges are all corrupt and bought out by lawlessness. But perhaps it’s not so much the fault of the judges as of those who’ve interfered with their work? If we remove the Kremlin gang, if you conduct a serious debrief, if you give professional people the chance to be both people and professionals… No, of course it’s much better to start afresh, with a new page; but where are we going to find this new page? Yes, and millions of our fellow citizens are not just dust…of course, you could just wipe them away and lo! There’s Stalin’s pockmarked mug staring back at you from the mirror…

I’m against a total purge. It’s never really been completely successful anywhere. The Bolsheviks went further with this than anyone else. They effectively carried out a purge using the meat-grinder of the great terror in 1937, but they still didn’t achieve what they’d set out to do.

As a rule, approaching everything with one and the same template rarely produces a good result. Of course, we have to conduct a thorough and large-scale investigation of the crimes of the regime and identify the key beneficiaries of the mafia state, the real culprits of the escalation of repression and despotism. These people must be judged and punished publicly and under due legal process (with all legal guarantees being observed; those very guarantees that they denied others), even if society then decides to grant them amnesty.

As for those who are less responsible for what the regime has done, they can be dealt with using conditional measures.

A different matter is the “institutional purge”, that should be carried out as strictly and consistently as possible. The point is not that KGB officers weren’t purged, but that the KGB itself was set up as a totally repressive institution that carried out the role of a second (sometimes the first) government. Such a purge is not a witch hunt, but a ruthless thinning out of a dense forest, which turns people into witches and goblins.

Things usually happen the other way round with us. In the battle for justice we seem ready to shoot the wild bird, but not touch the reservation that produced it. The solution, that has to be real, long-term, and not just temporary, is not one of settling scores, nor about purges, but in profound institutional reforms. We won’t get by without purges, but they should be carried out with the same degree of mercy that will lessen the desire to seek revenge.

Revolution. Everything is leading to the idea that yet another revolution in Russia is inevitable. The regime is stuck in a rut of repression, from which it wouldn’t be easy to extract itself even if it wanted to; and it has no desire to do this. It has just one desire: to hold onto power at any price. The key word here is “any”. This sense of an impending revolution is gradually creeping into every layer of society, affecting even those who are loyal to the regime and have gained the most from it. What can we say about those who’ve chosen the path of professional revolutionaries...

The authorities have done so much to turn revolution into a scarecrow that they’re now reaping the opposite reaction. For many people, a revolution – and the bigger, the better – appears to be the most desirable and most positive solution to the growing crisis.

Is the revolution as good as our imagination makes it out to be? Far from it. A revolution always has its very dark, hidden side. It’s counter-intuitive for a person to want a revolution, because it’ll be a huge shock for the whole of society. But it’s too late to think of that now. Now, it’s as necessary as a scalpel is to a surgeon. Given the understanding and the historical necessity we have, and the experience behind us possessed by few nations of the world, we have to do everything in our power to ensure that the revolution does not become the end in itself. We mustn’t put an end to despotism and violence by organising a festival of violence and despotism.

Revolutions costs society too much for them to become instruments for settling scores or re-allocating resources. While admiring the revolutions that have taken place in the post-Soviet space, we must remember that their medium-term results turned out to be far from the expectations of those who inspired and created them.

We must never lose sight of the main aim of the revolution: to make society more humane, more tolerant and more free. As well as the political and economic results it brings, the revolution should usher in added moral value, which is why it can’t be handed over to the mercy of cynics and political strategists.

The revolution can be for the whole people, who, having passed through it, will be morally cleansed and freed. Despite the cost, such a revolution is good for society. Or the revolution can be for a revolutionary party. It carries out the revolution in the name of the people but in reality it’s in its own interests. Such a revolution is worthless – except for the party functionaries.

A revolution isn’t needed to destroy the old order. You don’t need to be very clever to work that out. A revolution is needed in order to build something new in place of the old order, something based on equal measures of justice and mercy.

If a new order doesn’t arise out of this, then the revolution will have failed. Today, in the heat of the struggle, we’re often too focused on the negative side of the revolution, on the need to demolish a regime that’s hated by many. This is understandable, especially now that this regime has switched to a policy of open mass repression. But if we fail to switch the centre of gravity onto the positive side of the revolution, onto our ideals, onto our dreams about a fair society and state, then we will devalue any victory over the regime and end up even further away from our goal than we were before.

The passion of the fight, the desire to take revenge, the desire to see the ghouls at least nailed to a pillory: all these are understandable and largely justified. This regime has provoked in its opponents feelings of hatred and rejection. But if, as we look into the future, we’re ruled by these emotions alone, then we won’t go far. Ultimately, the one who wins will be the one who can rise above these emotions and give everyone the chance to take part in creating a new, open Russia.

Conclusion (The Dragon in Custody)

The dragon has gone too far in its war against the people, and therefore all of its heads, however many there are, should remember that they carry personal responsibility for what has happened and that this price will not be forgotten. At the same time, I wish to address myself to those who entered the Russian Colosseum to watch the battle against the dragon, hoping to applaud the heroes from the safety of the stands. When I was sitting in my prison cell I used to read your articles praising the heroes, and I still read them today. I see in them the desire that someone will slay the dragon for you. I see a terrible disappointment when this doesn’t happen.

I became interested enough to ask: do you understand that should your wish come true and someone slays the dragon for you, your disappointment will be even greater?

In order to become a professional dragon-slayer a person must themselves either be a dragon at the outset, or else become a dragon in the process. And then their team will be a typical dragon’s team, with the same methods and aims.

And if you think that the hero will fight the dragon and that you’ll receive the benefits (freedom and democracy, at least), then you’re naïve (if, that is, you expect to receive freedom and democracy, and not simply work as a slave). We already went through this with Boris Yeltsin.

Can the dragon be slain? Of course it can. That’s not the issue. The main question is: why? And it’s much more difficult to answer that than many people realise.

For me and for many of my fellow citizens, the unbroken thousand-year history of Russia is important. The roots of our common European – and now our Euro-Atlantic – civilisation are important.

It’s important for me that we’re not aliens in this Western world, but among its creators and defenders. Yes, we lost a great deal when we protected Western civilisation from the Tatar-Mongol horde, from the Asian invasion, and as a result we became different people; but in our culture we didn’t become Asian. I don’t want to say anything against the ancient and wonderful Asian culture, just that it's not ours. We’re closer to William Shakespeare and Miguel de Cervantes than to Hafez or Sun Tzu.

The modern world isn’t simply globalisation, communication and cooperation. It’s also competition on a new, global level, on the level of world civilisation.

Endless wars and contempt for human life have left us with far too little to suggest that we could afford to start another, new, separate civilisation that was able to compete.

Of course, there’s always a place on the fringes of progress, and the modern world is sufficiently humane and aware not to encroach upon this fringe. There are gentle ways to use those who are too weak to take part in real competition.

But I hate the idea that my country might occupy this space! We’re European! We helped build and defend this civilisation and have as much right to our place in it as do the French, the Germans, the British, the Australians, the Canadians or the Americans!

For centuries we’ve walked side by side, shoulder to shoulder with them, and we know that we need them and they need us. We refuse to listen to stupid and greedy people who want to drive us apart for their own selfish ends.

Yes, we can find a lot of events in history that it would have been better had they not happened, but even our troubles and our wars have been shared. To this day we remember the 50 million people who died in Europe in the Second World War alone, both friends and enemies… But the 50 million who died in China? We know about them… Do you feel the difference?

The first working title of this book was Gardarika: the Country of Cities. Why? Because Gardarika was a country from those long-off times when Europe was one. And we will be that again; it’s our historic destiny. But having our place at the shared table depends on us. It depends on our talent, our brains, our ability to anticipate the future and achieve those specific goals that will make us, our children and our grandchildren happy.

I’m making my contribution to this work. May whoever is capable of it, do more – and better.