The Benefits of Terrorism for Our Politicians
 by Alexander Podrabinek

Alexander Podrabinek is editor-in-chief of PRIMA News Agency, based in Moscow, which publishes daily news and analysis in Russian and English on human rights and democracy issues. This article may also be viewed on the PRIMA web page at Prima-News_podrabinek_terrorannounce.htm.

At Moscow’s Kievsky railway station, the announcements of train arrivals and departures are interspersed with warnings of the dangers of terrorist attacks, such as: “In the interests of your safety, the station is being patrolled by members of the militia and dog handlers. Citizens, be vigilant”. On this appeal for citizens to be vigilant, after the warning of militiamen and dogs, I stopped. The authors of the announcement may unknowingly have hit the nail on the head.

How do clever and responsible politicians differ from bad and dexterous ones? When difficulties fall on the country, wise politicians try to minimise the consequences and understand the source of the problem. Bad politicians spit on both cause and effect. With refined dexterity, they turn any problems befalling the country to their advantage.

What could be worse than war and terrorism? This is bad for all of us except our supreme authorities. Explosions destroy blocks of flats in Moscow, and not one single official from the Special Services resigns: instead, the event is used to launch a military campaign in the Caucasus. A school is taken over by terrorists in Beslan: again the Special Services are in the limelight, but the occasion is used to abolish the free election of regional governors. Any event is used as an excuse for strengthening rule and restricting civil rights. The worse, the better! The worse for us, the better for the authorities.

For the bad yet dexterous amongst politicians, war and terrorism are a godsend. They are unable to build peace and security, do not like thinking, are not trusted, and feared by the opposition. While the country has its hotspots, they are able to convince our simple people that apart from the heroic military and defence, there is nobody left to protect Russia. Thus they can intimidate the individual, take over the press, smother those parties they do not control, and pump billions into the army and Special Services, all under the guise of protecting the Fatherland. Could it be that they create these dangers in the first place, and with the other hand fight them? Just as Charlie Chaplin would send a boy ahead of him to break windows, for him then to repair?

This is not just a conspiracy theory, for analogies exist. After the Bolshevik revolution, the enemy was extremely useful in shoring up the new authorities’ power. Firstly it was the Whites, then priests and noblemen, and finally the Kulaks. Once all opponents had been dealt with, it was time to turn on one’s own.

The Enemy became the Trotskyites, the Bukharinites, Zinovyevites: then finally anyone at all. It made no difference who the enemy was, just as long as there was one. At that time it was referred to as class struggle. A ruthless war against a domestic enemy.

Is it not all rather similar how the authorities want to convince us of the need to intensify the struggle: only now not a class struggle, but a counter-terrorist one? The Special Services and militia are on the lookout throughout the country for Wahhabists real and imaginary, beating confessions of terrorist intentions out of them. As a rule, the court cases are held behind closed doors. The authorities pass any law they want through their toothless Duma to expand their powers and reign in freedom and rights.

Take the law On Opposing Terrorism, which should have had its second reading in October. While the Special Services do what they like now, once the bill is passed they will be able to do the same, but according to the (new) law.

While it might seem that restricting civil liberties would endanger Russia’s international reputation, nothing much seems to happen. The Kremlin explains to the various sceptics that the struggle against international terror goes on all over the world. And Russia should not lag behind. In all else, it can. In corruption it can lag behind, or in both business and political transparency, standard of living, press freedom, behind a long list of countries. But it would be insulting to lag behind in a struggle!

Besides, other governments, even so-called civilised ones, are no less skilful. Tony Blair’s government wants to be allowed to hold suspects for a period of three months without charge for those suspected of terrorism. And George W. Bush has tried to have more simplified legal proceedings introduced for terror suspects: not military or civilian courts, but in specially-created “military commissions”. The Indian parliament has passed an Antiterrorist Law, allowing the authorities to hold suspects for up to six months without laying charges. So, how is Russia worse?

Here’s how. President Bush’s project was buried by the American judicial system. The federal district court of the District of Columbia appealed to the ministry of justice concerning the inadmissibility of the simplified procedures used against those suspected of terrorism, which it regards as contradicting accepted judicial standards. Tony Blair’s bill has encountered fierce resistance, and its final outcome is unclear. The Indian government has met sharp criticism in the country, and has as a consequence created another special commission, and then withdrawn its antiterrorism bill.

In democratic countries, the governments’ appetites are held in check by the parliaments, courts and civil institutions. Here in Russia, any government measure moves like clockwork, meeting the full understanding of the parliament and courts, and the silent indifference of our not very civil society.

Alexander PODRABINEK
Translated Michael Garrood

Also published in Novaya Gazeta, 24.11.05