I was not alone in the hopes and doubts I felt in those days, which are reflected in my correspondence with Yelena Bonner, to whom I sent good wishes on her birthday. The widow of Andrey Sakharov was a complex and self-contradictory person. We had clashed swords on more than one occasion, but I respect courageous people with strong convictions which they passionately defend. Here is our exchange of letters:
Dear Yelena Bonner,
I very much wanted to wish you a happy birthday by telephone but was unsuccessful, so here are my greetings by letter.
I would like to join with all those who know and appreciate you and who on this day are wishing you all the best. Your heart and mind are always receptive to other people and respond to their pain. You are one of those people for whom politics has never been reducible to ideology or ‘spin’ but is measured by human, ethical criteria. That is why you are admired even by those who do not always agree with you but share your passionate desire to see our homeland become democratic, a state governed by the rule of law, and to see the world become a more just place.
I believe that these ideals, upheld by Andrey Sakharov, will some day become a reality, thanks to the spirit and energetic efforts of many people, and especially people like you.
I wish you long life, vigour, indomitableness of spirit and the love and care of your family and friends.
Yours,
Her reply was:
Dear Mikhail Sergeyevich,
Thank you for your good wishes and kind words about my heart and other virtues. When I received your letter, I first thought it was a pity you had not phoned, but a moment later thought better of it, because if you had we would probably have quarrelled again, and on my birthday that would not have been seemly.
I can share your hope that Andrey Dmitrievich’s ideals may some day come to pass in our country, but I think the road will be longer and thornier than you do. That does not, however, mean that Russia will never make it: per aspera ad astra.
With unfading memory of our departed loved ones, thank you once again, and I wish you, Irina and your family health and all the best.
Operation Successor
Although the result of the presidential election was never in doubt, was predictable and even ‘fated’, I felt obliged to go to the polls and vote, to take part in the procedures of democracy. I urged not only my friends and relatives to do the same, but all the citizens of Russia.
Many people were critical of that. I could see for myself that these elections would not bring Russia any closer to genuine, living democracy and said so openly, for example, during an interesting online conference with residents of Chelyabinsk. They asked more than 400 questions and I managed to reply to many of them, not backing away from those that were barbed. One of these asked, ‘What do you think about Operation Successor?’ My answer was: ‘Everything has been done within the letter of the constitution, but not in the spirit of democracy.’
For all that, I saw the objections outweighed by a different argument: even if the machinery of Russian democracy was not perfect, and indeed sometimes warped, we must not turn our backs on politics. That is what I said in an interview for Interfax immediately after the election, which Dmitry Medvedev won in the first round: ‘First of all, I want to note the high turnout, with significant participation of young people. One can only welcome the fact that they are not turning their backs on politics but contributing to their future themselves.’ Commenting on the preliminary voting results, I said: ‘Those who predicted, and I was one of them, that Vladimir Putin’s participation in the Duma campaign would largely determine how the presidential election went, have been proved right.’
Putin’s popularity was still high. Many credited him with the improvement in the economy, which was increasingly noticeable. It was also significant, I added, that immediately before the elections Vladimir Putin and Dmitry Medvedev had ‘said a lot of important things which laid out the steps needing to be taken to move Russia forward in the immediate future’. I made no secret of being impressed by Dmitry Medvedev: ‘He is an intelligent, hard-working man but has, of course, had little experience of working on behalf of the state. I believe his sympathies are on the side of democracy. I said much the same about Putin eight years ago. We will have to wait and see.’
I was thinking hard about the direction events might take, and shared some of my conclusions with the readers of Rossiyskaya Gazeta in an article published in early March 2008:
The elections are over, and for all the importance of both the Duma and presidential elections, what matters now is what comes next. To some extent the situation became clearer only towards the end of the campaign. Voters were given no opportunity to compare the projects of rival candidates or alternative ways of resolving the problems faced by Russia. The quality of the candidates also left much to be desired. Despite that, people came, voted, and this is again a result of the Putin phenomenon and people’s confidence in him.
Now the big question is the use to which this mandate will be put. Having given their trust to Putin and Medvedev, the electorate has a right to expect them to keep their promises. In Russia today the problem of mutual understanding between the state, society and the individual is more acute than ever.
As I see it, we now have a unique opportunity. Building on the preconditions created in recent years and the favourable international situation, we can embark firmly on modernizing Russia, not only industry but all the other areas: politics, the economy and social services. The crucial areas to focus on are education, innovation, healthcare, governance and, finally, overcoming poverty and combating the dominance of the bureaucracy and corruption.
It was very important that, in the last days of the election campaign, both President Putin and presidential candidate Medvedev spoke as one about just this issue. I have no doubt they will put great efforts into tackling it, but on its own that is not enough. What is vital is that machinery should be devised for realizing a whole raft of extremely complex changes.
Clearly, to successfully bring together efforts on the federal, regional and even district levels, we need to see a serious improvement in personnel policy. This should not be a witch-hunt. Training personnel, preparing them to resolve completely new tasks must be part of a carefully thought-through system. It is particularly important to recruit young people. If the president and government do not undertake this, many of their declarations and promises will prove empty, and no amount of PR will save the situation.
The experience of the whole world tells us that such large-scale tasks can be tackled successfully only where there is real democracy and civic engagement, where there is mutual understanding between society and state authorities accountable to it, and when people are not afraid to take initiatives.
Some are going to say, ‘We cannot possibly let go of the reins’, that Russia has no need of new democratic experiments, that what works is a strong central authority, a ‘firm hand’. But a strong power in isolation often proves powerless. Real popular support is needed. Putin sensed what mattered, what people really wanted: a return to stability and a state that worked, – and he gained that support. Now, however, when even more complex, truly historic tasks have to be tackled, a far greater level of interaction between the state and society will be needed.