Translated material
Archive explosion
Like any old Stalinist,
There was a chauser evil and dumb.
His lead whip whipped
and turned into a cold corpse ...
Lev Losev
With intense attention, the Romanian parliament listened to the report of President Trajan Basescu about the crimes of the socialist era. True, Vladimir Tudor, the leader of the Grand Romania party, hooked the head of state, who called him the "poet of the communist regime", but this, as they say, was the costs of production. Yes, and it would be funny to expect a joyful perception of the story about a continuous series of atrocities and murders to those who were sexots, or even personnel employees of the Securitate, and there are many among deputies.
The report for the president was prepared by the former Romanian dissident, and now American political analyst Vladimir Tismanyan. On 600 pages, it is in detail about the bloody path of the communist dictatorship - from the seizure of power in 1945 to the last days of the reign of the Ceausta couple. The total number of victims is calculated by two million, 500 thousand people died from terror and repression. There are 21 charges against the regime - from the establishment of the pro -Soviet government to the destruction of entire social groups in the name of the class struggle.
The report became the result of many years of efforts of democratic public figures who have fought for people's right to know the truth about themselves and their past. Six years ago, the National Council for the Study of the Archives of Special Services was created. But only three years later, 2 million cases of the second -Uuritate began to transfer to it. Influential figures associated with the previous regime opposed this process in every possible way, accusing his initiators of “witch hunt”. They can be understood: for example, Mona Musha, a deputy of the parliament and a former Minister of Culture, admitted that in the 70s she collaborated with the Securitate. And the ex-president of Ion Ion Ion, the architect of the conspiracy against Chaushey, was named in the report of the Tismanyan commission to the “closest assistant to the dictator” and one of the regime bons that succeeded.
Well, the Romanians can sympathize and envy at the same time. To sympathize - because in the country after forty -five years of dictatorship there is no family in which no one would be stained with cooperation with the guard. To find out that a person close to you was a sexot, or, conversely, to hear this about yourself is hardly pleasant. The Civil Media Union, uniting Romanian journalists, had already addressed its members with a proposal to admit cooperation with GB if it took place. The initiative, perhaps, is populist, but indicative.
The Russians can envy the civil courage and the courage of the people, and the authorities elected by them, who decided on an honest conversation no matter what. The worse truth is only its absence.
But so far we have the opposite. According to Bashkirova and Partners, power structures, including the same state security, enjoy much greater support for the population than the State Duma or the Federation Council. The highest rating of the Ministry of Emergency Situations is 78%, then the army and the FSB are 60%, then the Ministry of Internal Affairs with 45.8%. Meanwhile, only 40.2% of respondents trust the government. Is it possible to imagine that, with such moods of society, the parliament is concerned about the creation of a commission similar to Romanian? So that it is at the head of it to be placed, giving free access to all archives, Vladimir Bukovsky or "at least" Sergey Kovalev? Such an assumption sounds like nonsense.
But our two countries began with similar conditions. Moreover, the Romanian were even worse. The dictatorship of Chausko with his extravagant madness and the all -winging and aggressive personality cult of a la Kim Il Suns - this is not a lethargic Brezhnev insanity to you. And in the late 80s, the USSR under Gorbachev generally seemed a stronghold of freedom and democracy and words against the backdrop of the still reigning "conducator". By the backwardness of the economy and poverty of the population (I myself remember how in September 1989 the Romanian kids begged at railway stations and Soviet tourists threw them bread and canned food, which were extremely happy) The situation in Romania was worse than in Russia. And as a result of the coup, the Democrats came to power in Bucharest, but the partieschers of the second echelon led by Ilescu. Nevertheless, Romania found the strength to follow the European path. And here the possible membership in the European Union was the compass that did not allow to get down from the course.
Alas, in Russia it turned out differently. The abstract idea of democracy was too ghostly to serve as a guiding star. In society, cynicism and disbelief were prevailed, mixed on the psychology of the stage of early capital accumulation - "catch the moment."
As a result, unexplored Chekists are in power today, they do not intend to give it away, and their rating is high to indecent. It was once again confirmed that history is not predetermined and its course is entirely in our hands. Only in the Russian case, "our" hands "turned out to be their hands. With our silent consent.