"The question is where this anger will go"

Interview with Jens Zigert, the former head of the Moscow branch of the Henry Bella Foundation

The head of the Moscow Office of the Foundation Henry Bell, political scientist Jens Siegert retires after 16 years of work. The Bellya Foundation is one of the largest German funds in Russia: since the 1990s, it supports non-profit organizations, holds summer schools and conferences, provides scholarships and grants to scientists, students and civil activists. Medusa journalist Alexander Borzenko found out from Zigert with what feeling he was leaving the post and whether he had a feeling of complete failure.

“Why do you suddenly leave after so many years?”

- The point is that I have been holding my post for a very long time. There is a rule in the office that managers should not stay for one post for more than six years, and I have been heading it for 16 years. We made an exception several times, and now we mutually decided that it was enough, it is time to do something else and let a new person work.

- The main directions of your work are the development of democracy, environmental projects, gender equality, international dialogue. It seems to many that on all these points in Russia everything is very bad now. Do you have a feeling of an apocalypse based on the results of all these years?

- There is no apocalyptic sensation, but I am not at all inclined to such moods. Of course, in areas that are important for the Bellya Foundation, Russia is now a big crisis. But I do not think that it is necessary to idealize those old times.

- And was it bad before?

- I opened the Bellya Foundation's office in August 1999. By coincidence, approximately when Putin was appointed Prime Minister. In the 1990s, there was a lot of freedom in Russia, but it was very, so to speak, unassembled, wild freedom, strong freedom. I think then, in Putin’s statements about the dictatorship of the law, the word “dictatorship” was more important than the word “law”. We worked in Moscow and before the opening of the office with so many and different non -governmental organizations. And in 1999, we quickly got the feeling that times are becoming more difficult.

- What was this sensation expressed?

- Here is a little stroke. In the fall of 2000, we organized the first meeting of all our Russian partners. It was a “memorial”, a center of independent sociological research and “civil control” from St. Petersburg, various environmental organizations, organizations from the gender region and individual people with whom we cooperated. We gathered in the small town of Voskresensky, in the rest house, which, incidentally, belonged to the Presidential Affairs Management - it happened. We composed and signed there what we called the Voskresensky Convention. The essence was this: we are representatives of civil society, and we must be in solidarity with each other. Although then environmentalists and human rights activists did not understand each other, and together despised feminists. But they felt that they were engaged in one thing, and we need to defend themselves together from possible pressure from the state. Then there was no pressure, but it seems that we were quite far -sighted.

- When did the pressure begin?

- Our partners fought defensive battles for the past 15 years. In 2001, a new [more stringent] tax legislation appeared. Then the Kremlin made the first attempt to combine non -governmental organizations under its control, as a result, the Public Chamber appeared in 2006. Soon a new law on non -governmental organizations came out, then there were Putin's statements about those who “jalide” among foreign embassies and foreign organizations. By and large, nothing has changed. Another thing changed: after the Crimea, or rather, even after the protests of 2011-2012, the Kremlin is fighting for destruction-this is no longer an attempt to discipline someone. The laws on “undesirable organizations” and “foreign agents” are aimed at the full submission of non -governmental organizations to the state.

- Do I understand correctly that the law on “foreign agents” should not have touched you, since you are a foreign organization?

- Yes, and no. This law directly touched our partners. Today, somewhere around 80% of organizations that have ever received some money from the Bell Foundation are declared agents and are in the register of the Ministry of Justice. For these organizations, the choice is now very simple - to call yourself “foreign agents” or to refuse foreign money. None of them will declare themselves an agent, because it is a lie, and lying about himself is below their dignity. So, they must refuse to receive money. Actually, this means a change in relations with us, although they, of course, will remain partnerships.

- How will the lack of foreign financing will be critical for Russian non -profit organizations?

- It's hard to say. No one has a review of financing public work. The largest part of the work of all our partners is carried out on a voluntary basis. But there are things that are impossible or very difficult to do on a voluntary basis. Russian legislation is very demanding on non -governmental organizations. More demanding than to business. You can’t imagine an NPO without a professional accountant. It is impossible to know all these rules and traps, all the rakes that you can step on. If you do not know this, you can immediately close, because it is too dangerous. Very often in these organizations it is the accountant, and not one of the leadership-the most paid position.

- How was the appearance of the law on “undesirable organizations” in the fund? After all, this is an obvious threat to such a fund as yours.

- Such laws, if you look on a global scale, are not new. In Belarus, a much more stringent law has long been in force, there is no foreign money there at all. There are such laws in China, Iran, Ethiopia. The Bellya Foundation works in all these countries, so we are well familiar with this. As for Russia, of course, we hoped that it would not reach that. But in fact, all foreign organizations similar to the Bellya Foundation, which have been working in Russia, have been living for at least ten years with the fact that at some point everything can stop. For example, our registration in the Ministry of Justice can be removed - in the law of pleased a lot of tools for this.

-Do you have any opportunities to probe the soil, communicate with people who make decisions to include NPOs in this or that black list?

- No. Sometimes there are informal meetings at some tricks, but they are quite useless, since people who really make decisions do not appear there.

-You once said that the special relationship between Russia and Germany is making the Bell Foundation more protected by the organization than, say, American ones. Is that so?

- Undoubtedly. Now our colleagues from the German embassy say that they were unofficially understood - so far no one is going to do anything against German funds. We all understand that this issue is not legal, but exclusively political. Look at the situation around Eastern Ukraine and Crimea. For almost a year now, nothing has been moving in either direction or the other. If relations with the West and the European Union will remain at the same level, or, perhaps, Germany will improve a little - this is the most important partner of Russia, so President Putin always says. True, he says this word so that I would not want to be a partner.

- What do you consider the successful result of your work in Russia?

- In recent years, our partners from among non -governmental organizations have become much more professional. This, by the way, partly happened due to state pressure. The prosecutor’s office can afford to hack, as he knows that the court in most cases simply copies its decision. And when you need to fight and prove your case, you need to work very carefully. And one more thing: we and other organizations work a lot with young people. And I see a huge difference between modern young people and youth twenty years ago. Modern young people have no fear of the state. Sometimes they are so fearless that they even look frivolous. A little fear helps to survive, a little caution will not hurt. This fearlessness applies to people of different political views - both liberals, and left and right. In this fearlessness is a good guarantee that today's situation is not for long.

Six months before the protests of 2011-2012, it seemed that everything was concreted, and if anything could appear, then only in the social sphere. And in the end, everything happened due to the elections. People felt that the state did not take them seriously.

- There is an opinion that the values ​​that you preach are close only to a narrow layer of the population, which then reached Bolotnaya Square. And Putinsky 86% is not necessary and incomprehensible. Do you agree with this?

- I have a lot of acquaintances in Russia and even relatives who believe that Krymnash is good. They rather do not like Putin very much, but they are ready to support him. And now they are probably included in these 86%, although I perceive the data of such sociological surveys with reservations. Moreover, most people with whom I communicate are for democracy. Perhaps we imagine a little differently what it is, but on global issues-who and how should edit, how to choose it-we converge.

I have a very good friend, a former military man, now works as a realtor. He always voted for the Communists, and now he votes for Putin. All that says in it is most likely some resentment. He is offended by the power, and he does not really know what to do with this resentment.

- Resentment for what?

- On the wretchedness of the state. Everyone perfectly understands that health care is bad, you have to pay for education, and still it is bad, and if a person is aging, God forbid he has relatives, and God forbid they have money. A person in Russia does not have to count on the state. This deep loneliness, in my opinion, revives longing for something past, something good, cozy, warm, jointly. This Putin gave such people the story with the Crimea. This is some kind of surrogate. I saw this in hotels - a fake fireplace. It looks like a fireplace, but there is an electric light that does not even warm. For some time you can use it, and then it is no longer possible. The question is where the anger, which is still, is later.

- Where will it go?

- Anger can be directed outside, and this is very dangerous. This is just a German experience. Germany did this twice - in the First and Second World War. What this led to, in Russia no one needs to tell. I really hope that nothing like that will happen here.

- But it seems to you that this is a fair comparison - pre -war Germany and present -day Russia?

- There, of course, there are a lot of different things. A completely different international situation, a completely different country. In this sense, one historical situation cannot be compared with the other. But there was this resentment among the people: we deserve the best, but for some reason they give us nothing, let's look for the culprits outside. And the Nazis used it. But I do not see among the current Russian leadership of people who would use this. The current Russian leadership is not ideological. They only use ideology to achieve their goals. To survive, to remain in power. I only talk about the state of society - not Nazi, but of the pre -specific, Weimar. These are people who lost the war, and believed that it was unfair. And many believed that the country has a “fifth column” that helped external enemies. We now also see a lot in Russia.

- This applies to the so -called "elites"? Businessmen, quite high -ranking officials?

- Almost everyone understands well. In a personal conversation-although there were much less such conversations than before-almost no one will try to justify something or repeat what they say on TV. People are not stupid. But when it comes to the Crimea, some triumphism is heard-here we showed you, here you cannot do anything. I am a German, they often tell me: and here we showed the figures of figure. Why are you, Germans, not with us? You are good, why are you with these Americans? This is because you are not free, they blackmail you, they order you! This has become stronger-the ideas of some conspiracies.

In German there is such a word - eigensinnig - perseverance. Literally you can translate this way - "your own meaning." Each person has his own meaning, he does some things, because he wants it, and there is no reason for this. I love this dish, and another person does not like it, and it is impossible to explain why. And in Russia, many people deny the existence of their own meaning in the public space. They look at me as a person to whom the strings are tied, and some big Europe pulls for them. This has become more distrust recently.

- The Bellya Foundation was a lot to understand the experience of Stalinism. Now there is a feeling of some schizophrenia: on the one hand, the government approves the concept of perpetuating the victims of repression, and on the other, through his fingers, he looks at attempts to rehabilitate Stalin. Where does this duality come from?

- There is no simple answer here. When you try to unite society with the theme of victory in the Great Patriotic War, it will not work to avoid Stalin's theme. On the other hand, the authorities are still afraid to flirt with the image of Stalin. Repressions in the Soviet Union affected almost everyone. A lot of people who have in the family and the stories of repressed and people who participated in repressions. Often this is one person - a grandfather or great -grandfather who first repressed, and then himself was shot. This can be tried to completely ignore, but the current government feels that it will not be too long as possible, and requires great effort.

Today it is customary to say that the Soviet Union broke up due to the national question, because of the fall in oil prices or because of Chernobyl ... It seems to me that all this played a role, but the most massive public movement was people who wanted to know what happened to their relatives and friends. People do not forget mass repressions. They can hide their mourning, their anger, their grief under high pressure, but they do not forget. It seems to me that the authorities feel this, so they do both. There is a little Dzerzhinsky, and here is the concept of perpetuating the memory of victims of political repression. On the one hand, a little Stalin, on the other hand, something else.

- What do you plan to do now, when you left the fund? Will you stay in Russia?

-I take a creative vacation for two years in the fund and I am going to write something long. The topic, of course, will be Russia. I'm going to live in Russia. My wife is a Russian citizen, a Muscovite, I'm going to apply for a residence permit, let's see what happens. I have already passed an exam for knowledge of the Russian language, Russian history and Russian legislation, and I am healthy. Further, the FMS and other competent authorities should consider. When they ask me about this, I always tell the old Soviet joke. The Jew comes to the party committee and asks: "Tell me, do I have the right to go to Paris?" “Of course you have the right.” - "Then one more question: can I go to Paris?" - "Of course, you can't!" So let's see.

Alexander Borzenko

Riga