Tatyana Malkina about the transparency of state families, the harsh fate of the first lady and those whom we do not elect.

The debate about whether the family life of the head of state should be a public domain or has the right to remain his (or her) private matter is, of course, not new, its history is as long as the history of politics, trade and fashion, the tradition of gossip and corruption, the chronicle curiosity, intrigue and envy. The century of emancipation and feminism has brought new nuances and contradictions to this debate, since state leaders are still more often than not men. Therefore, the subject of public attention and political speculation is usually a woman whose husband had the good fortune/misfortune of becoming a national leader, after which such a woman automatically turns from a human wife into a first lady. Today, the “first lady” is objectified, if not sexually (although her attractiveness as a sexual object is highly welcomed), but on all counts and fronts at once. Including those that do not address issues of access to taxpayer money, political influence or civic duty.

The origin of the term “First Lady” itself is not entirely established, although its first use supposedly dates back to the times of the Roman Republic: Gaius Octavian did not want to be called a king or dictator, so as not to irritate the senators with unpleasant associations, and therefore modestly called himself First Citizen (Princeps Civitatis), his wife thus became Principa Femina. In its usual form, the term “first lady” appeared, of course, in America - chroniclers argue in relation to Martha Washington or Dolley Madison. But it took root, representing, from the perspective of distant patriarchal Russia, a bizarre mixture of echoes of rivalry with the British crown, achievements of the Protestant ethic and the boundless ingenuity of political manipulators. From the days of Martha and Dolly until the Kennedy period, American first ladies still had relative freedom to choose their own destinies, some managed to remain more or less invisible, others, on the contrary, literally became the driving force of their husbands (for example, President Eisenhower's wife, who pushed his wheelchair ). However, Jacqueline Kennedy was so good in every way that it would have been a crime to leave her invisible, and she was not that type. Her multifaceted partnership with her husband became a benchmark; since then, the bar set by Jacqueline has remained, it seems, an eternal challenge for any spouse of the US President. The more public policy merges in some battle areas with show business, the heavier the burden of responsibility falls on the shoulders of the first ladies.

Many people pay attention to a funny discrepancy: it is not entirely clear why - outside the monarchical tradition, of course - so much attention is paid to a person whom no one chose (except for the person who once chose her as his wife).

The leaders of Soviet Russia lasted a long time, their wives were either selfless comrades in the struggle, or subordinate objects, or private citizens, certainly not ladies. One of the first to break free, arm in arm with her husband, was Nina Petrovna Khrushcheva, who began to accompany him during his most important international visits, thus gaining a public role. Contemporaries left a lot of warm testimonies and memories of her, who worked tirelessly in the field of party agitation and propaganda. However, I remember as a child I saw America magazine and cried bitterly, looking at a photograph that showed two married couples - Kennedy and Khrushchev, Jacqueline and Nina. I tore out the page and threw it away, it wasn’t fair to compare the incomparable.

We knew nothing about Victoria Brezhnev except her daughter. The first ladies who followed her simply did not have a chance to manage anything. But then a star rose - Raisa Maksimovna Gorbacheva. No, she did not help her husband politically in any way (as is customary among Americans). I remember well the amazing mixture of anger and embarrassment, envy and suspicion that this unusual woman aroused in the hardened hearts of a new historical community of people - the Soviet people. Simply because she was there all the time, said smart and important things (sometimes, maybe not terribly smart, sometimes where they weren’t expected), behaved freely and like a citizen. For elegant suits, for hats, for everything, in general. And I was forever imbued with a human feeling for Gorbachev - for the first time in relation to the Secretary General. Only because I suddenly saw a person in him. Because it was love. And he showed it to the city and the world. And he held on to her. It meant a lot. At the very least, he is truly a man of modern times.

And Yeltsin had love. And great friendship. And he was terribly lucky. Naina Iosifovna Yeltsina, whom I had the pleasure of seeing more than once, always made a completely royal impression on me, in a completely British sense. Once during the 1996 election campaign, I, who was then working in the Kremlin pool for the Segodnya newspaper, asked to “go to the women’s program.” During the presidential visit, this meant running around with a notepad and a tape recorder not after the usual game, Boris Yeltsin, but after his wife. In the most sexist way, the president’s wife was given a feminine, that is, lightened, agenda, with life and humanity - with a social, children’s or, worst of all, cultural and local history slant, so there was no way to catch hot political news there. Nevertheless, walking with Naina was always interesting; she fascinated me with her intelligence, naturalness, and some rare social grace. So, I asked to attend the women’s program in Volgograd and at some point I found myself behind Naina, along with her somewhat confused guards, surrounded at the foot of the terrible Motherland by a crowd of veterans, veterans and idle women who had long been waiting for the guest. The crowd was terribly aggressive. Of course, no one threw stones, but from the nasty things that old communists dissatisfied with Yeltsin shouted, Naina turned to stone, like her homeland. “Why are you standing here with your smart face? We still won’t elect your drunkard!” - shouted an active old man in orders. And then Naina burst into tears. She pushed aside the guard who stood up, came close to the old man and said, sobbing: “And don’t choose him, I beg you! Scared! Lord, don’t you understand that this will only make me feel better? Eh..." Needless to say, the dumbfounded old man reached for his handkerchief?

Over the past five-year period, three statesmen have spiced up the routine debate on the rights and responsibilities of first ladies - Nicolas Sarkozy, Francois Hollande and Vladimir Putin. The first, having become president, divorced to marry a famous model, a rebellious and unprotocol beauty and singer, the second found himself at the center of a pathologically detailed scandal due to infidelity with his common-law wife (nevertheless, de facto first lady), the third suddenly announced a divorce with his wife, who had not been seen with him for years.

Let's leave sex and passion to the French. Vladimir Putin blew up the world news not with the piquant details of love adventures (although it seems to me that the Russians would have liked this no less than the French, who generally approve of love), but simply with a sudden break in the deathly silence, a limited lifting of the taboo he had imposed on any information about his family. The nature of this taboo has been discussed by all and sundry for many years, and little by little it seems they have lost interest. The most common explanation is Putin’s exaggerated, say, due to professional deformation, concern for the safety of people dear to him (no information - no person, securely, that is, hidden). The most understandable thing is a low threshold of sensitivity, uncertainty, and unpreparedness for the inevitable costs of publicity (I find it difficult to imagine Putin laughing at an evil joke about himself). The most likely thing, from my point of view, is the absence of something that would be proud to present.

It is possible to measure and regulate the parameters of the budgetary support of the presidential family; it is necessary to demand transparency in government appointments so that journalists, for example, do not have to dig up tons of false papers in order to find out whether the president’s daughter is about to head the country’s most public university. But it is difficult to insist on someone else's happiness. You can only wish for love. Everyone needs it. With her, it’s warmer and easier for anyone to live, work, and dream about retirement.

By the way, the fashion for first ladies who are perfect in all respects seems to be slowly disappearing in the big world, especially in Europe. More precisely, like fashion in clothing, it is also becoming liberal: if you want, wear a maxi, if you want, a mini, if you want, be a public figure and a political activist, or if you want, bake pies with a smile and do cross stitch. Which should be extremely liberating for everyone involved.

Once again about love: why is there a taboo on any information about Putin’s family?