Leave to stay. Vladimir Milov about why you should not bury Russian political emigrants ahead of time

Recently, the authorities have been paying more and more attention to political emigrants: then Volodin will threaten them with a Magadan, they will have new criminal cases against them and transferred to the court (here is my case of “fakes” in October entered the Basmanny Court). If you want to understand what is important for today's Russian regime and that it really causes him troubles, carefully monitor their rhetoric and actions, they will definitely talk about whom and what they consider the most serious danger.

Political emigration for the Kremlin is really very dangerous. Political broadcasting through social networks is comparable to the audience with the state media, the total audience of independent and opposition channels is in Russia from 10 to 30 million unique users per month. This is a large coverage, and not at all a “marginal” segment - Soviet dissidents and Western radio reasons from the Cold War about such an audience could not even dream. The current Russian political emigration is a powerful instrument of influence on public opinion in Russia and the source of an alternative image of the future for the country, which, in the apt expression of Oleg Deripaska, under Putin, has big problems with the future.

Political emigration for the Kremlin is dangerous. Her broadcasting through social networks is comparable to the audience with state media

Why, in recent years, the voices have been heard so often that those who left Russia are “cut off a break”, that they “lost any connection with the country” and “have no political future” in Russia? It is clear that such narratives are beneficial to the Kremlin in order to demoralize resistance. But why are many representatives of the seemingly independent Russian public and the democratic West, voluntarily helping to promote the Kremlin demoralizing dunes?

Moreover, often all this is served simply as an axiom. I recently played in the BBC Hardtalk program, where the host of Stephen Sacan with an intonation that does not imply objections, asked me: how do you intend to continue political activity if you have lost any connection with Russia, having left it?

This thesis is not only fundamentally incorrect, but is not confirmed by real world practice. Since I have to hear this very often, I had an idea to write a text showing that actually departure to exile, even for many years, does not prevent subsequent return to the country and active participation in politics after the dictatorship, even vice versa. This is evidenced by the extensive world experience. Let's take a look at all these examples in detail.

Departure to exile, even for many years, does not prevent the subsequent return to the country

Among the comparable to Russia, large countries that made a successful transition from dictatorship to democracy, where former emigrants served as important political figures of such a transition, several bright cases can be distinguished. First of all, Brazil , where the successful reformer Fernande Enrika Cardoza, who served as president of the country in 1995-2003 (for the first time in the history of Brazil re -elected for a second term) and actually created modern Brazil such as we know, was forced to spend many years in exile in Chile, in France and the USA.

Another, largely more relevant example for us - South Korea . At about the same time with Russia, she made an attempt to transition to democracy in the late 1980s-early 1990s, our countries have about the same economy (nominal GDP). However, South Korea, unlike us, managed to become a developed democratic country.

One of those politicians who was able to bring South Korea to success was the former Kim De Jun dissident, who in 1980 was sentenced by the dictatorial regime Jung Du Kwan to the death penalty, but then released on exile in the United States. Upon returning to the country, Kim won the 1997 presidential election and, as president of South Korea, in 1998-2003, carried out the most important reforms, ensured the consequences of the destructive Asian financial crisis of 1997 (from which our country also suffered in the form of default-1998) and laid many foundations of successful modern South Korean democratic statehood.

Another solid outpost of democracy in Southeast Asia is Taiwan , which is among the 25 largest economies in the world, and here political emigrants also played an important role in democratic transit. In the first competitive presidential elections in Taiwan, after the abolition of dictatorial order in 1996, Pen Minhmin, who had previously spent 22 years in exile (1970-1992). Although he did not win, his opposition democratic progressive party (now the ruling party in Taiwan) was already able to do this in the next election of 2000, and in 2000-2008 Pen Minhmin worked as an adviser to the first democratically elected opposition president Taiwan Chen Shuybyan.

In Taiwan, political emigrants also played an important role in democratic transit

But let's move to Europe closer to us. Of course, the most striking case of transition from political emigration to power in the latest European history is the example of Charles de Gaulle - not just the former president, but no less founder of modern France , one of the largest and most influential countries in the world. De Gaulle left the country in 1940, after it became clear that the Nazis were occupied by France, and not only spent the years of World War II in emigration, but also actively supported Britain and the United States in their actions to liberate the military by military means. He actually entered Paris in August 1944, along with the American 28th Infantry Division-that is, according to the classification of the current Putin propaganda, he would be considered a patented “traitor”. At the same time, the French - and quite fair - consider de Gaulle the liberator.

One of the founders of the modern European Union, the first chairman of the European Parliament and the post-war prime minister of Belgium Paul-Henri Spaak also held the years of World War II in emigration, working as a foreign minister in the Belgian government in exile in London.

One of the founding fathers of a modern European Union held the years of World War II in exile

Konstantinos Karamanlis, one of the founders of modern democratic Greece , spent 11 years in exile during the reign of the Greek military junta, after which he returned to Greece in 1974 following the fall of the dictatorship, won the elections, restored democracy in the country and was eight years as the Prime Minister and 15 years old-the president of the country, bringing Greece to the Eve of the Essence. Former President and Prime Minister of Portugal, Mariu Suaresh, who was considered one of the fathers of Portugal democracy and later also became an architect of Portugal in the EU, spent several years in exile during the reign of Hunta Salazar-Caetan before her fall in 1974.

Among the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, there are quite a lot of those where former emigrants played a significant role in managing and transition to democracy. Ex-president of Latvia Vike-Freberg spent 54 (!) Years in exile, then to lead her country and bring it to the EU and NATO. For more than 50 years, ex-president of Lithuania Valdas Adamkus spent more than 50 years, who returned to his homeland only in the late 1990s and also became an architect of Lithuania and NATO. The ex-President of Estonia , well-known to our readers on Twitter, Toomas Hendrick Ilves was generally born outside the country, came to participate in Estonian politics only in the 40s, in the early 1990s, and also played a instrumental role in the entry of his country in the EU and NATO as the Minister of Foreign Affairs in the late 1990s and early 2000s.

If you continue the conversation about the Baltic countries, until recently in Latvia there was a rather curious situation when both the president and the Prime Minister were not just two people who lived in ex-occupation for a long time-Egils Levits and Arthur Krishyanis Karins, but Levits was also a teacher in Class in the 1980s, when he studied in the 1980s when he studied in the 1980s. Munster Latvian gymnasium. Karins, who today works as the head of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Latvia, was born in Wilmington, Delaware, the USA, and moved to Latvia on an ongoing basis only in the late 1990s, when he was already over 30. Levitts lived in exile for 18 years.

Until recently, in Latvia, the president and prime minister were two people who lived in emigration for a long time

The Baltic countries are not the only example of the active involvement of former emigrants in the leadership of the country after the fall of authoritarianism. For example, the former heir to the Bulgaria throne in 1943-1946 Simeon Borisov Saxen-Koburg-Gotsky after 50 years of emigration returned to the country in the mid-1990s and was a democratically elected prime minister of Bulgaria in 2001-2005, with it the country became a member of NATO and prepared the ground for joining the EU.

There are many examples when politicians in exile later returned to their homeland and became presidents and premieres. It is worth recalling the ex-President of Chile (now the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights) Michel Bachelet, who was forced to emigrate from Chile in the 1970s after the arrest and torture from the Pinochet regime-to work for two terms later, in 2006–2010 and 2014-2018. The ex-president of South Africa of Tabo MBEKI, the successor of Nelson Mandela, spent about 30 years in exile before returning to South Africa in the early 1990s after the start of the dismantling of the apartheid. Koruson Akino, President of the Philippines in 1986-1992, who came to power as a result of a democratic revolution and displacement of dictator Ferdinand Markos, spent several years in exile in the United States, with her husband, a popular opposition politician Benigno Akino (who was killed immediately upon returning to the Philippines in 1983).

Thus, cases when former political emigrants on the return played an important role in the history of their countries when moving from dictatorship to democracy, not some rare exceptions. Agree, the above list shows that this is rather the norm. Sometimes such leaders were those who were not even born in their own country and were never in it until the dictatorship falls or left in childhood. The thesis “Once you left the country, you have torn away from it forever and can never return to its political life” is fundamentally incorrect and is not based on anything, real experience refutes it. This is pure propaganda, which aims to demoralize the current Russian political emigration.

The thesis “Once you have left, you can never return to her political life” is fundamentally incorrect

One important example from our own history, which is often given, trying to strengthen demoralization with this parallel, is a white emigration that has settled in the west a hundred years ago after the Bolsheviks came to power. On the one hand, there seems to be external similarities here: the anti -Bolshevik emigration initially had high hopes for the early fall of the communist regime, but over time, these hopes wigged, the Soviet Union was enchanted and existed for many more decades, and the emigrants died, often completely forgotten. Such historical parallels are carried out today very often, additionally driving many people from the new wave of Russian political emigrants into the disclosure and apathy.

However, there are at least two significant differences. The first is the rapid international recognition of the Soviet government and the industrial modernization of the early USSR, let's frankly speak, the position of the United States and American large business, as well as Great Britain, which quickly made a bet on the recognition of a new regime (starting with the 1921 Soviet-English trade agreement). Henry Ford and other American entrepreneurs actively invested in the USSR, which contributed to the strengthening of the Communists. You can talk about the reasons for a long time, but I think it is quite obvious that no one will support the Putin regime in the West now.

The second is the comparisons of the current Russian opposition with white emigration are basically unlawful, because here it is necessary to put the opposite historical vector. The white emigration as a whole - although there were many shades - was a certain obsolete political class that was unpopular in Russia, and for this reason lost the civil war: although this is a separate long conversation, but in a generalized form they were perceived as the bearers of the restoration of a certain political model that was unpopular. It is rather appropriate to compare immigrants from the Putin system with white emigration, who, after the collapse of the dictatorship, will leave abroad from the new government.

It is appropriate to compare immigrants from the Putin system with white emigration, who will leave abroad from the new government

The population gave the revolutionaries a chance, especially since the same Bolsheviks actively lured people with populist slogans (“land to the peasants”, “factory workers”, etc.), and what they were to the end, it was not completely clear. And no one else wanted to return to the old regime. Socialist ideas in society were popular, although for the most part, not in the interpretation of the Bolsheviks: at the first democratic elections in the history of our country, the Socialist Revolutionaries won a convincing victory, whose leaders, by the way, had spent many years in exile (for example, the first chairman of the Constituent Assembly, Viktor Chernov, lived abroad for about 16 years; Chairman of the Pre -Parliament, or Provisional Council of the Russian Republic, Nikolai Avksentiev - 10 years), which did not prevent them from winning the elections. And many leaders of the Bolsheviks had previously lived in exile for many years. So the fact of political emigration, even a long -term one, does not mean a ban on returning to domestic politics in itself - this is an artificially created stereotype.

What is the history of our country of hundred years ago in this regard is that victory in competition for the image of the future and recognition from the leading world powers are of great importance. Other factors are also important, but the question of whether you are in exile or not, is not so primary - after the collapse of dictatorships for political emigrants there is always a chance.

Victory in competition for the image of the future and recognition by world powers are of great importance

It is incorrect to compare the current Russian political emigrants and with Soviet dissidents who went to the west. In the USSR, dissidents did not have real experience of large -scale political activity, often they even deliberately contrasted themselves with the rest of society. As Fedor Krasheninnikov writes about this, today's Russian opposition is not a handful of dissidents:

“Those who were in political emigration today passed a large school of public policy in Russia: they quite successfully participated in the elections and even won them, conducted national political campaigns, arranged mass protests, engaged in legal human rights, educational and ecological work. The experience of these people is incomparable with the experience of Soviet dissidents, who from the very beginning were doomed to exist in a deep underground and isolation from society, and in many cases consciously contrasted themselves with the loyal Soviet power to the majority. ”

For example, for 50, over my life, I traveled all over Russia-from Soviet factories in the 1980s and 1990s to Navalny’s election rallies in 2017-2018-and I know our country very well. In what circumstances I have not been to, from the federal government to military training to imprisonment under arrest with criminals. The same can be said about many of my associates. Why did we “break away from Russia” if we lived abroad for some time? The same permanent member of the Security Council Sergey Lavrov, a total of 21 years lived and worked abroad - does not arise such questions to him? Such a statement of the question looks especially strange in the 21st century information society, when a huge feedback with a large number of people in various regions of Russia is supported every minute online (many thanks to everyone in Russia who writes and informs about the country's daily realities).

Please, let's stop inventing on the topic that a temporary departure to exile under the threat of persecution by a cruel dictatorship is supposedly “a break in all ties to the country”, as well as something unusual. Yes, there is nothing unusual here - this is the norm for opposition politicians around the world during the period of cruel repressive dictatorships. Then they return and successfully lead their countries to democracy. The mantra “left - lost touch with the country” must be stopped pronouncing aloud, it completely contradicts the realities and world experience. Это просто искусственно выдуманный кремлевский пропагандистский штамп, нацеленный на то, чтобы поссорить политическую эмиграцию с теми сторонниками демократии, которые остались в стране.

Не надо допускать, чтобы нас ссорили. Сегодня часто можно услышать обвинения в адрес уехавших: «вот, вы там сидите в парижских кафе» (это неправда, мы в основном работаем, в кафе мы иногда ходим просто поесть) и «не знаете, что творится в стране» (тоже неправда, мы очень хорошо знаем свою страну, и это знание не перебить несколькими годами в эмиграции). Мы не обижаемся — более того, когда мы слышим от представителей Запада слова «а вот ваши оставшиеся в России сидят тихо и не протестуют», мы терпеливо объясняем, что это попросту опасно для жизни и что не надо наезжать на оставшихся в России — важно, чтобы они сохранили себя для будущих перемен.

Не надо наезжать на оставшихся в России — важно, чтобы они сохранили себя для будущих перемен

Нужно устранять из публичной дискуссии ложный, запущенный Кремлем тезис об «оторванности политэмигрантов от России». Нам сейчас необходимо больше солидарности друг с другом: у всех есть свои ограничения, политэмигранты лишены возможности работать в России, а оставшиеся — заниматься полноценной общественно-политической деятельностью без риска сесть в тюрьму. Важно понимать, что в этой ситуации никто из нас не виноват — виновата жестокая бесчеловечная диктатура, которая входит в число 15–20 самых репрессивных диктатур мира, она не оставила никому из нас возможности вести полноценную деятельность без таких вот ограничений. Надо ставить себе задачу быть полезными там и таким образом, как вы сегодня можете, — и у политэмиграции возможности для этого очень большие, мы стараемся отрабатывать их по максимуму.

Не следует на ровном месте деморализовывать себя и окружающих, повторяя не имеющие отношения к реальности выдуманные пропагандистские тезисы Кремля. Если Кремль хочет, чтобы вы усвоили какую-то мысль, — значит, она точно неверна и нужно гнать ее от себя. Сможем ли мы все вместе встретиться в прекрасной России будущего? Это не гарантировано, за это придется бороться. И в этой борьбе очень важно сохранять крепкий моральных дух и веру в будущее и не давать Кремлю и его добровольным помощникам вогнать себя в уныние.

Subscribe to our newsletter