Freedom: a Fool’s Dream?

Members of the Russian punk band Pussy Riot have been sentenced to two years in prison. Why? Michael Idov, editor-in-chief of GQ Russia summarizes the situation thus: “When you trim away everything else, three young women will spend two years in jail for dancing in a church.”¹  You can watch the video here.

Knowing what these women were singing while they danced sheds significantly more light on the situation, but this is a light the Russian authorities would undoubtedly prefer left off. The shameful words were, ''Mother of God, get rid of Putin.²''

As Russia is supposedly a democratic nation, authorities cannot admit to condemning three women for making a political statement, so they must concentrate on the fact that Pussy Riot’s gig was performed without church sanction. Pussy Riot was not just speaking out against Vladimir Putin; they are also concerned about the closeness of the Russian Orthodox Church to the state. The head of the church, Patriarch Kirill is apparently a keen follower of Putin and has described the president’s leadership as “a miracle of God”.³  It is therefore convenient to accuse the young women of religious hatred and then drag out some old biddies mortally offended by the deed to act as witnesses at the trial.

By all accounts the trial itself was a farce baring little connection to justice and at best following the letter of the law. Michael Idov is scathing of the conduct of the legal teams on either side of the ‘justice’ system itself. He says:
“The only professionals anywhere in sight are Pussy Riot. From their name, perfectly pitched to both shock and attract the media, to their instantly recognisable look; from their initial punk posturing in interviews, to their pointedly academic statements to the court; these women, and they alone in this mess, know exactly what they are doing. Minutes after the verdict, the band released a new single, Putin Lights Up the Fires, through the London-based Guardian.”

Meanwhile, Russia continues to arrest protestors as more people express frustration with Putin’s regime. Obviously this whole trial is a propaganda campaign designed to draw the public’s attention away from the real issue: free speech.

*

Free speech is the friend of long-term national stability, but it is not the friend of autocrats. Free speech helps to keep authorities honest. Of course difficulties arise when the most powerful speakers – the media – are allied to the powers that be. In Australia we can be very grateful that our national broadcaster is not required to tow the ruling party’s line. (Some will say that it is clear that the ABC in pro one side or the other, but I’ve seen enough ABC news articles hounding both sides of politics. Attacking politicians of one’s own stripe does not automatically constitute bias.) Commercial media, while likewise not bound by the state, may be still influenced by the political leanings of major shareholders – nevertheless, commercial stations do play a crucial role in disseminating information. The main sin of the media, particularly commercial channels, is presenting items in order to entertain and provoke rating boosting reactions rather than seeking first of all to inform the public.

Politicians who are in power for the right reasons should not fear honest appraisals of their performance in the public arena. By the same token, the media needs to be accountable when it fails to provide honesty.

It is not just in a democracy that free speech can serve stability. A monarchy is as far as one can get from true democracy. If the monarch serves his or her nation as a monarch should then fair appraisals in the media are nothing for them to fear The European royal families that survive today have recognised the need to stay on the good side of their subjects. Indeed, seeing the writing on the wall, they have adapted to changing expectations and relinquished much of their power.

Though little more than a figurehead today, the House of Windsor retains much wealth as well as the love and respect of many whereas the royals of France are long extinct. In the Britain parliaments have given at least some privileged persons the ability to speak up and influence the nation since the thirteenth century. In other words, the monarch could be pretty sure that he/she would be supported in his/her actions because he/she had bothered to ask his ‘important’ subjects (i.e.: the lords and the church hierarchy) for their input before laying down the law. The French did not have a regular, national parliament until after the revolution in 1848 – which was a little too late for the newly dead French royals.

*

Of course President Putin in Russia might argue (privately) that he did have the support of the important people – just like those old English kings, or the Russian Tsars; the trouble is it is a different world now. For all the conservativeness of many Russian citizens, the proportion of well-educated Russians with modern expectations and the means to put pressure on the ruling elite is much higher than it was.

The potential for intellectuals spoiling a good tyranny is something Russia’s rulers know how to deal with. Stalin was the master.

In 1940, after the Russians pushed the Germans out of Eastern Poland, Stalin arranged a massacre of about 22,000 Poles at Katyn Forest. Like Hilter, Stalin wanted the Poles docile so he arranged for the removal of the most effective opposition – both military and intellectual. Those murdered included 8,000 military officers, 6,000 police officers and members of the intelligentsia arrested for being “intelligence agents, gendarmes, landowners, saboteurs, factory owners, lawyers, officials and priests”.⁴

Trofim Lysenko held some ideas about evolution that were unpopular with mainstream scientists - who favoured the views of Darwin, Wallace and Mendel. Lysenko, however, was Stalin’s pet and, as the head of the Academy of Agricultural Sciences of the Soviet Union, he had the influence necessary to cause the ‘expulsion, imprisonment and death of hundreds of scientists’.⁵

*

Pussy Riot may look like a bunch of silly girls playing a dangerous game, but they are both smart and brave. They continue the noble tradition of Dylan, Orwell and Voltaire who have used the power of words to fight or illuminate the wrongs they observe in society and in the institutions of government and church which should be leading society in the fight against wrong-doing.

Dressing up in outrageous costumes and poking fun at the ruling elite also brings to mind the honourable tradition of the court jester. Honourable? The jester or fool was in many cases not present at court merely to entertain.
A licenced Fool in a medieval European court held a position of importance was often a person of some wisdom. The Fool was licenced to speak his mind – when and how he pleased. When a monarch did or said something unwise or a discussion between nobles became overly heated, a witticism from the Fool could ease tension or even put a monarch back in his/her place without loss of face. Queen Elizabeth I is said to have rebuked one of her fools for being insufficiently severe with her.⁶

Stańczyk (1480-1560) is the most famous Polish jester. He was praised by contemporary writers and historians as a guardian of truth against hypocrisy. Later when Poland was partitioned between Austria, Germany and Russia his memory became a symbol of Poland’s struggle for freedom and as such was a favoured subject of the artist Matejko.^7,8,9

“Stańczyk” by Matejko. (Here he is depicted as the only person at a ball who is concerned about the Russian capture of Smolensk in 1514.)

*

Silencing one’s critics by force only gives them credibility. A wiser move is to ignore them. Even wiser is to minimize the need to be criticized. If a ruler would be a successful leader he/she should remember that that, in the long run, the carrot is mightier than the stick. Mr Putin, laugh at the antics of the girls and quietly amend the freedoms of your people; there will be no loss of face and you will still be living in luxury.

Russia has given the world brilliant minds such as Dostoyevsky, Mendeleev, Tchaikovsky, Tolstoy and Pavlov. The illustrious list of Russian thinkers indicates that Russia has much potential to shine as a bright beacon in the world. If only the ones carrying the flame would not snuff out the light every time they carelessly burnt their fingers.