The Russian opposition is in a serious crisis – organizational and semantic, a crisis of identity and a crisis of humanity. I would show statistics proving this, but there are none. I have only personal impressions and oral testimonies from hundreds of pro-democracy and anti-war activists and ordinary Russians with whom I have interacted and observed on a daily basis during the last two-plus years since the invasion of Ukraine..
These opposition supporters are frustrated with weak political and moral leadership; a lack of tools for participation and influence, and consequently feeling alienated, unheard and unrepresented; resentful of the endless accusations, poking and looking down on by those who put themselves forward as opposition leaders and spokespeople.
There is a growing gap between the opposition and society; and that is compounded by fatigue from the lack of honest and meaningful discussions about mistakes made in the past.
It is worth mentioning right away that I am writing this text not to add fuel to fire of debates on social networks or to search for the guilty, but to open a discussion about our weaknesses. Of course, nothing has done more damage to the Russian opposition than the action of Vladimir Putin and his regime.
However, we ourselves have also made many mistakes. Even with limited opportunities and under extreme pressure, we must not avoid responsibility for our actions and decisions. We should also accept that the world is rarely black and white.
Having agreed that there is nothing worse than war (which is true), many mistakenly added: “So everything is justified.” As a result – joyful statements about terrorist attacks in Russia, autographing shells fired by the Ukraine military, creating bot factories, where “elves” write opposition comments for a paycheck.
Plus, there is the endless talk about collective guilt, which reaches the point of absurdity, as well as demonstrative “lack of sympathy” to Russian conscripts and total misunderstanding and sometimes even disregard for the problems of compatriots who cannot leave the country.
There are many reasons for this, but we must first point to an unwillingness to cultivate a basic sense of humanity and empathy, to understand others with their weaknesses and shortcomings, to understand the complex social context, and to start by listening and helping rather than the instinct to always judge and teach others a lesson.
Two years of war have led to general bitterness, a simplification of the worldview, and a rejection of principles in favor of the idea that “the end justifies the means.” But this is only the path to greater discord and a chasm between people.
Deep-rooted contempt
We are a deeply divided society. We are good at feeling social and political contempt, being arrogant, judgmental and hateful. Those who consider themselves an alternative to the regime often do so. We refuse to see people and fellow citizens in those who support Putin, in those who go to the front – often, by the way, not of their own will, but under duress.
Some of these people are indeed criminals, but not all of them. Many of them can be talked to, many of them can at least be understood — which does not necessarily mean justified. All these years, the regime has taught us to see enemies around us, because atomization, broken ties and total dehumanization are beneficial to it. It’s easier to control people this way. And we must admit, it is easier for us too.
It is difficult to put yourself in someone else’s shoes, to engage in dialogue, to show compassion, to remember human rights. It takes great courage and self-control. But if we want a better future for Russia and for ourselves, we need to learn to be patient and compassionate, to let go of contempt, judgment and pride. This, it seems to me, is the surest way to gain the support of the wider community.
This does not mean that we should love everyone, never judge anyone or always agree on everything. But it is worth remembering that we are all human beings and citizens of one country.
Bleak future
The Russian opposition seem to have adopted these patterns of not backing down from the Putin regime. But this is a dysfunctional attitude: admitting mistakes is not weakness. There is no need to be afraid of this – in fact, it is easier and more pleasant than completely embarrassing oneself until the end. In this way, many conflicts could be avoided, which only lead to polarization and frustration.
Since the beginning of the war, the Russian opposition, willingly or unwillingly, has taken the course of distancing itself from Russia. Take for example the rejection of the national flag and its replacement with a white-blue white surrogate. It is clear that the purpose of this is to demonstrate their position, but it can be done in a million different ways, including using the real flag, under which, let me remind you, Boris Nemtsov and Alexei Navalny stood – and they also made it a mainstream symbol of the opposition. They understood that Russia is not Putin, and the flag of Russia is not Putin’s flag.
The rejection of the flag has united the opposition, but cut it off from the wider society. And the flag is not the only problem. Many, under the pressure of guilt (or out of fear of international condemnation?) have consistently tried to adopt the political discourse of the Ukrainian political leadership, calling for Russia to be cast back to the Stone Age and striking at its territory.
If the goal of the opposition is to win the minds and hearts of the people and direct that energy into fighting the dictatorship, then we should not be talking about destroying our country. I would formulate a better narrative like this: withdrawal of troops and saving lives as a victory for Russia; lifting sanctions and reintegration into the world to take a worthy place in it: Freedom, democracy and focus on the welfare of citizens as a guarantee of a stable and prosperous future.
Katz and Khodorkovsky
These same goals must be declared in international politics. Let us admit that Ukraine’s victory will not automatically lead to democracy in Russia. This requires much more, including much more effort from the international community to support the struggle for this very democracy. Defend the interests of your compatriots, fight first and foremost for the freedom of Russia — and call on European and American politicians to do the same. No one will help us except ourselves.
Today, a significant part of the opposition is represented either by individual speakers without any organizational structure behind them (Maxim Katz, Mikhail Khodorkovsky), or by closed organizations that do not provide opportunities for either entry or influence (Navalny’s Team).
Now, not only opposition politicians and organizations have been forced out of the country, but also thousands, if not tens of thousands of citizens who advocate for democracy. The risks of such activities abroad are incomparably lower (but they still exist. For example, Navalny’s ally Leonid Volkov was attacked in Vilnius this year. — Note: Holod media), and the opportunities for influence are even greater: the doors of European and American authorities, albeit with a creak, are opening, including for grassroots activists.
An example is the Platform for Anti-War Initiatives, which helps small projects. Thanks to its work, for example, an appeal to EU member states appeared asking for protection for Russian citizens who refuse to participate in Putin’s war against Ukraine.
Of course, we can endlessly fear the shadow of the Kremlin’s special services, but there are systems for verifying and screening potential members. There are also successful examples of this – the Vesna movement and the Feminist Anti-War Resistance work this way.
It seems to me that the only thing that stops the opposition from real democratization is fear. It is also very convenient: it allows it to change nothing (and no one). But this leads to personnel stagnation and political sterility, stops the process of circulation of opinions, ideas and methods of governance.
Elite v. ordinary people
This is why organizational democracy is not a threat but a source of strength. Politicians must change, new leaders must emerge, ideas must be discussed, and people must be truly represented through a mandate.
I am convinced that open doors and democratization of the opposition’s internal structure, can defeat the political gap between the perceived elite and “ordinary people”.
It is time to end the era of top-down politics, when “wise men” on screens and panels tell us what to think, how to act, and what to fight for.
All of this is, of course, only a small part of what we can and should do. We should have done it a long time ago, but we have to start somewhere.
