Boris Kagarlitsky
The story of the detention, and subsequent release from custody, of the former mayor of Yekaterinburg, Yevgeny Roizman, has already excited the public on social networks, drawing indignant comments from the patriotic media. Amidst a rising tide of repression, with people being sentenced to long prison terms simply for a few harsh remarks uttered during a city council meeting or posted online, Roizman looks like the most dangerous rebel. After all, he has stubbornly, over and over again, opposed military operations in Ukraine, will call a spade a spade, and is not shy about words. He has already been fined several times, yet he does not stop.
It turns out that in the whole country there are still two people who have the right to protest against the war and speak about their views openly, without fear of imprisonment – Yevgeny Roizman and the leader of the rock group DDT, Yuri Shevchuk. In both cases, the authorities tried to do something about them, but retreated, limiting themselves to fines, which have not been particularly difficult for the accused to pay off. True, in the case of Roizman, the charge has not been dropped. The dissident mayor was released to home custody, but the final verdict is yet to come. Nevertheless, the event that took place on August 25 in Yekaterinburg looks absolutely sensational: the felon was brought to court in handcuffs and came out free, to the jubilant cries of the crowd.
I think that what is behind the phenomenon of Roizman, as well as that of Shevchuk, is neither their personal popularity and undoubted charisma. No less important are the specifics of the cities where the events have unfolded. Shevchuk is a cult figure in St. Petersburg, as Roizman is in Yekaterinburg, where he is by far the most popular politician in the city and region. St. Petersburg and Yekaterinburg, in turn, are not just among the most important economic and cultural centers of the country, but alsothe twin capitals of protest. We need only to recall the exceptionally large-scale demonstrations in St. Petersburg against the campaign to raise the retirement age in 2018, or the unexpected mass rallies in Yekaterinburg against the destruction of the city park in 2019, forcing the authorities to make excuses and apologize. In both cities, people not only repeatedly took to the streets en masse, but also achieved success through their actions. In other words, the social psychology here is different than even in Moscow, not to mention many provincial cities where depression reigns.
That is why the Kremlin officials who decided to detain Roizman, accusing him of “discrediting the army,” ran into sharp opposition from the Ural regional elites, who were not even warned about what was happening (the Yekaterinburg police bluntly stated that they were not aware of the case). When they realized in Moscow that this would end in mass unrest, confusion set in. In the capital, they obviously did not know what to do next, then after long hesitation (and, most likely, quarrelsome discussions at the very top), they nevertheless decided to let the detainee go home. Undoubtedly, after this incident, the hatred for Roizman in the Kremlin will only intensify. And in this case, it is not so important what the former mayor of the Ural capital stands for, or what his specific political views are. He has become dangerous by the very fact of his existence. They will try to strike at him as soon as such an opportunity presents itself. How, and when, and under what circumstances will this opportunity arise? After all, protest moods in large cities will not disappear, but, on the contrary, intensify. Therefore, the authorities, as usual, will drag things out, as they always do with us when they have no better ideas.
It is clear that the authorities made a fundamental mistake the moment they thought to detain the politician. There were no more good options. Either transfer to Moscow for imprisonment, provoking a riot in one of the key regions of Russia, or retreat, in fact admitting to the whole country that they got scared and gave up. We don’t know yet which would be worse. At first they abandoned the plan to take the prisoner to the capital and judge him there. Then they discussed the substitution of imprisonment with house arrest, and finally they decided to limit themselves to “prohibition of certain actions” (Roizman cannot use the internet or take part in “public events”). The trial and sentencing were postponed several times, an indication of how great were the disagreements and hesitation among those in power.
However, the decision, atypical though it may be for our state, does reflect a completely understandable principle, which comes naturally to the Russian authorities: we must now avoid immediate troubles. How this will affect the behavior of citizens and the mood of society in the future is not so important. The Kremlin always prioritizes short-term solutions and challenges over long-term ones; these have been the two consistent factors in the policy of Putin and his team throughout their activities. There is a complete absence of not only a strategy, but also strategic thinking generally, and an orientation towards short term profit, quite consistent with the general market trend in which our state and economy have been developing since the early 1990s.
We will learn how the Roizman case will affect public sentiment in the very near future. The Kremlin understands very well how the population actually relates to the existing order and to the ruling elites. That is why repressive pressure has been increasing in recent years - continuously and consistently, regardless of the formal reason for making such decisions. In this regard, the tactical retreat in the Roizman case does not look like just an “act of good will.” It will spur the dissatisfied many to assume that the government is much weaker than it wants to seem.
I have no doubt that such dilemmas were discussed by the Kremlin authorities and their supporters while the court was sitting. It is significant that both the beginning of the hearing and the sentencing were postponed many times. Someone argued with someone and could not agree. We’re not sure if a consensus was ever reached. Unwittingly, Roizman has revealed cracks and disagreements within the government. Over time, these cracks will expand.
The direction of the process is more or less clear, only its pace and dynamics are unpredictable. Roizman and the citizens of the Ural capital can be congratulated for the time being on an important symbolic victory.