The idea behind the Other Russia conference is wonderful: that all opposition forces which are not Kremlin-controlled should consolidate on one policy platform, in order to make Russia return to the path of democratic transformations. But the conference raises some disturbing questions.

Even before it opened, the Other Russia conference was an event. Such events are beneficial for our country, with its shameless authorities, wilted opposition, and pervasive disillusionment about the possibility of changing anything. This conference would have been exactly the same as many previous conferences – if the organizers, with their pro-democracy image, hadn’t invited some long-standing enemies of democracy: communists, the National Bolshevik Party (NBP), and a number of patriotic movements.

The pre-conference debate revealed a painful problem for the democrats: what kind of means are acceptable in working toward their goal? Is it all right to cooperate with undemocractic forces? The conference organizers (Garry Kasparov, Georgy Satarov, Liudmila Alekseeva, and others) say yes, it is acceptable. Their opponents (Nikita Belykh, Grigori Yavlinsky, Marietta Chudakova, Valeria Novodvorskaya) say it is not. An open debate is always preferable to embarrassed silence and covert agreements. The conference deserves thanks for this alone.

The idea behind this conference is wonderful: that all opposition forces which are not Kremlin-controlled should consolidate on one policy platform, in order to make Russia return to the path of democratic transformations.

Sergei Kovalev, who delivered the opening speech, expressed a thought that became a leitmotif in many other papers. The common policy platform could be based on two postulates: the authorities should be accountable to society, and they should be replaceable. Essentially, everyone agreed with that – even NBP leader Eduard Limonov and Labor Russia leader Viktor Anpilov.

The statement issued by conference participants mentions the need to “return Russia to the democratic track, restoring constitutional norms and real government by the people.” But the current policy program of one conference participant, the NBP, says: “The essence of nationalist bolshevism is a burning hatred for the inhuman system of the trinity: liberalism-democracy- capitalism.” So where is the truth: in Limonov’s statements at the conference, or in his party’s policy program?

The conference statement says: “We have managed to rise above our prejudices and do the most important thing – start building a law-based democratic state in Russia.” The policy program of another conference participant, the Labor Russia movement, says: “Labor Russia, active on the territory of Russia, considers that its main goal is to bring back the worker-peasant state – the USSR.” So which one is it: a democratic Russia or the totalitarian USSR? At the conference, Anpilov called for “raising the banner of democracy” – but what is this call worth? Especially given what Labor Russia did, moving from words to deeds, when Anpilov became a leader of the red revolt in 1993.

The conference statement says: “We see the crisis in the political elite and the political opposition within the system, which acts within the Kremlin-defined framework and thus only exacerbates the problems of Russian society.” But wasn’t Mikhail Kasyanov working as prime minister until recently, “within the Kremlin-defined framework”? Have his political convictions really changed so radically since then, or is this just a political game he’s playing on his path to power? Aren’t Liudmila Alekseeva, Alexander Auzan, Svetlana Gannuskina, and Alexei Simonov members of the Presidential Human Rights Council, “within the Kremlin- defined framework”? So where is the truth: in their words or in their actions?

Duma member Vladimir Ryzhkov made a stirring speech at the conference, quite justifiably accusing the authorities of deviating from democracy. Ryzhkov co-authored some completely undemocratic legislation passed by the Duma earlier this month: it forbids candidates for federal or regional legislatures to hold dual citizenship. So where is Ryzhkov a democrat – in his lawmaking activities or at the Other Russia conference?

Conference participants accused the Union of Right Forces and Yabloko of having excessively close links with the Kremlin. That may be true, but it doesn’t make the position of the conference participants themselves any more convincing. After all, are close links with the Kremlin any worse than close links with parties that aim to bring back the USSR and “an empire stretching from Vladivostok to Gibraltar”? Is the only difference that one group is in power, but the other is not?

If Anpilov or Limonov were president right now, Vladimir Putin might have been invited to this conference. Putin also says the right words about democracy from time to time. So why not gather everyone who says good things, irrespective of what they have done in the past, are doing now, or intend to do in the future – and celebrate the victory of amnesia over political reputations, history, and common sense. Let’s start with a clean slate, as if our lives weren’t a series of events, but a computer game that can be won by reloading and trying again. And all this for the sake of an illusory unity that never existed, doesn’t exist, will not exist, and cannot exist.

Isn’t this just another political game, intended to hypnotize voters with honest words about democracy, while the real goals of certain political forces are forgotten?

Yuri Afanasiev made a fair point in his conference paper, noting that the present authorities are very Soviet in many respects, and are essentially implementing the policies of nationalist bolshevism.

Fighting alongside one set of nationalist bolsheviks against another makes sense only if your purpose is power as such. The Kremlin’s hatred of its opponents is not evidence that those opponents themselves are completely right. Communist or pro- fascist movements hate each other just as much when they split, but the only sensible response for a bystander is “A plague on both your houses!”

Another Russia, a different Russia – that would be a fine thing. But Anpilov’s Russia isn’t different at all; it has existed already, and it’s exactly the same as it was 30 years ago. Limonov’s Russia would be a more hardline version of the Soviet empire. Even the Russia of the perestroika-era democrats has existed already, and it’s hardly likely that anyone would want to repeat it.

Russia does need a real pro-democracy party, of course: with clear goals, honest leaders, and an impeccable reputation. But the time of political parties seems to have passed – or is yet to come.

Translated by Elena Leonova