Pussy Riot confirmed what the Kremlin wants Russians to think of its critics
The immediately previous Duly Noted" dealt with a protest. The action against Putin came from a punk band self-branded and not thusly libeled - as Pussy Riot". Your columnist reported how the three women of the gang entered in Moscow the Christ the Savior" cathedral to put on a show they called a protest.
By Duly Noteds judgment that protest sold as a Punk Prayer" had been an exercise in lewdness. That tastelessness was rated by the perpetrators as art". The term seems to be an excuse for anything. Whatever the real purpose the performance the women bared everything except much of a political purpose. Accordingly the problem did not come from asking the Virgin Mary" an insufficiently emancipated Godess- to intercede further up" to remove Putin. CXlaiming that no support for Putinism" is intended the commentary targeted the band. In The Punk Test of Libertys Limits" a point was made. The piece argued that the previously ignored group gave legitimacy of what Putin does with his presidential power. The focus of the posting had been the improper form of Pussy Riots (hereafter PR") self-serving action.
PRs critique" alienated your otherwise anticlerical correspondent. The case can be summarized. If you have a valid argument you do not need to shout. A convincing case convinces without theatrical embellishments. Only a lack of facts demands noisy padding". The form of a protest can impair its point. Bad taste and the injury of values and folkways will not augment the impact of a presentation. PR claimed to act in behalf of hindered liberty but it did so in a way that violated the sensitivities and even worse the rights of others. Claiming to do good is no justification of what are by any standard bad deeds. PR intended to shock and any cause would have served its purpose to call attention to itself. That pursued goal is located less in the realm of public affairs and more in that of publicity. Displaying a lot of skin and having little to say in an unsuited place even if accompanied by amplified music does not win arguments. This remains the case even if those legitimately present at the venue are put in a state of shock by the disrespectful violation of the place privacy and the demeanor expected there. This puts PRs anti-Putin performance in the category of self-serving publicity.
A letter reacting to the article prompts the return to the subject. Its translated gist is that No matter how tasteless and lacking in depth" PR can only be expected to express itself in its own way". The message that Putin shall go to hell is in itself praiseworthy". Praise is due for the courage exhibited" by the punks. Had it not expressed itself in that way then it would not have been a Pussy Riot action and it would have remained the protest of a small group of youths. Proceeding in a less tasteless manner they would have received less attention. This counts. It matters that the average Westerner is made aware of Putins tyrannical abuse of authority. In that light it is immaterial that even the name PR is a lewd regardless of whether used in a church or on the fish-market."
Let us affirm that protest against repression is legitimate. Slavery" and unfreedom even if legally mandated is illegitimate. Asserting elementary human rights against the laws of a dictatorship violates regulations but is morally legitimate. This principle supports resistance and if need be the right to revolution. Even so we need to be careful about how we apply the principle of lawful disobedience.
Not every action against a tyranny is made legitimate by intending to topple a dictatorship. In the past National Socialist and Communists and in the present Islamists have opposed suppressive regimes. However doing so does not make them democratic. Accordingly the power they assumed has not createt systems of liberty. Dictatorships can oppose each other without becoming through that democratic and freedom loving. Therefore the opposition to a dictatorship does not amount to a democratic movement. In the realm of practical politics dictatorships are likely to produce besides a democratic opposition also authoritarian alternatives. This is no accident. Authoritarian movements will be more effective under the restrictions of dictatorship than will be the advocates of an open society. Nazi rule strengthened in occupied Europe their Communist opposition and not the democrats. Similarly given the chaos of the time in 1933 the real choice of the Germans was not between Hitler or a democrat but Hitler or the Communist Thlman. Batista in Cuba did not retire in favor of a local George Washington but was followed by Castro and Guevara.
PR opposes Putin. That made them feel authorized to proceed by violating the rights of others. With that they applied Lenins definition of right and wrong. To him the question was who whom". Thus the issue was not the decency of a deed but who did it" to whom who abused whose rights. Some regard this principle to be the thought with which the derailment of lived Communism began. Conclusion: opposing a dictatorship is not necessarily opposition to dictatorship per se or a certificate of the intent to liberate.
In the light of PRs needlessly lewd performance in a cathedral the question inspired by Lenin arises. It is a test to be applied to all movements that claim to pursue liberation". Ask yourself what the deeds in opposition betray about their post-victory policies. What does that comportment reveal about the use power once it is attained? In this case ignore Putinism. Ponder whether you would want to live in a system run by PR?
What besides fame has PR achieved? If the goal has been as claimed the reform possibly the removal of Putinism then the result negates the intention. The disorderly conduct that even in democratic countries would have legal and social consequences has agitated many Russians. A claim that authoritarians like to make has gained credibility. Putins contention that order" depends upon his leadership received confirmation. So has the claim that your choice is between me and chaos". Between rule by Putin" and that of the punks" the average person will choose the former.
As we conclude the consequences of PRs protest should be considered. Pussy Riot shocked needlessly and without any political benefit. While advertising itself PR created support for authoritarian rule and compromised the genuinely democratic opposition. Legislation with sanctions against desecration and for the protection of religious sentiments is in the making in Russia. Applied such laws will help to suppress dissent and cement the alliance between the regime and its subjects.