On May 31, an action supporting freedom of assembly in Russia took place under the walls of the Russian Federation’s embassy. Carrying banners and posters with the words “For our and your freedom” and “Article 31: ‘Citizens of the Russian Federation shall have the right to gather peacefully, without weapons, and to hold meetings, rallies, demonstrations, marches and pickets’,” Ukrainians demonstrated their solidarity with the participants of the movement “Article 31.” The movement holds actions in Russia’s big cities for the implementation of their constitutional rights in every month which has 31 days.
In the course of actions held just a day earlier, the police in Moscow detained 170 protesters during a rally on Triumph Square. The police demonstrated a heavy-handed attitude towards the protesters, knocking them down, kicking them, and pushing them into buses, reports The Echo of Moscow.
Eugenia Albats, editor in chief of The New Times, was amongst those detained. However, a few minutes later Albats was released. According to her, they also detained Ilia Yashin, a co-chairman of the Solidarity movement. 60 persons were detained in S. Petersburg during an opposition rally on Nevsky Avenue.
Anastasia Rybachenko, one of the activists of the Solidarity movement, claims that she is being kept in detainment due to her refusal to cooperate with the investigation, and that only her third attempt to file a complaint about the actions of the law enforcement officers was successful. She also emphasized that she did not shout any slogans during the rally, but was just watching what was going on.
According to the official data provided by the Moscow Department of Internal Affairs, 150 reports were drawn up about the protesters for participating in an unauthorized action.
On the same day, in Rostov-on-Don during the EU-Russia summit, the police ignored several dozens “dissidents” wearing badges with the number 31 and carrying posters. Boris Batyy, leader of the local division of the United Civil Front, believes this was due to the summit. “Here in Rostov, people are often detained on framed-up accusations for 24 hours, but this time, the authorities have been sensible enough to refrain from such actions,” he told to the BBC.
The ombudsman Vladimir Lukin qualified the police actions as “unlawful,” and promised to file a separate report on this.
The US administration also expressed concern in connection with the arrests conducted during the citizens’ “peaceful protest actions in support of Article 31 of the Russian Constitution” in Moscow and S. Petersburg. The official statement of Mike Hammer, representative of the US National Security Council, mentions that the reports of violent suppression of protest rallies by the police, cruel treatment of those detained, and the conditions of custody “do not meet the common norms which guarantee the citizens’ right to freedom of assembly and expression.”
On the eve of these events, at the meeting of Prime Minister Vladimir Putin with the organizers and participants of the charity literary and musical soiree “The Little Prince” the rock musician Yurii Shevchuk raised the question of the authorities’ possible reaction to the opposition protest action in S. Petersburg. The Russian prime minister replied, “Everyone should act within the law. There are certain rules which determine that such events should be supervised by local government representatives. Apart from the participants of protest actions, there are also other people, whose rights we must not neglect.” He also added that the authorities should not use this as a cover.
Later, speaking in an on-air program by The Echo of Moscow, Dmitrii Peskov, Putin’s press secretary, remarked that the prime minister’s words should not be taken as the permission to take part in protest rallies on 31 May. “Putin did not decide anything because he cannot decide anything, this is done by local authorities. Putin said that everything had to be done within the law,” stated Peskov.
However, a question arises why in many countries of the world an article of the constitution has direct effect while in Russia it does not. Also, why has Russia made this constitutional norm so rigid, giving the local governments complete control over it. The latter are very selective and will often violate the terms of filing applications, granting permissions to their favorites and infringing upon the opposition’s rights. By the way, a similar situation can be observed in Iran. Article 27 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran guarantees that “public gatherings and marches may freely be held, on condition that arms are not carried and that they are not detrimental to the fundamental principles of Islam.” However, we have recently seen savage reprisals against protesters after the presidential election in that country. One cannot omit the fact that the Kremlin often speaks of close cooperation between Russia and the European Union and the modernization of the country. Yet for some reason, the emphasis is always made on the economic and technological factors rather than European values, such as the freedom of speech or assembly. This is how the Russian president Dmitry Medvedev sees cooperation with Brussels. In his interview to the Ukrainian mass media prior to his visit to Ukraine he said the following: “I will remind you that we in the Russian Federation have bilateral trade turnover of 250 billion dollars with the EU (this is a considerable figure), that is why we are closely integrated with Europe.” The EU obviously wants to see Russia not just as a source of energy, but also as a country where many want to live according to European norms and rules and have a normal democracy rather than a “sovereign” one. That is why the EU leadership should pay more attention to human rights implementation while communicating with their Russian counterparts. The recent rally by the Russian embassy in Kyiv shows that Ukraine has a civil society which understands the importance of the implementation of human rights, i.e. those of speech and assembly, for the Russian citizens. It is important for everyone that forces in the country act according to the principle “support the freedom of the others in order to support yours.” This is proof of a society’s ability to openly discuss problems, and make politicians solve them.
COMMENTS
Viktor NEBOZHENKO, political scientist, director, Ukrainian Barometer Sociological Service:
“This is a matter of solidarity. Intellectuals from various countries unite for a common cause. Just as the Kremlin’s propaganda structures are invading Ukraine, together with the new masters of the Ukrainian enterprises sold by the Cabinet of Ministers, so the opposite process is taking place: the Ukrainian and Russian intellectuals are trying to oppose authoritarianism.
“The Russian authoritarian regime, which is gaining momentum, may not be very conspicuous now. Yet in a couple of years, when the Kremlin starts organizing reprisals against democratic forces from St. Petersburg to Tashkent, the intellectuals and the general public will need some experience to be able to oppose it.
“There still is a hope that the Russian intellectuals will also support the Ukrainians one day, in their struggle for independence and democracy, the way it did in the 1990s. The more so that the Kremlin is rather disoriented now, believing that it has attained everything. They fail to see that today the Russian empire is unable to cope with some second-rate domestic problems inside the country, let alone their activities in Ukraine or Kyrgyzstan.
“This points to negative trends rather than to Russia’s victory. In any case, the coordination of both countries’ intellectuals is indispensable. Due to the global crisis, the Kremlin feels exceptionally strong now, because there is no one to deal with authoritarian regimes. The world is preoccupied with other matters. As soon as a balance is reached, they address the Kremlin. For there exists another Russia as well.”
