The following is a letter from the human rights advocate Sergei Kovalev in support of Mikhail Khodorkovsky. The letter was also published on korpunkt.com and khodorkovsky.ru.
With the YUKOS trial, the power is engaging not only and not so much in judicial pillaging as in educational work. Which is not to say that it didn't indeed pillage and divide up the oil company, stuffing billions into its pockets in the process. But what worried it and continues to worry it most of all in this affair is educational objectives -- the updating, refinement, and universal introduction of the Stalinist political model.
There are several lessons to be taught here at once. And not only to society as a whole, but also specifically to its big-business stratum.
Fact is, with the disintegration of the USSR, a large quantity of
very rich people appeared in the country. They had lots of money, and
they were concerned about keeping it. It comes as no surprise that the
desire to live in a country where the inviolability of their wealth
would be guaranteed gradually awakened in the smartest of these
captains and admirals of business. But such a thing is possible only in
a country were there truly is rule of law. Yes, you'll need to pay lots
of taxes, to deny yourself many things, to restrict yourself in many
ways -- but in the end it's all worth it.
Correspondingly, representatives of business began to do everything they could to create such a country -- spending big money on this task, and getting involved in politics. Just like this was done and is being done all over the world.
But our power -- they're shrewd characters. They understood perfectly well what kinds of things are possible in politics if you've got lots of money. They are veritable professors at this, with way more experience at it than the businessmen have. And so the power got scared, very scared. Scared that the system it had created would be destroyed, and that consequently, everything the leaders and their servants had amassed would be lost.
The YUKOS trial is a direct result of the need to beat any desire to engage in politics out of business once and for all. Anyone who had any kind of serious capital at that moment was taught a good lesson: listen up, guys, if you try anything you will fail, so forget about politics, your participation in it starts and ends with your unquestioning obedience and readiness to donate money -- as much money as we tell you.
At first, the business community, including the government and even the prime minister personally, voiced its objection to the trial. But when Putin spoke out in no uncertain terms on this account, the protests stopped instantly. Of course, many continued to express their outrage and indignation privately amongst themselves. But they no longer had the resolve to voice their disagreement publicly. The objective was achieved.
Together with that, the first Khodorkovsky trial had put the power into a corner. After all, nothing is permanent. It was obvious that when Khodorkovsky left prison, he would do so unrepentant and embittered, and would most certainly go back into politics. The state was faced with a question: "What to do next with Khodorkovsky? Kill him off in jail, maybe?" A repeat of the Litvinenko story seemed undesirable. Another idea arose: "Let's extend the term for Khodorkovsky, and then we'll see". And so it is that we have the second trial.
I completely don't understand what's happening in the second trial.
At least I've got a vague idea about the first one, even with all my ignorance of economics. Back then it was at least clear where the powers were coming from. I never accepted their arguments, but at least I understood them.
But now, by all appearances, the state is being guided by only one obsessive idea: now is not the time to be letting the "scoundrels" out. And that's it, their entire motivation. In keeping with a long-established and now resurrected tradition in our country, this actually seems to work with the court for some reason.
Which is why I totally believe the accused and their lawyers when they say they don't understand the essence of what they have been charged with. What did Khodorkovsky and his colleagues steal -- oil, money? And even more importantly -- from whom?
In this situation, the best the state can do is repeat the old Soviet chestnut: "from the people". In this way, it returns to the standard Marxist formula: the big businessman is always an enemy of society (the people), because he robs the workers. Here we see the Stalinist model of political organization, not only in essence, but also in form.
Another lesson that the state taught society via the Khodorkovsky case became the demonstrative annihilation of law-based judicial proceedings, of an independent judiciary power. There was a brief period in the mid-1990s when the courts actually maintained true independence. But this did not last long. Step by step, the power gradually brought back the painfully familiar Soviet "your wish is my command, o master" court. They gave society to understand that nobody can reckon on victory in court in a dispute with the state. This Stalinist model of obedient justice has already been enforced in a series of court trials. The end result of the YUKOS case could mark its ultimate consolidation.
Together with that, I'm not losing hope that Khodorkovsky and his associates will be released. And there are some grounds for hope -- this trial is just too ludicrous, the position of the prosecution is just too weak, its claims are just too baseless. It's going to be very hard for the prosecutors to attain the result the powers need without an angry outcry of indignation from society, including in the west.
A chance for a positive outcome in this trial therefore does exist.
And if this happens, it will be a very major victory for the entire social, economic, political, and judicial system of Russia.
Respectfully,
Correspondingly, representatives of business began to do everything they could to create such a country -- spending big money on this task, and getting involved in politics. Just like this was done and is being done all over the world.
But our power -- they're shrewd characters. They understood perfectly well what kinds of things are possible in politics if you've got lots of money. They are veritable professors at this, with way more experience at it than the businessmen have. And so the power got scared, very scared. Scared that the system it had created would be destroyed, and that consequently, everything the leaders and their servants had amassed would be lost.
The YUKOS trial is a direct result of the need to beat any desire to engage in politics out of business once and for all. Anyone who had any kind of serious capital at that moment was taught a good lesson: listen up, guys, if you try anything you will fail, so forget about politics, your participation in it starts and ends with your unquestioning obedience and readiness to donate money -- as much money as we tell you.
At first, the business community, including the government and even the prime minister personally, voiced its objection to the trial. But when Putin spoke out in no uncertain terms on this account, the protests stopped instantly. Of course, many continued to express their outrage and indignation privately amongst themselves. But they no longer had the resolve to voice their disagreement publicly. The objective was achieved.
Together with that, the first Khodorkovsky trial had put the power into a corner. After all, nothing is permanent. It was obvious that when Khodorkovsky left prison, he would do so unrepentant and embittered, and would most certainly go back into politics. The state was faced with a question: "What to do next with Khodorkovsky? Kill him off in jail, maybe?" A repeat of the Litvinenko story seemed undesirable. Another idea arose: "Let's extend the term for Khodorkovsky, and then we'll see". And so it is that we have the second trial.
I completely don't understand what's happening in the second trial.
At least I've got a vague idea about the first one, even with all my ignorance of economics. Back then it was at least clear where the powers were coming from. I never accepted their arguments, but at least I understood them.
But now, by all appearances, the state is being guided by only one obsessive idea: now is not the time to be letting the "scoundrels" out. And that's it, their entire motivation. In keeping with a long-established and now resurrected tradition in our country, this actually seems to work with the court for some reason.
Which is why I totally believe the accused and their lawyers when they say they don't understand the essence of what they have been charged with. What did Khodorkovsky and his colleagues steal -- oil, money? And even more importantly -- from whom?
In this situation, the best the state can do is repeat the old Soviet chestnut: "from the people". In this way, it returns to the standard Marxist formula: the big businessman is always an enemy of society (the people), because he robs the workers. Here we see the Stalinist model of political organization, not only in essence, but also in form.
Another lesson that the state taught society via the Khodorkovsky case became the demonstrative annihilation of law-based judicial proceedings, of an independent judiciary power. There was a brief period in the mid-1990s when the courts actually maintained true independence. But this did not last long. Step by step, the power gradually brought back the painfully familiar Soviet "your wish is my command, o master" court. They gave society to understand that nobody can reckon on victory in court in a dispute with the state. This Stalinist model of obedient justice has already been enforced in a series of court trials. The end result of the YUKOS case could mark its ultimate consolidation.
Together with that, I'm not losing hope that Khodorkovsky and his associates will be released. And there are some grounds for hope -- this trial is just too ludicrous, the position of the prosecution is just too weak, its claims are just too baseless. It's going to be very hard for the prosecutors to attain the result the powers need without an angry outcry of indignation from society, including in the west.
A chance for a positive outcome in this trial therefore does exist.
And if this happens, it will be a very major victory for the entire social, economic, political, and judicial system of Russia.
Respectfully,
Sergey Kovalev
human rights advocate
