Colors of power – Newspaper Kommersant No. 34 (7479) of 02/28/2023

Gleb Pavlovsky, a politician who created a significant part of Russian political reality, has died. He was one of the very few Russian intellectuals who overcame both the fear of gaining power and the fear of being left without it, but with the inevitable heavy responsibility for this temporary acquisition. But not this, but the philosophy of the language of power was the main subject of his insatiable curiosity – and his main achievements were precisely in this area, where Pavlovsky was always lonely, uncomfortable, but necessary to be.

The person who created and destroyed dozens and hundreds of reputations in the Russian government will inevitably be a person after his death, about whom they will speak in various ways. When I learned that Gleb Olegovich was ill and there was no chance of his recovery, the first thing I imagined was this inevitable day. After all, it was always easy to misunderstand him. It is clear that the desire to take advantage of just such a day for a confident summing up of the ended life is most strong in those about whom there is absolutely nothing to report right now – this in itself does not matter, if something significant is being done, then without regard to what what will be written about it later. It was not for Pavlovsky that was scary – a public person: in this capacity, for the last ten years Gleb has been his most consistent, intelligent, confident and merciless critic, surpassing the capabilities of any third-party person. It was terrible that now, for the last time, his completely unique and extremely necessary for anyone who deals with power in Russia, personal experience will be rejected with indignation and indifference: we are not like that.

But Pavlovsky is really one of the few people who is able to clearly, in detail and accurately tell what political power is, why it is arranged this way and not otherwise, why our ideals, when put into practice in power, turn into something monstrous, and also why people involved in power, as a result of this practical implementation, will always be credited with anything, but not striving for ideals, and this will be fair in form, but the fact that this is unfair in essence does not bother anyone. In essence, he was one of the first to build the beautiful Russia of the future into power, and he understood much better than others how hopeless and dangerous, primarily for himself, the task. The problem, as always, was that for the time being, he did it almost perfectly: in the current political system, in its, let’s say, theoretical form, everything works like clockwork, real, and not nobly fictional politics was really effective from the point of view view of the practical tasks of power. But the main changes took place within the operators of this political machine: by the end of 2011, when Pavlovsky left it de facto after fifteen years of active participation in domestic politics, he already knew perfectly well that this was not the way to go. Is it possible otherwise? You have to think, you have to try.

And this, after all, if you think about it, was not the first time with him: what force could curiosity bring into the dissident movement of a person who entered and left it several times with interruptions to Butyrki and exile? Yes, and with such gestures, for which many will consider the right to declare you a traitor. Many, but not all – those who want to understand what he did, what is in his head in general, will remain next to him, or at least not against him, and for a long time – for the rest of his life, as long as it remains.

Power in Russia is always repelled by intellectuals, for all its attractiveness. Its acquisition in Russian culture is always both a desire and an object of disgust – the grapes are green, we will go the other way, we are not them. You are the same and will be forced to be the same: it is inherent in the language of power as such, in its syntax, in its letters, Pavlovsky showed you literally on himself why, even in a prison cell, to be in opposition for your beliefs, for your values much safer than being in power, possessing it. It’s not even a temptation, it’s an overbearing mechanic. You yourself will not notice how, for the sake of deeds that are quite necessary for the realization of your ideals, you will turn into a person who is afraid to look in the mirror. How good it is not to understand all this – it is good for the ideal politician to be somewhat limited, or at least a little reflective person. The lack of time to think helps: those who can afford to write memoirs later are always smarter in them than at the end of their reign. But in the memoirs, most likely, there will not be what Pavlovsky had during his lifetime, as long as we knew him: a sober look at oneself that does not limit future actions and is firmly aware that political culture is made up of things tough, unsightly and unpleasant – but where there is gloss, there they will deceive.

And of course, I am very biased, because I simply loved Gleb Olegovich as a person: intellectual courage and objectivity in relation to himself was always dazzling in him, and the awareness of the imperfection of our ways of thinking about the world around him was convincing. With all the (most dangerous!) avant-gardism of his strongest mind, he was emphatically intellectually old-fashioned and conservative, and a world in which two sides declare each other good and evil never canceled the existence of real good and evil for him. Everything is simpler: it was he who knew very well how the practically necessary and inevitable ability to quickly divide reality into two colors creates the conditions for a future catastrophe, and not victory, while the usual rejection of such a division is simply a concession to someone for whom there are no colors other than their own: red, green, black, gold, blood, colors of the national flag.

What is amazing is Pavlovsky’s eternal readiness, who knew all this very well, for real political activity – often controversial, sometimes undeniably bad, always meaningful. He considered it, with all the risks, a duty and a necessity – and precisely in its complex, multifaceted, practical form, with the inevitable responsibility for mistakes and without gratitude for achievements. Of course we’ll do things. But if we do nothing, participate in nothing, look impartially and objectively, how can we hope for the best? And do not be afraid of condemnation – it is inevitable, and it is not the main thing.

Dmitry Butrin