Читать книгу The Quest for an Ideal Youth in Putin's Russia I - Ivo Mijnssen - Страница 10

This book predominantly analyzes Nashi’s publications as well as speeches and position papers from Vladimir Putin and Vladislav Surkov. Putin’s utterances on Russian politics and Russian identity, as well as his speeches commemorating the Great Patriotic War, have received wide attention – both on the international stage and in Russia. Because Nashi has repeatedly emphasized that it is loyal to Putin specifically, his statements can be considered programmatic for the organization.

Vladislav Surkov, currently an advisor to Vladimir Putin after a brief fall from official grace following his dismissal as Deputy Prime Minister, is a less public figure. For a long time, many considered the former Deputy Head of the Presidential Administration and architect of the ideology of Sovereign Democracy to be the eminence grise of Russian politics. His ideas have not only been discussed extensively among political scientists and in the press but have also made their way into Putin’s policy speeches. In 2006, Putin officially endorsed Sovereign Democracy as the government’s official ideology (Edinaia Rossiia 2006). Furthermore, Surkov played a decisive role in the founding of Nashi. He was present at the organization’s secret inaugural meeting in the spa town of Solnechnogorsk in late February of 2005 (Loskutova 2008: 260).

Texts on the organization’s website (www.Nashi.su) serve as the main source for this analysis of Nashi’s ideas and worldview. Lassila understands these online writings as the crystallization of Nashi’s voice (Lassila 2012a: 106). Though they do not constitute official government positions, the analysis in the following chapters shows that they contain many of the same discursive demands. Nashi’s website confirms the organization’s close connection to official discourse: Nashi’s former «ideology» section contained speeches, articles and presentations by Putin and Surkov (Nashi 2009a).[7]

In spite of this closeness, it remains important to distinguish between Nashi and official discourse. One might say that Nashi provides a window into official discourse and adapts this discourse for the youth sphere. This transfer leads to a change in style and to contradictions, since government policy is not always well suited to mobilize youth. Lassila thus writes, «pro-Kremlin youth movements truly struggle with cogent expressions for their political ideologies.» (Lassila 2012a: 138) This struggle and the contradictions it engenders are an important topic in my book.

To complement the discourse analysis, I conducted two interviews with Nashi-commissars from St. Petersburg and Moscow. Within Nashi’s hierarchy, commissars are the cadres. They wear a special pin with the organization’s logo and undergo a vetting process that lasts two years. Commissars thus have privileged access to knowledge about Nashi and are treated as experts for the purposes of this book. The interviewees provide information about Nashi’s decision-making processes and routines that other, more official documents cannot. These interviews address two major difficulties in studying Nashi: secrecy about its inner workings and its hierarchical structure. The information it releases to the public is thus adapted to the organization’s political needs and not necessarily objective. Due to the sensitive nature of some of the interview material, I use pseudonyms («Andrei» and «Marina») instead of their real names.

The interview with the St. Petersburg commissar (Andrei) was conducted in person during a research trip to the city in spring of 2009. It followed the form of a guided expert interview (Meuser and Nagel 1994: 123f.). I asked a number of general questions that satisfied my scientific interest, at the same time giving Andrei room to develop his narrative. Conversations with the second expert (Marina) took place over a period of multiple months – in person in Moscow, and through online chats.

The interviews are primarily used to clarify facts and to illustrate how individuals within Nashi appropriate the organization’s ideas. The selection of experts is by no means representative, and not all of their opinions necessarily represent Nashi’s official positions. Their information is thus contextualized and contrasted with more official sources whenever possible (Kassner und Wassermann 2005: 109).

Chapter 4 on the «International Youth Forum Seliger 2010» makes use of a larger variety of materials than the parts that precede it. I gathered these materials as a participant observer during the youth forum. They include representations of official discourse in popular culture, thus providing hints about the reproduction of political identities in a broader cultural realm (Hansen 2006: 64). Specific methodological challenges will be addressed separately in chapter 4. Finally, this book uses a wide variety of secondary sources to locate Nashi within the context of contemporary Russian politics.

I cannot address all aspects of Nashi’s history and discourse. Instead, I use three case studies to illustrate important events and moments. In her methodological chapter on discourse analysis, Lene Hansen suggests that researchers focus their attention on time frames and issues that illustrate political processes in a «crystallized» fashion (Hansen 2006: 78). I selected three such «focal points», the subjects of subsequent chapters: the organization’s founding in the aftermath of Ukraine’s 2004 Orange Revolution, its response to the relocation of Tallinn’s Soviet war memorial in 2007, and Nashi’s summer camp at Lake Seliger in 2010. Based on these three case studies, I analyze the various moments of Nashi’s discourse and show which of them are emphasized over others in various contexts. First I expound on the historic and political background that made the emergence of Nashi possible. The best starting point is the collapse of the Soviet Union.