Pussy Riot yet another example of how art is pitted against politics

For Newsmill.se: The enormous attention that the indictment against Pussy Riot has created in both Russia and internationally is an example of an increasingly widespread global trend, where politics and art are pitted against each other and the reactions of society become a part of both art and politics.

Yesterday, a two year's prison sentence was passed in Moscow against three members of the Russian "punk band" Pussy Riot. The trio was found guilty of "hooliganism motivated by religious hatred." Reactions and condemnations against the sentence are manifold in both Russia and internationally, as it is evident that the penalty is not proportional to the alleged crime.

On 21 February this year - merely weeks before the Russian presidential elections - Pussy Riot made a mimic performance in front of the altar of Christ our Saviour Cathedral in Moscow wearing balaklavas and brightly coloured dresses. Within minutes they were seized on by security guards and thrown out of the church. Shortly thereafter, a video clip of the performance was published on YouTube, where music with a provocative song-text had been added. This so called "Punk prayer" was in the form of an invocation to the Holy Mother to drive out Putin and the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church, Kirill I, was portrayed as putting faith in Putin before that in God.

Undoubtedly, it was this video clip rather than the performance itself that made the Russian state and church react, as it spread like wildfire on the Internet. In March, three of Pussy Riot's members were arrested, while a fourth is still hiding from authorities. The lawsuit that has dragged out for almost half a year has now been accordingly finalised, where the treatment of the prosecuted has cast new light on Russia's legal decay. A mere 2.7 % of people prosecuted by Russian courts in 2011 were acquitted. 

The entire affaire has undeniably gained dynamics of its own, so one may assume that yesterday's verdict departs from the need of power to set an example. The increased confindence in the Russian legal system in recent years has thereby been turned into a setback in the politically directed jurisprudence, which since the process against former oligarch Khodorkovsky goes by the name of Basmanny justice. The trial against Pussy Riot has however taken the debate a step further, and several Russian liberal writers have compared the case with the show trials of the soviet era. The playback performance Pussy Riot made in Christ our Saviour Cathedral has thus also given rise to a historical playback.

It is also Russia's lack of due process that has caused reactions both in Russia and internationally. Already in April, Amnesty International characterized the members of Pussy Riot as prisoners of conscience. International organizations and artists are now joined by western public opinion, where the verdict against Pussy Riot become a symbol for all that is wrong with Russia. In this context, both strong and equally diverse  Russian reactions shuold be brought to the fore. A number of opinion polls during the process have shown both strong support for dismissing the case and for a guilty verdict. Russian public opinion is divided and varied in relation to a complex issue that has come to address religion, ethics, and politics more than actual law. 

That many believers in Russia have rightly felt offended by Pussy Riot's performance is beyond doubt, but this has been depreciated by the fact that a tasteless provocation has been overshadowed by an even more tasteless legal process. When the Russian Orthodox Church, in its condemnations of a feminist "punk band", has compared feminism with satanism, the Orthodox Patriarch, Kirill II, appears as the foremost representative of a patriarchic society. 

Then, what is Pussy Riot and what is it all about? Let us first put a myth to rest. Pussy Riot is not a punk band. It is a feminist art commune, dedicated to performance art in a wide sense, where provocation is a means to gain attention. 

Pussy Riot originates from the Russian street-art group Voina, which has produced a number of provicative and politically charged art projects. For the presidential installation of Medvedev in 2008, Voina made the performance "Fuck for the heir, Pussy Bear!", where five couples from the group - including a heavily pregnant woman - engaged in public group sex in the Moscow Museum of Biology, which was videotaped and published on the Internet. In 2010, the - then divided - group painted a giant phallos on a bascule bridge opposite the security service headquarters in St. Petersburg, where the result of raising the bridge should be obvious. Several members of Voina have previously been arrested for art projects. One of the now convicted women of Pussy Riot used to be a prominent member of Voina. 

The enormous attention that the indictment against Pussy Riot has created in both Russia and internationally is an example of an increasingly widespread global trend, where politics and art are pitted against each other and the reactions of society become a part of both art and politics. A parallel may e.g. be drawn to China's repression of the artist Ai Weiwei. In Sweden, the performance art project "Okänd kvinna, 2009-439701" of art student Anna Odell met with strong negative reactions the other year, not least from politicians. One should remember that Odell was sentenced to pay 50 day-fines for "dishonest conduct".It is far from a rule that artistic freedom of expression - as in the case of Lars Vilks' Mohammed roundabout dogs - gains strong public support. 

In this context, the perspective is not a comparison between preconditions of art in authoritarian and democratic states, but instead of how the margins of freedom of expression are tested as an effect of art regardless of the character of society. Thereby, the mechanisms of power and authority are illustrated - hopefully with different results in various political systems. That many of both Voina's and Pussy Riot's actions would be subject to public prosecution in most countries is evident. However, what differs is the legal process and the harsh sentence of the three members of Pussy Riot.

The lawsut against Pussy Riot can only be characterized as a travesty of justice. The law against hooliganism that motivated the verdict has such a broad definition that it may more or less cover all "crimes" perpetrated in public space. Hooliganism has however so far not been applied to "crimes" related to religion. If one would have wanted to prosecute the group on religious grounds, the law against extremism would have been applied instead, which e.g. covers acts to incite ethnic or religious hatred among groups in Russian society. However, the Russian constitution is secular, why application of the law against extremism in such a high-profile case, could have resulted in questioning of its compatibility with the constitution. Already in the choice of law, it is obvious that the process has been politically directed and motivated. Where Pussy Riot has claimed politics, the court has claimed religion as motive for the action. By interpreting the law in such a way that defamation of religion may constitute hooliganism, the court avoids applying the more politically chared law against extremism. Thus, paradoxically, the intent of the court appears clearer than that of the convicted, as an avoidance at any price to represent the process as what it actually is - a political trial. 

The question is also to what extent Pussy Riot has had to answer to the previous "crimes" of their art movement. Is it a case of collective punishment? Is it art itself rather than its practitioners that stands trial? From the freedom of expression perspective, these questions are both central and complex, but when art is political, they end up in the background. Instead, focus has been at the intersection of politics and religion in Russia.

The issue of relations between church and state is very sensitive in Russia. The Russian Orthodox Church has developed into providing both legitimacy and identity for political power. The church has subordinated itself to the state, in a way resembling the soviet era, at the same time as it supports reactionary forces within the regime - with a background within the security structures - which at times challenge both Putin and Medvedev. It is thus evident that the regime's internal political considerations have dictated the application of the law. For what Pussy Riot has done is to pinpoint Russia's politico-religious symbiosis.

During the soviet era, the Orthodox Church was strictly directed by the KGB. The Russian journalist Yevgeniya Albats e.g. claims that some half of the clergy in reality were agents of the KGB. Inter alia, the Patriarch of the Orthodox Church until 2008, Aleksy II, served the KGB for many years and made decisive steps in his career by denouncing opposition elements within the clergy. As Pussy Riot now sings about how the state and the church row the same boat, it is a political provocation that challenges mighty interests within Russian society, where relations between church and security interests are a taboo. The reactions of the church has therefore been powerful, but religiously motivated condemnations have carried a clear political undertone. The irritation is further exacerbated as Pussy Riot has compared themselves to Godly maniacs - a tradition of dissenters within Orthodoxy, which e.g. has manifested itself by crazy, but often tolerated, truthsayers. The truth said by Pussy Riot is however too stark for the church, and the parallel to Godly maniacs has thus been portrayed as further evidence of the group's disrespect for religion.

A danger in the process against the Pussy Riot trio lies equally in simplyfying and complicating the case. The simple approach, to consider the trio's destiny merely as political persecution, obscures more complex issues on how far society may allow art to go in its various expressions. To the contrary, the danger of complicating the case, lies in ascribing the group greater artistic qualities than it actually possesses. A rather simplistic art performance has here been regenerated and magnified by the mechanisms of politics and media.

How generously or narrowly the margins of artistic freedom of expression should be drawn is a question that concerns us all and lacks simple answers. However, Russia has for long stepped over the limits of what a purportedly democratic state can allow itself in curtailing civil liberties and human rights. In this context, Pussy Riot has had to pay a disproportionate and exceedingly high price for art as political provocation. In essence, the verdict against Pussy Riot can be summarized by the famous thesis of German author, Kurt Tucholsky: "A country is not just what it does, but also what it tolerates." In Russia, this thesis has been put to the test, and the result stands out as a strongly negative indicator of the country's continuous authoritarian decay.

Medvedev Murder Mystery

For Global Voices Online: Anna Politkovskaya... The mere name evokes images of Moscow's worst public relations nightmare in years - an ongoing ordeal for Russia's international reputation in the realm of rule of law. Still, the murderers have not been brought to justice, and Politkovskaya turned into a martyr for world voices critical of Russia - for them epitomising everything that is wrong and wretched with the country. So, should President Medvedev's quick reaction to this week's murder of Human Rights' acitivists Natalya Estemirova merely be regarded as lessons learnt from the Politkovskaya assassination? The answer might be more complicated, as voices from the Russian blogosphere have their say.

As news broke of Wednesday's murder of Russian Human Rights's activist Natalya Estemirova, it did not take long for President Dmitry Medvedev to offer his condolences to her family and appoint a committee to investigate a crime widely covered by international media. But was this merely a reaction to avoid repetition of the Politkovskaya PR-fiasco? In the domestic media arena, there was no comparison in coverage, provoking anger, resignation, and accusations of hypocrisy among Russia's liberal bloggers. However, looking at the wider picture, others see the Estemirova case as yet another herald of troubles ahead for the Putin-Medvedev tandemocracy, and believe that Medvedev reacted to the murder out of honest concern and worry.

The first, and obvious, question for all touched by the murder of one of Russia's foremost human rights' defenders is: Who could commit such a heineous act?

Fingers have been pointed at both Putin and Kadyrov, resulting in the Chechen President threatening to sue Estemirova's organization, Memorial, for libel. Still, the question remains, who were the murderers, and who stood behind them?

LJ user Andrei Naliotov is wondrous about [RUS] the character of the murderer, as opposed to that of Estemirova:

I cannot understand what kind of person one has to be, to shoot at a doctor, hurrying to save the sick or the wounded, at a priest praying to save souls, at a human rights defender, pulling people out of misery? I knew Natalya Estemirova. When I first spoke to her, I was surprised by her courage: To challenge power in today's totalitarian Chechnya, doing so living in Grozny - takes the highest of courage. But to stand on the side of truth and save people was superior to all for her. "No village without one righteous." Natalya was the righteous of Chechnya. Let her memory live eternally.

Whereas Medvedev's statement on the murder, may have averted international repercussions, reactions in Russian media were sparse, and LJ user tupikin accounts for [RUS] his own feelings and others' neglect to cover the issue:

Almost the entire day was spent in a realm of black colour. At first, the press conference about yesterday's kidnapping and murder of Grozny Human Rights defender Natalya Estemirova (judging from comments on my post - a single one - one might think that it is only of interest for anti-Kremlin websites, whereas none of my best friends showed any interest whatsoever). Tell me, honestly, do you think that Human Rights' defenders are crazy? Or rather, predestined to die? OK, the press conference gathered 60 journalists, including ten TV-cameras. When Ludmila Alexeyeva, chairman of the Moscow Helsinki group, asked national [i.e. Russian] journalists to raise their hands, it turned out to be no more than 15 people. The news, which has circled world media, is received, here in our country, with amazing stoicism, as if that simply is the way it has to be. Really, not 60, but 160 journalists should have come... Well, that is not some other country, but it is all ours. [---] and then Ludmila Alexeyeva added that two people were guilty - Ramzan Kadyrov and Vladimir Putin. [---] I don't know whether the tacit readers of my LiveJournal understand, that this is a sensation of all-Russian proportions [---] that two of the most high-ranking state officials in Russia were named as accomplices to a political murder in front of TV-cameras and tens of journalists. The ground did not shake, only silence followed. As I wrote these words on the keyboard of my old notebook, it was as if the finger-touches forming letters were like the strikes from the Tsar Bell...

Turning to the political ramifications of the murder, there are bloggers who underline how problematic and untimely the Estemirova case is for Medvedev, possibly adding to an alleged domestic political campaign to undermine the president's power and legitimacy. Consequently, LJ user anaitiss writes [RUS]:

It is the second political murder during Medvedev's presidential term. What's more, straight after Obama's visit. Moreover, just as the provocation with "the drunk Medvedev" at the G8 [summit] failed. And then, if we are to be honest, in a region where the guilty are nowhere to be found, even if we all know who everyone is thinking of. And also, exactly when America, personified by Obama, has deserted the local revolutionaries (they even write about this themselves). And boy, how they were abandoned! And this, having formed the joint McFaul-Surkov commission [US-Russian working group on human rights]. They simply have to portray Medvedev as "a bloody tyrant, trampling justice", they really have to. To make matters such, that any dialogue between ourselves and the West becomes impossible. "The second Politkovskaya" is an ideal scenario, one must admit that much. And moreover, in the Caucasus.

Human Rights and the disrespect for law is a matter of great concern for the Russian president - a lawyer by profession. With little over a year in office, turning the tide on rule of law seems a precondition for Medvedev to efficiently exercise power at a time when Russia experiences an economic downturn not seen since the 1998 financial crisis. Although trusitic, it suffices to point out that Putin back in 2001 - a year and a half into his first presidential term - was not the uncontested source of power and authority that marked the last years of his reign. So, that could barely be expected from Medvedev. At a recent discussion on the rule of law and Human Rights, published on his blog [RUS], Medvedev characterised the problem of Russian lawlessness accordingly:

MEDVEDEV: You were speaking about massive lawlessness. As a matter of fact, we live in a country with a very complicated relationship to law [---] and a very relaxed and tolerant [attitude] to lawlessness. But it is not a secret that one has to be able to fight for justice. We have no culture of fighting for justice, we simply don't. [---] How do we handle this? At first, we turn to some bureaucrat - once, twice, and still no result whatsoever. Then we turn to the media, as an alternative source of power, but if there is no result, to whom do we write letters?
REPLY: To you.
MEDVEDEV: To me. That is totally correct. So that is the hierarchy for defending human rights.
REPLY: Then one turns to Strasbourg [the European Court of Human Rights].

The last remark is illustrative of Medvedev's dilemma, when confronted with Estemirova's murder, and the general lawlessness of current Russia. In matters of human rights and the rule of law, the President of the Russian Federation appears not to be the supreme authority and guarantor of the constitution. It is to Strasbourg the Russian citizens turn as a last resort when their own judicial system fails to deliver on their constitutional rights.

Consequently, reinstating law and order stands out as a crucial credibility issue for Medvedev, and moreover as a make or break for his own capacity to exercise the power invested in him. Judging from Medvedev's views, and those of some bloggers, the law is also one of the major problems of today's Russia, as it touches the very fine line of political statecraft - the balance-act between continuity and change, stability and progress. Whereas the murder may not be a mystery to most, for Medvedev it is a mystery how to solve it, as part and parcel of general Russian disrespect for law.

Support Jailed Bloggers Hajizade & Milli

Azerbaijan rates 150 out of 173 countries on Reporters Without Borders' 2008 Press Freedom Index. Last Friday's jailing of Azeri bloggers and youth activists Hajizade and Milli therefore gives cause for great concern and worry about developments for freedom of speech and media in Azerbaijan, and in the continuation, the country's relations with the EU and the West.

I thus encourage you to sign the petition for Hajizade's and Milli's swift release, in accordance with the text below. For updates on the case, please visit the Free Adnan Hajizade & Emin Milli website.

We, the undersigned, condemn violent physical attack against Adnan Hajizada and Emin Milli and express our grave concern at their subsequent detention and trial by the authorities.

Adnan Hajizada and Emin Milli are prominent representatives of socially active Azerbaijani youth calling for the establishment of civil society based on principles of modernity, respect for individual rights and freedoms, non-violence and tolerance. Their non-partisan activities, as leaders of progressive youth networks, contributes significantly to building human capital, promoting knowledge and education, and strengthening social texture in Azerbaijan.

Their detention and trial is a gross violation of their basic human rights, as well as the legal protections guaranteed to the citizens by the constitution and laws of Azerbaijan Republic. It undermines democracy building in Azerbaijan, amplifies international concerns about individual rights and freedoms in Azerbaijan, and weakens the country's position in international arena.

Emin Milli and Adnan Hajizada were subjected to a violent and unprovoked by two individuals dressed in civilian clothes while dining with their friends during the afternoon of July 8, 2009 in Baku, the capital of Azerbaijan. Immediately after being attacked and severely beaten, Emin and Adnan went to a police station to file a report.

After holding Adnan and Emin for several hours, police decided to detain them for 48 hours for further trial. Although they were the vicitms who came to the police station to file a report, charges were pressed against Adnan and Emin based on clause 221 (Hooliganism) of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan, while the people who assaulted Emin and Adnan were set free.

We are deeply concerned about the following:

1. despite being the victims who were attacked and beaten, Emin Milli and Adnan Hajizada were treated as suspects and detained for 48 hours, while those who attacked them were set free;

2. despite persistent demands, Emin and Adnan were not allowed to meet with a lawyer until after being detained for more than 10 hours;

We demand the immediate release of Adnan Hajizada and Emin Milli.

We call on the government of Azerbaijan to investigate the violation of their legal rights.

We also call on the authorities to ensure that their attackers are held responsible for their actions and face fair and open trial.

Sign the petition!