Vladimir P is older and gagá. He loses his memory, although sometimes he imagines that he still rules a lot and terrifies everyone around him. He lives retired in a dacha near Moscow assisted by a staff who takes what he can from him. Luckily his nurse, Sheremetev, is an honest man, perhaps the last one left in Russia, and he takes care of him with care. The British author Michael Honig delves into the figure of Putin with a high dose of sarcasm in the fascinating novel The Senility of Vladimir P (Libros de Kultrum), which now reaches Spanish bookstores. Honig believes that “satire can be the most powerful form of attack” and assures that he is not afraid, but he writes under a pseudonym and does not provide photographs. In this interview with La Vanguardia he talks in depth about the situation in Russia, its recent past, its possible future and the figure of Putin.
Why are you interested in the figure of Vladimir P.?
Vladimir Putin has exerted enormous influence in one of the great countries in the world. He has been in power for a quarter of a century, much longer than any Western leader. When he came to power, Russia could have taken one of two paths. It could have continued the path it had begun towards liberal democracy or it could have retreated towards autocracy. Putin, of course, was not entirely free to do whatever he wanted. To survive, he had to satisfy the elites, who had the most to lose from a movement towards democracy and the rule of law, particularly the security establishment, of which he himself was a part. Therefore, he could not have led Russia from a democracy overnight. But he could have moved her in that direction. Instead, he chose to use his position to do the opposite. Not only to push, but to sink the country in the mud of kleptocracy.
You are english? How do you have such a deep understanding of post-Soviet Russian society?
It is a fascinating country. I read their literature, I talk to people, I learn everything I can.
One of your characters wonders, “How could we elevate a man with such meager accomplishments and such limited vision?” Is there an answer to that question?
That Putin is a man of such meager achievements and limited vision is not accidental, but fundamental to his rise to the Russian presidency. Tragically for Russia, the convergence of circumstances in 1999 meant that a man with no principles beyond his own survival, no ideology beyond a dirty love of money and almost no history was the perfect contender. Each one could project his own aspirations onto him and believe that he would do whatever he wanted. And so, Russia, a country of enormous size and potential, ended up with a stunted leader who sees no further than his own survival and enrichment.
Was there a time when Putin could have saved Russia?
In theory, yes. At the beginning of his reign, Putin had a choice: build on Yeltsin’s very imperfect legacy and strengthen democracy in Russia, or enhance kleptocratic rule by the security establishment. He chose the latter. However, I say “in theory” because it is not clear whether the security establishment would have allowed him to survive if he had chosen the other path. But even if he could not have gone decisively in the other direction, he surely could have taken a course closer to the one he chose, which is almost the most extreme version of kleptocracy – a true gangster state – that is impossible to imagine.
What is Russian society like? Do they all live off petty theft and bribery as you say in the book?
The book is not intended to represent all of Russian society, which includes many thoughtful and righteous people who are increasingly embattled in Putin’s Russia and a large number of people who are economic victims of the corruption that Putin has institutionalized and who fight simply to survive. But there are also a large number of agents and facilitators of this corruption, who give loyalty to Putin and his “power vertical.” They are both exploiters and exploited, perpetrators and victims, and it is this deeply ambiguous reality that the book attempts to represent. In the end, under the verticality of Putin’s power, there is only one person in Russia who is not, at least to a small extent, a victim.
In the book, Lebedev, an even more corrupt guy, replaced Putin as president. How do you see the future of Russia? Is there a chance it can be saved? Or is he doomed to have a president like Lebedev?
It is very difficult to imagine that the elites who have benefited from Putin’s rule and kept him in power will allow anyone to come in, whether through elections or other means, who will diminish their wealth and influence. This is particularly true of the security establishment. In a country without democratic tradition or rule of law, dominated by elites whose apparent selfishness knows no limits, how does change occur? What is the process? History shows that this type of change usually involves the discredit and removal from power not only of the person at the top, but of existing elites. Some former Soviet countries appear to have made that transition after the fall of the Berlin Wall, when communist elites were expelled. In other cases it has been the result of conquest, such as in Germany and Japan after World War II. But simply eliminating the main person, without eradicating the elites, usually results in someone similar, or even worse, replacing him or her. In the absence of a truly apocalyptic upheaval, I do not believe that the move to democracy is a change: “today we are governed by gangsters, tomorrow by democrats.” It can be something that happens gradually and imperfectly, with a few steps forward and a few steps back, guided by brave and skillful leaders who can navigate the demands of elites while moving in a more democratic direction. Who are these leaders? Is there anyone in Russia who can play that role after Putin? Are you smart enough to position yourself for success? Unfortunately, in the power struggle that will follow Putin, it is more likely that someone will succeed in seizing power as a puppet of the elites and perpetuating the Russian nightmare.
The Russians passed from the tsars to Lenin and Stalin and are now in the hands of Putin. Is a country incapable of establishing a democratic regime like those in the West?
I do not believe that any country is “incapable” of becoming democratic. But a successful and sudden shift from autocracy to democracy is rare. Democracy is the result of cultural norms that take decades, or even centuries, to truly take hold. The tragedy that Putin has inflicted on Russia is to set it back long after the first steps towards democracy under Yeltsin and to poison the ground for any successor who wants to take it forward. But that successor could surprise us, or the Russian people themselves, over time, once the reins are loosened a little, could surprise us even more.
Sheremetev is the last honest man of Russia. Is it possible to live in a corrupt society without becoming contaminated?
Every day, throughout our lives, we make compromises with the systems in which we live. For those of us lucky enough to live in countries governed by the rule of law, such commitments may not seem particularly problematic or even visible. In a country like Russia, the scale is different. How do people – normal people, not activists – survive in those circumstances? Is Sheremetev too principled to get involved in what is happening around him, is he too naive to recognize it, or has he intentionally turned a blind eye until the truth is forced in front of his face? When corruption is deep and widespread enough, the compromises are so many that in the end no one can escape them.
Draw a senile Vladimir, an already pathetic character. Are you afraid of possible retaliation from Putin, who has always been so cruel to his enemies?
It is a universally observed fact that dictators have no sense of humor, at least about themselves. The more direct the joke is, the less they tolerate it. They cannot allow anyone to mock the conceited absurdity of their pretensions or the superficiality of the foundation on which their regime is built. Allowing this would expose them for the small, brutal, selfish people that they are, and would cause a mutiny, if not a revolution. In this sense, satire can be the most powerful form of attack, which is why dictatorships are satire-free zones. Interestingly, although my book has been published in many countries, I have not received any offers from any publisher in Russia. But there are a lot of people making fun of Vladimir Putin outside of Russia, so I don’t think I have anything to worry about.