The party that challenges Putin raises its voice: “Navalni’s death is a political murder” | International

The voice of opposition that persists in Russia has not completely died out with the strange death of dissident Alexei Navalny. The Civic Initiative party failed to get its candidate Boris Nadezhdin to compete with Vladimir Putin in the March elections, but it managed to attract the attention of hundreds of thousands of Russians and is now a new headache for the Kremlin within its own system. “The death of Alexei Navalny is a political assassination, whatever the precise reasons for his death. His imprisonment for political reasons and the numerous harassments bordering on torture to which he was subjected in the penal colonies led to his tragic end,” denounced the group in a harsh statement in which, in accordance with Russian laws, it reiterates the obligatory mention that the dissident was “declared an extremist and terrorist by the Ministry of Justice”.

The causes of Navalny’s death have not been clarified. The newspaper Novaya Gazeta Europe, declared an “undesirable organization” by the Kremlin, revealed unverified details of what happened on the day of his death. According to a doctor at the ambulance service of the hospital where the dissident’s remains were taken, his body showed several bruises. “I have a lot of experience and the way they described it to me, they were caused by seizures,” he said.

Similarly, a prisoner at Jarp’s IK-3 prison, where the dissident was being held at the time of his death, told the same media that they had forced all the prisoners to lock themselves in their cells the night before the event and that “there was a lot of commotion” in the prison. . According to their version, they learned of Navalni’s death “around 10 a.m.”, a few hours before the official version.

“We demand the immediate release of political prisoners and radical reform of the Russian judicial and prison systems,” Civic Initiative said in its message. The liberal-leaning party founded by post-Soviet Russia’s first economy minister, Andrei Nechayev, has maintained “political differences” with Navalny, even though both movements agreed that Russian citizens should vote for another alternative candidate to Putin during the election. presidential elections from 15 to 17 and not boycott them.

“I have no words, I just cry,” the Civic Initiative candidate said this weekend upon learning of Navalni’s death. “It’s a shock. It’s horrible. My deepest condolences to Yulia – the wife of the dissident – ​​and the children,” added Nadezhdine, whose surprise nomination as an independent candidate mobilized Kremlin-weary Russians. The politician obtained more than 200,000 signatures to run for office, but the central election commission rejected his candidacy on the grounds that thousands of them allegedly contained irregularities. The opposition, however, believes that this is a direct veto from the Kremlin, in particular from one of Putin’s closest presidential advisers, statesman Sergei Kiriyenko.

“Many signatures were rejected due to discrepancies between the signatory’s passport data and the certificate from the Ministry of the Interior. We contacted all individuals to clarify the data and defend their signatures. “I do not agree with the electoral commission’s refusal to register, and that is why I will challenge the decision before the Supreme Court,” Nadejdin announced this Saturday on his candidacy website.

Join EL PAÍS to follow all the news and read without limits.

Subscribe

Nadejdin finds himself in a difficult situation. Any form of protest, no matter how small, is swept away by the police, and most politicians who disagree with the Kremlin over the invasion of Ukraine have been thrown in prison. After Navalny’s death, which many Russians consider a murder, all attention is on him, including that of Putin. “I have a plan B and a plan C,” the opponent declared to the independent newspaper a week ago. Nastoyaschee Vremia. There will certainly be no unauthorized demonstrations on my part, young ladies (referring to the 2014 Kiev protests which ended with President Viktor Yanukovych fleeing).”

Neither Putin nor the Communist Party, the second-largest party in the State Duma, have yet commented on Navalny’s death. Yes, that’s what the presidential candidate of the populist Liberal Democratic Party of Russia, Leonid Slutski, did, accusing the West of using the dissident’s death against the Kremlin; and the New People candidate, Vladislav Davankov. The latter political party, founded in 2021 and which Putin authorized to run in the elections, showed a certain moderation by negotiating a certain form of collaboration with Nadezhdin and deploring the death of Navalny.

The harshness of the remarks in which the Civic Initiative denounces the “political murder” of the opponent is striking. The Kremlin has tried in recent days to extinguish all symbols of protest. At least 366 people were arrested in 39 cities across the country, according to the organization OVD-Info, while laying flowers in front of monuments to victims of political repression.

“I don’t understand, it’s not even a demonstration, everyone comes here and keeps quiet. “Why are they arresting people?” lamented a 28-year-old girl next to the Wall of Pain.Stena Skorbi, in Russian—, a monument inaugurated by Putin in 2017 in which an infinity of faceless human figures seem to be walking towards Hades after having been victims of Stalin. A few hours later, late at night, several officials picked up all the flowers and threw them in the trash under an intense snowfall and the resigned gaze of the police officers responsible for guarding the place.

Nadejdin’s big challenge

“This declaration constitutes a very bold step. Nadezhdin is inside the country and this is very risky behavior,” famous Russian political scientist Ekaterina Shoulman told EL PAÍS. “Before his signature collection, he had been on the political scene for almost 30 years, but he was not a high-profile figure. Now he is and his statements attract attention, he enjoys great visibility and potential influence,” he adds in a telephone conversation in which he warns that the risks for the opponent, as long as he remains in the country, “are very great.”

Shoulman points out that the Kremlin took note of the huge lines of citizens who supported Nadezhdin with their signatures and wanted to avoid taking risks with Navalny alive before the March elections. “I thought that the presidential team would draw conclusions after the elections about what happened to Nadezhdin, believing that it was harmless and he ultimately received a wave of popular support, but it is obvious that this has already happened. “

“Decision-making has completely passed into the hands of people who think only in terms of force and who have two recipes for solving any problem: open a criminal case or murder,” Shulman warns. “The authorities follow the principle there is no one, there is no problem, and they thought they couldn’t afford to take risks before the election because the public mood is volatile,” he adds, while warning that social unrest can erupt from anywhere: “The disgruntled are quick to look for any opportunity to express their disagreement with what is happening.”

“In these conditions, having someone who can, even behind bars, call on the population to behave in a certain way during the elections is too dangerous. It’s better to terrify them all so that they are paralyzed by fear. Then, the elections will take place peacefully. “This is the Kremlin’s logic,” he emphasizes.

The political scientist insists not to make comparisons between Putin and Stalin. “(The USSR) was a totalitarian regime that was building a kind of new future, but it didn’t adapt to that future and destroyed it. This is a kind of social engineering. “In Russia, we face an authoritarian regime that aims to retain power and therefore acts through selective intimidation,” says Shulman.

“The repression has not stopped, it has intensified after two years of war, but the persecution of the opposition because of their political activity affects hundreds of people every year. For a large country, this is selective repression. This does not make them better, but modern autocracies have neither the need nor the necessary resources to launch massive repressions,” he emphasizes before emphasizing the difference “with the USSR, Cambodia or Germany Nazi.” “There were certain social categories that had to be completely exterminated,” explains the political scientist, who emphasizes that “it was a certain stage of history that cannot be repeated.”

“Putin only wants to stick to his goals. Therefore, whoever poses a threat is eliminated. That’s all. There is no need for society to be transformed into something else,” concludes Shulman.

Follow all international news on Facebook And Xor in our weekly newsletter.

_