Masha Gessen writes that Vladimir Putin encourages vigilante justice:
Turn on Russian television any day of the week and you are certain to stumble upon a show in which a group of people who appear to be regular citizens (that is, they have no uniforms or government-issued documents) stage a raid of one sort or another. They barge into a store or a restaurant, for example, and demand to see employees’ identity documents, the storage area, or the cooking facilities. Without fail, they find violations of laws or regulations: the staff, natives of Central Asia, don’t have work permits! The store stocks vodka bottles with no alcohol-tax stamps affixed to them! The cook doesn’t cover her hair! At the end of the show, the raiders often pass their tearful, terrified victims to uniformed law enforcement officers, who sometimes appear less than enthusiastic about the task being handed to them.
These raiders have no official titles or legal powers. What directs their actions are the militant rhetoric and the promise of broad impunity that emanate from the Kremlin—and, of course, the glory and recognition of being on television.
Putin did not invent vigilantes, of course: autocrats frequently rely on delegating violence to extralegal actors or, as in the case of Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines, on the willingness of law enforcement officers to carry out extralegal violence in exchange for the promise of impunity. Duterte has made this promise explicit; more often, incitement to violence contains a tacit guarantee of protection.
Donald Trump has copied Putin's rough justice:
Over the last two weeks, we have seen Donald Trump send out both kinds of signals to the vigilantes of his own choosing. His refusal to condemn the violent marchers in Charlottesville, in pointed and repeated break with political convention, was rightly interpreted by the white supremacists as a signal of encouragement. And his pardoning of former sheriff Joe Arpaio—before he was even sentenced—protected a law enforcement officer from facing any consequences for a long history of brutal violations of constitutional rights. Trump had encouraged extralegal violence in the past—like when he called on police not to be “too nice” to suspects. But the two weeks bracketed by the violence in Charlottesville and the pardon of Arpaio herald a definite turn away from the institutions of a government he despises.
In Russia, there are no institutions to rein Putin in. In the United States, those institutions used to exist. The question Americans -- and the rest of the world -- faces is: Do those institutions still exist?
Image: Slate.com
4 comments:
A telling and disturbing parallel, Owen. As to whether the institutions of balance and restraint still exist in the U.S, that is something only the citizens themselves can answer. Unless they are willing to hold their 'leaders' feet to the fire, they are doomed to become an autocracy that ultimately promotes societal chaos.
The Trump regime is a Trial by Fire, Lorne. It's not clear -- at least to me -- that Americans know what is at stake.
Putin is everything Trump is not. Rich, Ruthless and competent. Many believe Putin will be the worlds first Trillionare.
They do share some characteristics, Steve. Trump may not be competent. But he can be ruthless.
Post a Comment