URL: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,496003,00.html
SPIEGEL INTERVIEW WITH ALEXANDER SOLZHENITSYN
'I Am Not Afraid of Death'
In an interview with SPIEGEL, prominent Russian writer and Nobel Laureate
Alexander Solzhenitsyn discusses Russia's turbulent history, Putin's
version of democracy and his attitude to life and death.
SPIEGEL: Alexander Isayevich, when we came in we found you at work.
It seems that even at the age of 88 you still feel this need to work, even
though your health doesn't allow you to walk around your home. What do you
derive your strength from?
Solzhenitsyn: I have always had that inner drive, since my birth. And I
have always devoted myself gladly to work -- to work and to the struggle.
SPIEGEL: There are four tables in this space alone. In your new book "My
American Years," which will be published in Germany this fall, you
recollect that you used to write even while walking in the forest.
Solzhenitsyn: When I was in the gulag I would sometimes even write on
stone walls. I used to write on scraps of paper, then I memorized the
contents and destroyed the scraps.
SPIEGEL: And your strength did not leave you even in moments of enormous
desperation?
Solzhenitsyn: Yes. I would often think: Whatever the outcome is going to
be, let it be. And then things would turn out all right. It looks like
some good came out of it.
SPIEGEL: I am not sure you were of the same opinion when in February 1945
the military secret service arrested Captain Solzhenitsyn in Eastern
Prussia. Because, in his letters from the front, Solzhenitsyn was
unflattering about Josef Stalin, and the sentence for that was eight
years in the prison camps.
Solzhenitsyn: It was south of Wormditt. We had just broken out of a German
encirclement and were marching to Königsberg (now Kaliningrad)
when I was arrested. I was always optimistic. And I held to and was guided
by my views.
SPIEGEL: What views?
Solzhenitsyn: Of course, my views developed in the course of time. But I
have always believed in what I did and never acted against my conscience.
SPIEGEL: Thirteen years ago when you returned from exile, you were
disappointed to see the new Russia. You turned down a prize proposed by
Gorbachev, and you also refused to accept an award Yeltsin wanted to give
you. Yet now you have accepted the State Prize which was awarded to you by
Putin, the former head of the FSB intelligence agency, whose predecessor
the KGB persecuted and denounced you so cruelly. How does this all fit
together?
Solzhenitsyn: The prize in 1990 was proposed not by Gorbachev, but by the
Council of Ministers of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic,
then a part of the USSR. The prize was to be for "The Gulag Archipelago."
I declined the proposal, since I could not accept an award for a book
written in the blood of millions.
In 1998, it was the county's low point, with people in misery; this was
the year when I published the book "Russia in Collapse." Yeltsin decreed
I be honored the highest state order. I replied that I was unable to
receive an award from a government that had led Russia into such dire
straits.
The current State Prize is awarded not by the president personally, but by
a community of top experts. The Council on Science that nominated me for
the award and the Council on Culture that supported the idea include some
of the most highly respected people of the country, all of them
authorities in their respective disciplines. The president, as head of
state, awards the laureates on the national holiday. In accepting the
award I expressed the hope that the bitter Russian experience, which I
have been studying and describing all my life, will be for us a lesson
that keeps us from new disastrous breakdowns.
Vladimir Putin -- yes, he was an officer of the intelligence services, but
he was not a KGB investigator, nor was he the head of a camp in the gulag.
As for service in foreign intelligence, that is not a negative in any
country -- sometimes it even draws praise. George Bush Sr. was not much
criticized for being the ex-head of the CIA, for example.
SPIEGEL: All your life you have called on the authorities to repent for
the millions of victims of the gulag and communist terror. Was this call
really heard?
Solzhenitsyn: I have grown used to the fact that, throughout the world,
public repentance is the most unacceptable option for the modern
politician.
SPIEGEL: The current Russian president says the collapse of the Soviet
Union was the largest geopolitical disaster of the 20th century. He says
it is high time to stop this masochistic brooding over the past,
especially since there are attempts "from outside," as he puts it, to
provoke an unjustified remorse among Russians. Does this not just help
those who want people to forget everything that took place during the
county's Soviet past?
Solzhenitsyn: Well, there is growing concern all over the world as to how
the United States will handle its new role as the world's only
superpower, which it became as a result of geopolitical changes. As for
"brooding over the past," alas, that conflation of "Soviet" and
"Russian," against which I spoke so often in the 1970s, has not passed
away either in the West, or in the ex-socialist countries, or in the
former Soviet republics. The elder political generation in communist
countries was not ready for repentance, while the new generation is only
too happy to voice grievances and level
accusations, with present-day Moscow a convenient target. They behave as
if they heroically liberated themselves and lead a new life now, while
Moscow has remained communist. Nevertheless, I dare hope that this
unhealthy phase will soon be over, that all the peoples who have lived
through communism will understand that communism is to blame for the
bitter pages of their history.
SPIEGEL: Including the Russians.
Solzhenitsyn: If we could all take a sober look at our history, then we
would no longer see this nostalgic attitude to the Soviet past that
predominates now among the less affected part of our society. Nor would
the Eastern European countries and former USSR republics feel the need to
see in historical Russia the source of their misfortunes. One should not
ascribe the evil deeds of individual leaders or political regimes to an
innate fault of the Russian people and their country. One should not
attribute this to the "sick
psychology" of the Russians, as is often done in the West. All these
regimes in Russia could only survive by imposing a bloody terror. We
should clearly understand that only the voluntary and conscientious
acceptance by a people of its guilt can ensure the healing of a nation.
Unremitting reproaches from outside, on the other hand, are
counterproductive.
SPIEGEL: To accept one's guilt presupposes that one has enough
information about one's own past. However, historians are complaining
that Moscow's archives are not as accessible now as they were in the
1990's.
Solzhenitsyn: It's a complicated issue. There is no doubt, however, that a
revolution in archives took place in Russia over the last 20 years.
Thousands of files have been opened; the researchers now have access to
hundreds and thousands of previously classified documents. Hundreds of
monographs that make these documents public have already been published
or are in preparation. Alongside the declassified documents of the
1990's, there were many others published which never went through the
declassification process. Dmitri Volkogonov, the military historian, and
Alexander Yakovlev, the ex-member of the Politburo -- these people had
enough influence and authority to get access to any files, and society is
grateful to them for their valuable publications.
As for the last few years, no one has been able to bypass the
declassification procedure. Unfortunately, this procedure takes longer
than one would like. Nevertheless the files of the country's most
important archives, the National Archives of the Russian Federation
(GARF), are as accessible now as in the 1990's. The FSB sent 100,000
criminal- investigation materials to GARF in the late 1990s. These
documents remain available for both citizens and researchers. In
2004-2005 GARF published the seven-volume "History of Stalin's Gulag." I
cooperated with this publication and I can assure you that these volumes
are as comprehensive and reliable as they can be. Researchers all over
the world rely on this edition.
SPIEGEL: About 90 years ago, Russia was shaken first by the February
Revolution and then by the October Revolution. These events run like a
leitmotif through your works. A few months ago in a long article you
reiterated your thesis once again: Communism was not the result of the
previous Russian political regime; the Bolshevik Revolution was made
possible only by Kerensky's poor governance in 1917. If one follows this
line of thinking, then Lenin was only an accidental person, who was only
able to come to Russia and seize power here with German support. Have we
understood you correctly?
Solzhenitsyn: No, you have not. Only an extraordinary person can turn
opportunity into reality. Lenin and Trotsky were exceptionally nimble and
vigorous politicians who managed in a short period of time to use the
weakness of Kerensky's government. But allow me to correct you: the
"October Revolution" is a myth generated by the winners, the Bolsheviks,
and swallowed whole by progressive circles in the West. On Oct. 25, 1917,
a violent 24-hour coup d'etat took place in Petrograd. It was brilliantly
and thoroughly planned by Leon Trotsky -- Lenin was still in hiding then
to avoid being brought to justice for treason. What we call "the Russian
Revolution of 1917" was actually the February Revolution.
The reasons driving this revolution do indeed have their source in
Russia's pre-revolutionary condition, and I have never stated otherwise.
The February Revolution had deep roots -- I have shown that in "The Red
heel." First among these was the long-term mutual distrust between those
in power and the educated society, a bitter distrust that rendered
impossible any compromise, any constructive solutions for the state. And
the greatest responsibility, then, of course falls on the authorities:
Who if not the captain is to blame for a shipwreck? So you may indeed say
that the February Revolution in its causes was "the results of the
previous Russian political regime."
But this does not mean that Lenin was "an accidental person" by any means;
or that the financial participation of Emperor Wilhelm was
inconsequential. There was nothing natural for Russia in the October
Revolution. Rather, the revolution broke Russia's back. The Red Terror
unleashed by its leaders, their willingness to drown Russia in blood, is
the first and foremost proof of it.
SPIEGEL: Your recent two-volume work "200 Years Together" was an attempt
to overcome a taboo against discussing the common history of
Russians and Jews. These two volumes have provoked mainly perplexity
in the West. You say the Jews are the leading force of global capital and
they are among the foremost destroyers of the bourgeoisie. Are we to
conclude from your rich array of sources that the Jews carry more
responsibility than others for the failed Soviet experiment?
Solzhenitsyn: I avoid exactly that which your question implies: I do not
call for any sort of scorekeeping or comparisons between the moral
responsibility of one people or another; moreover, I completely exclude
the notion of responsibility of one nation towards another. All I am
calling for is self-reflection.
You can get the answer to your question from the book itself: "Every
people must answer morally for all of its past -- including that past
which is shameful. Answer by what means? By attempting to comprehend: How
could such a thing have been allowed? Where in all this is our error? And
could it happen again? It is in that spirit, specifically, that it would
behoove the Jewish people to answer, both for the revolutionary
cutthroats and the ranks willing to serve them. Not to answer before
other peoples, but to oneself, to one's consciousness, and before God.
Just as we Russians must answer -- for the pogroms, for those merciless
arsonist peasants, for those crazed revolutionary soldiers, for those
savage sailors."
SPIEGEL: In our opinion, out of all your works, "The Gulag Archipelago"
provoked the greatest public resonance. In this book you showed the
misanthropic nature of the Soviet dictatorship. Looking back today, can
you say to what extent it has contributed to the defeat of communism in
the world?
Solzhenitsyn: You should not address this question to me -- an author
cannot give such evaluations.
SPIEGEL: To paraphrase something you once said, the dark history of the
20th century had to be endured by Russia for the sake of mankind. Have
the Russians learned the lessons of the two revolutions and their
consequences?
Solzhenitsyn: It seems they are starting to. A great number of
publications and movies on the history of the 20th century -- albeit of
uneven quality -- are evidence of a growing demand. Quite recently, the
state-owned TV channel "Russia" aired a series based on Varlam Shalamov's
works, showing the terrible, cruel truth about Stalin's camps. It was not
watered down.
And, for instance, since last February I have been surprised and impressed
by the large-scale, heated and long-lasting discussions that my previously
written and now republished article on the February Revolution has
provoked. I was pleased to see the wide range of opinions, including
those opposed to mine, since they demonstrate the eagerness to understand
the past, without which there can be no meaningful future.
SPIEGEL: How do you assess the period of Putin's governance in comparison
with his predecessors Yeltsin and Gorbachev?
Solzhenitsyn: Gorbachev's administration was amazingly politically naïve,
inexperienced and irresponsible towards the country. It was not
governance but a thoughtless renunciation of power. The admiration of the
West in return only strengthened his conviction that his approach was
right. But let us be clear that it was Gorbachev, and not Yeltsin, as is
now widely being claimed, who first gave freedom of speech and movement
to the citizens of our country.
Yeltsin's period was characterized by a no less irresponsible attitude to
people's lives, but in other ways. In his haste to have private rather
than state ownership as quickly as possible, Yeltsin started a mass,
multi-billion-dollar fire sale of the national patrimony. Wanting to gain
the support of regional leaders, Yeltsin called directly for separatism
and passed laws that encouraged and empowered the collapse of the Russian
state. This, of course, deprived Russia of its historical role for which
it had worked so
hard, and lowered its standing in the international community. All this
met with even more hearty Western applause.
Putin inherited a ransacked and bewildered country, with a poor and
demoralized people. And he started to do what was possible -- a slow and
gradual restoration. These efforts were not noticed, nor appreciated,
immediately. In any case, one is hard pressed to find examples in history
when steps by one country to restore its strength were met favorably by
other governments.
SPIEGEL: It has gradually become clear to everyone that the stability of
Russia is of benefit to the West. But there is one thing that surprises
us in particular: When speaking about the right form of statehood for
Russia, you were always in favor of civil self-government, and you
contrasted this model with Western democracy. After seven years of
Putin's governance we can observe totally the opposite phenomenon: Power
is concentrated in the hands of the president, everything is oriented
toward him.
Solzhenitsyn: Yes, I have always insisted on the need for local
self-government for Russia, but I never opposed this model to Western
democracy. On the contrary, I have tried to convince my fellow citizens
by citing the examples of highly effective local self-government systems
in Switzerland and New England, both of which I saw first-hand.
In your question you confuse local self-government, which is possible on
the most grassroots level only, when people know their elected officials
personally, with the dominance of a few dozen regional governors, who
during Yeltsin's period were only too happy to join the federal
government in suppressing any local self-government initiatives.
Today I continue to be extremely worried by the slow and inefficient
development of local self-government. But it has finally started to take
place. In Yeltsin's time, local self-government was actually barred on
the regulatory level, whereas the state's "vertical of power" (i.e.
Putin's centralized and top-down administration) is delegating more and
more decisions to the local population. Unfortunately, this process is
still not systematic in character.
SPIEGEL: But there is hardy any opposition.
Solzhenitsyn: Of course, an opposition is necessary and desirable for the
healthy development of any country. You can scarcely find anyone in
opposition, except for the communists, just like in Yeltsin's times.
However, when you say "there is nearly no opposition," you probably mean
the democratic parties of the 1990s. But if you take an unbiased look at
the situation: there was a rapid decline of living standards in the
1990s, which affected three quarters of Russian families, and all under
the "democratic banner." Small wonder, then, that the population does not
rally to this banner anymore. And now the leaders of these parties cannot
even agree on how to share portfolios in an illusory shadow government.
It is regrettable that there is still no constructive, clear and
large-scale opposition in Russia. The growth and development of an
opposition, as well as the maturing of other democratic institutions,
will take more time and
experience.
SPIEGEL: During our last interview you criticized the election rules for
State Duma deputies, because only half of them were directly elected in
their constituencies, whereas the other half, representatives of the
political parties, were dominant. After the election reform made by
president Putin, there is no direct constituency at all. Is this not a
step back?
Solzhenitsyn: Yes, I think it is a mistake. I am a convinced and
consistent critic of "party-parliamentarism." I am for non-partisan
elections of true people's representatives who are accountable to their
regions and districts; and who in case of unsatisfactory work can be
recalled. I do understand and respect the formation of groups on
economical, cooperative, territorial, educational, professional and
industrial principles, but I see nothing organic in political parties.
Politically motivated ties can be unstable and quite often
they have selfish ulterior motives. Leon Trotsky said it accurately during
the October Revolution: "A party that does not strive for the seizure of
power is worth nothing." We are talking about seeking benefit for the
party itself at the expense of the rest of the people. This can happen
whether the takeover is peaceful or not. Voting for impersonal parties
and their programs is a false substitute for the only true way to elect
people's representatives: voting by an actual person for an actual
candidate. This is the whole point behind popular representation.
SPIEGEL: In spite of high revenues from oil and gas exports, in spite of
the development of a middle class, there is a vast contrast between rich
and poor in Russia. What can be done to improve the situation?
Solzhenitsyn: I think the gap between the rich and the poor is an
extremely dangerous phenomenon in Russia and it needs the immediate
attention of the state. Although many fortunes were amassed in Yeltsin's
times by ransacking, the only reasonable way to correct the situation
today is not to go after big businesses -- the present owners are trying
to run them as effectively as they can -- but to give breathing room to
medium and small businesses. That means protecting citizens and small
entrepreneurs from arbitrary rule and from corruption. It means investing
the revenues from the national natural resources into the national
infrastructure, education and
health care. And we must learn to do so without shameful theft and
embezzlement.
SPIEGEL: Does Russia need a national idea, and what might it look like?
Solzhenitsyn: The term "national idea" is an unclear one. One might think
of it as a widely shared understanding among a people as to the desired
way of life in their country, an idea that holds sway over the
population. A unifying concept like that can be useful, but should never
be created artificially or imposed top-down by the powers-that-be.
Over the latest historical periods these concepts have been developed in
France, for example after the eighteenth century, in the United Kingdom,
the United States, Germany, Poland etc. When the whole discussion of
"developing a national idea" hastily began in post-Soviet Russia, I tried
to pour cold water on it with the objection that, after all the
devastating losses we had experienced, it would be quite sufficient to
have just one task: the preservation of a dying people.
SPIEGEL: But Russia often finds itself alone. Recently relations between
Russia and the West have gotten somewhat colder, and this includes
Russian-European relations. What is the reason? What are the West's
difficulties in understanding modern Russia?
Solzhenitsyn: I can name many reasons, but the most interesting ones are
psychological, i.e. the clash of illusory hopes against reality. This
happened both in Russia and in West. When I returned to Russia in 1994,
the Western world and its states were practically being worshipped.
Admittedly, this was caused not so much by real knowledge or a conscious
choice, but by the natural disgust with the Bolshevik regime and its
anti-Western propaganda.
This mood started changing with the cruel NATO bombings of Serbia. It's
fair to say that all layers of Russian society were deeply and indelibly
shocked by those bombings. The situation then became worse when NATO
started to spread its influence and draw the ex-Soviet republics into its
structure. This was especially painful in the case of Ukraine, a country
whose closeness to Russia is defined by literally millions of family ties
among our peoples, relatives living on different sides of the national
border. At one fell stroke, these families could be torn apart by a new
dividing line, the border of a military bloc.
So, the perception of the West as mostly a "knight of democracy" has been
replaced with the disappointed belief that pragmatism, often cynical and
selfish, lies at the core of Western policies. For many Russians it was a
grave disillusion, a crushing of ideals.
At the same time the West was enjoying its victory after the exhausting
Cold War, and observing the 15-year-long anarchy under Gorbachev and
Yeltsin. In this context it was easy to get accustomed to the idea that
Russia had become almost a Third World country and would remain so
forever. When Russia started to regain some of its strength as an economy
and as a state, the West's reaction -- perhaps a subconscious one, based
on erstwhile fears -- was panic.
SPIEGEL: The West associated it with the ex-superpower, the Soviet Union.
Solzhenitsyn: Which is too bad. But even before that, the West deluded
itself -- or maybe conveniently ignored the reality -- by regarding
Russia as a young democracy, whereas in fact there was no democracy at
all. Of course Russia is not a democratic country yet; it is just
starting to build democracy. It is all too easy to take Russia to task
with a long list of omissions, violations and mistakes.
But did not Russia clearly and unambiguously stretch its helping hand to
the West after 9/11? Only a psychological shortcoming, or else a
disastrous shortsightedness, can explain the West's irrational refusal of
this hand. No sooner did the USA accept Russia's critically important aid
in Afghanistan than it immediately started making newer and newer
demands. As for Europe, its claims towards Russia are fairly
transparently based on fears about energy, unjustified fears at that.
Isn't it a luxury for the West to be pushing Russia aside now, especially
in the face of new threats? In my last Western interview before I
returned to Russia (for Forbes magazine in April 1994) I said: "If we
look far into the future, one can see a time in the 21st century when
both Europe and the USA will be in dire need of Russia as an ally."
SPIEGEL: You have read Goethe, Schiller and Heine in the original German,
and you have always hoped that Germany would be something of a bridge
between Russia and the rest of the world. Do you believe Germans can
still play this role?
Solzhenitsyn: I do. There is something predetermined in the mutual
attraction between Germany and Russia. Otherwise, this attraction would
not have survived two ghastly World Wars.
SPIEGEL: Which German poets, writers and philosophers have influenced you
the most?
Solzhenitsyn: Schiller and Goethe were very much present in my childhood
and adolescence. Later I was drawn by Schelling. I highly appreciate the
great German musical tradition. I can't imagine my life without Bach,
Beethoven and Schubert.
SPIEGEL: The West knows nearly nothing about modern Russian literature.
What is, in your opinion, the situation in Russian literature today?
Solzhenitsyn: Periods of rapid and fundamental change were never favorable
for literature. Significant works, not to mention great works, have nearly
always and everywhere been created in periods of stability, be it a good
or a bad stability. Modern Russian literature is no exception. The
educated reader today is much more interested in non-fiction -- memoirs,
biographies, and documentary prose. However, I do believe that justice
and conscience will not be cast to the four winds, but will remain in the
foundations of Russian literature, so that it may be of service in
brightening our spirit and enhancing our comprehension.
SPIEGEL: The idea of the influence of Orthodox Christianity on the Russian
world can be traced throughout your works. What is the moral qualification
of the Russian church? We think it is turning into a state church today,
just like it was centuries ago -- an institution that in practice
legitimizes the head of Kremlin as the representative of God.
Solzhenitsyn: On the contrary, we should be surprised that our church has
gained a somewhat independent position during the very few years since it
was freed from total subjugation to the communist government. Do not
forget what a horrible human toll the Russian Orthodox Church suffered
throughout almost the entire 20th century. The Church is just rising from
its knees. Our young post-Soviet state is just learning to respect the
Church as an independent institution. The "Social Doctrine" of the
Russian Orthodox Church, for example, goes much further than do
government programs. Recently Metropolitan Kirill, a prominent expounder
of the Church's position, has made repeated calls for reforming the
taxation system. His views are quite different from those of government,
yet he airs them in public, on
national television. As for "legitimizing the head of Kremlin," do you
mean the funeral service for Yeltsin in the main cathedral and the
decision not to hold a civil funeral ceremony?
SPIEGEL: That too.
Solzhenitsyn: Well, it was probably the only way to keep in check public
anger, which has not fully subsided, and avoid possible manifestations of
anger during the burial. But I see no reason to treat the ceremony as the
new protocol for the funerals of all Russian presidents in the future. As
far as the past is concerned, our Church holds round-the-clock prayers for
the repose of the victims of communist massacres in Butovo near Moscow, on
the Solovetsky Islands and other places of mass burials.
SPIEGEL: In 1987 in your interview with SPIEGEL founder Rudolf Augstein
you said it was really hard for you to speak about religion in public.
What does faith mean for you?
Solzhenitsyn: For me faith is the foundation and support of one's life.
SPIEGEL: Are you afraid of death?
Solzhenitsyn: No, I am not afraid of death any more. When I was young the
early death of my father cast a shadow over me -- he died at the age of
27 -- and I was afraid to die before all my literary plans came true. But
between 30 and 40 years of age my attitude to death became quite calm and
balanced. I feel it is a natural, but no means the final, milestone of
one's existence.
SPIEGEL: Anyhow, we wish you many years of creative life.
Solzhenitsyn: No, no. Don't. It's enough.
SPIEGEL: Alexander Isayevich, we thank you for this interview.
Interview conducted by Christian Neef and Matthias Schepp.
----------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail has been sent via JARING webmail at http://www.jaring.my
