An Example of How the Kremlin Threatens Freedom of Speech
Government control of the information space is one of the main features that
characterize underdeveloped democracies. Under this aspect, Russia is no
exception: the tradition of government control over the media and public opinion is rooted in
Russian history and culture. Over history, the tsarist and communist regimes
strived to prevent political dissent from being diffused through the press, in
order to maintain a strong grip on society. Even after the collapse of the USSR
the situation did not change substantially, although Art. 29 of the Russian constitution
upheld freedom of speech and information.[1] In
parallel to the political transformations triggered by the collapse of the USSR,
mass media were also evolving thanks to the rise of the internet. Russian
intelligence services, stuck in a Soviet mindset and facing a highly volatile
domestic political environment, understood the internet’s potential to diffuse
information and felt the need to control it.[2] Simply
put, the Kremlin’s control on mass media managed to keep pace with
technological development, as it happened when television supplanted the press.
As a result, in 2013 Russia ranked 148th out of 179 countries in the Press
Freedom Index from Reporters Without Borders.[3]
Almost 28 years after the USSR’s collapse, Russian Government is still
exerting a strong and comprehensive influence in the information space. With the
pretext of preventing the diffusion of extremist rhetoric, the Russian administration
misuses Article 280 and Article 282 of the Russian criminal code to curb political opposition.
Not only this approach thwarts the development of Russian civil society, but in
the long run it can also backfire against the Kremlin.
Article 280 and Article 282 of the Russian criminal code have been subject to a steady generalization
of their applicability, providing the Kremlin with a legal tool to classify its
political opponents as extremists. In 2002, the title of Article 280 changed
from “Public Calls for a Violent Change of the Constitutional Order” to “Public
Calls to Extremist Activity.” At the time, this wording was harshly criticized
because it left ample space for arbitrary interpretation: most importantly, it
excluded violence as a defining characteristic of extremism. While revising the
law, the Venice Commission of the European Court of Justice noted that Article
1.1.1.3 of the Shangai Convention – undersigned by the Russian Federation – identified
violence as an essential feature of extremism. Moreover, it argued that rather
than defining extremism, the Russian criminal code just enumerated a series of
“extremist activities” which did not entail the use of violence.[4] It
is also worth noting that the 2002 law envisioned tougher punishments for acts
committed through the use of mass media and telecommunications networks.
In December 2013 Article 280 was amended again, introducing a second
part (Art. 280.1) titled “Public Calls for the Violation of the Territorial
Integrity of the Russian Federation.”[5]
Among the “extremist activities” mentioned above with regards to the 2002 law,
the “violation of the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation” was
considered extremism only when “forcible.”[6]
However, Art. 280.1 deems as extremist not only the forcible violation of
Russia’s territorial integrity but also the call for such a violation, even if
not backed by any action. The timing of this amendment can explain its underlying
rationale. Since it was signed just two months before the launch of the Crimean
operation, the Russian government probably devised it as a tool to undermine
the domestic dissent that the operation could spark. In other words, after
Russia annexed Crimea, calling for the return of Crimea to Ukraine equaled
calling for the violation of the integrity of the Russian Federation, and
therefore committing a terrorist act. This discouraged any domestic opposition
to the policy on Crimea and sent a clear signal to the citizens of other
separatist regions within the Russian Federation, such as South Ossetia and
Abkhazia.
Indeed, the Kremlin leveraged on Article 280 to frustrate its political
opponents. The case of Ilmi Umerov, a leader of the Crimean Tatar activists, is
emblematic. In a live broadcast of the Ukrainian TV channel ATR, Umerov
advocated for the return of Crimea to Ukraine, not recognizing Russia’s
annexation of the territory on which Tatars have lived for centuries.[7] Notwithstanding
the dubious legality of Russia’s sovereignty over Crimea, a criminal case under
article 280 of the Russian criminal code was opened against Umerov, who was
eventually sentenced to two years in jail.[8] A
similar instance involved Vladimir Zavarkin, a municipal deputy in Suoyarvi, a
town located in Karelia.[9] Unsatisfied with the scarce economic and
administrative support from the Russian central government, Zavarkin put forth
the option of staging a referendum for independence during a rally attended by roughly
2000 people.[10] A few days later,
Zavarkin was put on trial under article 280.1 and eventually fined and stripped
of his mandate.
The Russian-speaking media outlet Meduza reports that in 2014, in the
immediate aftermath of the Crimean annexation, Art. 280.1 was applied in 15
cases.[11] It
is also important to note that these criminal cases were opened because they
violated article 280 of the Russian criminal code, though there are many other
articles exploited by the Kremlin to obtain the same results. For example,
those pertaining to the fight against the justification for terrorism (Art. 205.2),
the insult of the feelings of religious believers (Art. 148) and the incitement
of hatred (Art. 282) all contain widely interpretable language.
The repercussions of this inappropriate application of the Russian
criminal code affect both Russian citizens and the government. Firstly, these repressive
measures block the development of the traditionally weak Russian civil society.[12] Due
to the misuse of the abovementioned laws, the circulation of ideas is limited
and civil movements are dissuaded from expressing their disapproval of the
government’s policies. To be fair, we must admit that these measures against
freedom of speech and information are not enforced systematically. Rather, the
tactic is to enforce them randomly to discourage the spread of political
dissent.
Secondly, in the long run, this approach can backfire against the Russian
government. The main risk is driving all the dissent underground - for example
in the dark web - making it more difficult to control. Moreover, prolonged
limitations to freedom of speech radicalize the political opposition and
incentivize the adoption of violent methods.
Without a policy shift towards a more open and constructive dialogue with
society, the Russian government will have no alternative but implementing stronger
punishments and stricter controls to maintain the reformist forces in check.
This will upset the moderate part of Russian society and further radicalize the
political opposition, creating a dangerous vicious circle.
[1] The full text of the Russian Constitution is available at: http://www.constitution.ru/en/10003000-01.htm Accessed on March 28, 2018
[2] Soldatov, A., & Borogan, I. (2017). The
Red Web: The Kremlin's Wars on the Internet.
[3] The 2013 Press Freedom Index is available at: https://rsf.org/en/world-press-freedom-index-2013, Accessed on March 28, 2018
[4] “Revised Draft Opinion on the Federal Law on Combating Extremist
Activity of the Russian Federation’, CDL (2012)011rev-e, 2 June 2012 Available
at: http://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.aspx?pdffile=CDL(2012)011rev-e Accessed on March 28, 2018
[5] The amendment to Article 280 is available at: http://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_156577/3d0cac60971a511280cbba229d9b6329c07731f7/ Accessed on March 28, 2018
[6] “Revised Draft Opinion on the Federal law on Combating Extremist
Activity of the Russian Federation’, CDL(2012)011rev-e, point 28.1, June 2,
2012 Available at: http://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.aspx?pdffile=CDL(2012)011rev-e Accessed on March 28, 2018
[7] Kravchenko M. (2017, April 21). Inappropriate Enforcement of
Anti-Extremist Legislation in Russia in 2015 Available at: http://www.sova-center.ru/en/misuse/reports-analyses/2017/04/d36857/#_ftn1 Accessed on March 31, 2018
[8] Walker S. (2017, September 29). Crimean Tatar leader convicted of
‘separatism’ will not seek clemency Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/29/crimean-tatar-leader-ilmi-umerov-convicted-not-seek-clemency-russia
Accessed on March 31,
2018
[9] Hartog E. (2015, October 27) Karelian Activist on Trial After Calling
for Referendum on Secession From Russia Available at: https://themoscowtimes.com/news/karelian-activist-on-trial-after-calling-for-referendum-on-secession-from-russia-50497 Accessed on March 31, 2018
[10] Грани.Ру
(2015, July 31). В Карелии на муниципального депутата заведено дело о сепаратизме [blog post] Available at: https://graniru.org/Society/Law/m.243294.html
Accessed on March 31,
2018
[11] Translated from Russian by Sean Guillery (2016,
September 21). How ‘separatists' are prosecuted in Russia Independent lawyers
on one of Russia’s most controversial statutes Available at: https://meduza.io/en/feature/2016/09/21/how-separatists-are-prosecuted-in-russia Accessed on March 31, 2018
[12] Gel'Man, V. (2015). Political opposition in
Russia: A troubled transformation. Europe-Asia Studies,
67(2), 177-191.
Comments
Post a Comment