The political toss is excited over a new novel “Political Scientist” written by Alexander Prokhanov, chief editor of the Russian nationalist-patriotic newspaper Zavtra. This piece of literature is really shocking. Prokhanov reveals to his readers a bunch of scandalous details, furiously attacks the opposition, which on the pages of his book looks no better than the ruling elite. He jeers at his friends’ anti-Semitic views and literally throws dirt at the leaders of the Russian Communist Party.

Needless to say that the names have been changed, but all the details are rendered very meticulously. In addition to that, the way characters’ looks are described leaves no room for mistake.

Everybody gets attacked in the novel. It is only the Rodina Party, which is conspicuous by its absence. And it is actually not surprising. On the one hand, the consciousness didn’t let the author write anything good about this political force (it is worth mentioning that with all its cynicism the novel still managed to be surprisingly honest), and on the other hand, he didn’t dare to berate the sponsor of the newspaper Zavtra. Besides, it is Prokhanov himself who is also absent on the pages of the novel. While being very scrupulous in describing scandalous events related to the loss of money, which had been appropriated by the oligarchs for the Communist Party electoral campaign in 2003, and in featuring the intrigues and squabbles between the Communist Party leaders, he modestly kept quiet about his own role. Well, not quite…

The only character, who is not fully recognizable is the main character - political analyst Strizhaylo. Clearly enough, this character is a product of compilation, though definitely not lacking the prototype. In his review posted on Forum.msk famous “red” spin doctor Anton Surikov noted that Strizhylo’s portrait was copied from the famous Russian political analyst Stanislav Belkovsky. With no doubt, “his deeds and his sins - it’s not just Belkovsky, but at least Alexander Prokhanov himself as well. Thereunto those are Marat Gelman, Sergei Batchikov, Anatoly Baranov, Alexei Kondaurov, Ilya Ponomaryov, and your humble narrator after all. Yet, psychologically, metaphysically, mentally, Strizhaylo is definitely Belkovsky”, wrote Anton Surikov.

So, the main character of the novel is in some way the mirror image of the author himself. And this character is far from being positive. That is why one cannot simply identify him with Belkovsky, and it is not enough to mention that this character doesn’t look like his main prototype. But strangely enough, Belkovsky doesn’t deny similarity between this character and himself. Moreover, he was proud to attend the ceremony of “Political Scientist” launch where he played the part of Strizhaylo, fully merging with his fictitious counterpart. Given that Strizhaylo is shown as a downright scoundrel (though not deprived of talents and prone to reflection at times), Belkovsky’s behavior at the ceremony looked strange. Needless to say that nowadays the Russian political community is ruled by the logic of its own. Any reputation in these circles is a bad reputation if judged according to norms of ordinary life. As for the popularity - be it the one of a villain - it is always praised as a political capital which helps to gain the financial one.

Russian spin doctors, journalists, apparatchiks, and all those who are engaged in the political process are proudly posing as the main participants in this process. No wonder that today the Russian bookshops are literally overwhelmed by revealing stories of the former press-secretaries and journalists admitted to the top-ranking officials. Those stories mostly tell “how it all really happened”. At the same time the authors’ own roles are shown off. They are displayed as a way more important than it seemed to be. In such books everything looks dirty, cynical, and ridiculous at times, but they do a good job feeding curiosity of those who strive for learning about “how the strings are pulled in power and politics”. No doubt, the majority of the facts described are real enough. Moreover, if to make allowance for gaps in the memory of the authors, who necessarily idealize themselves, it is easy to see that things were even worse than they appear in this kind of books. However, all these stories have nothing to do with the real driving forces of the political process.

Imagine that you see a two dimension record of a vehicle’s route. It shows some weird curves and circles with little signs of moves forward. Some people would try to explain these oddities by a specific performance of the vehicle’s motor; others would blame the driver’s temper; whereas the rest would consider his interaction with the passengers to be the cause. Some of these observations might be quite true and witty. But just casting a glance on a map, they all would discover that the car is driving in the mountains. There are no forks or turns. The driver takes the only route he’s been shown.

Or, rather, there is no road at all. Picture an anchorless ship, which has run out of fuel, its machinery has broken down, the navigation equipment doesn’t function, the steering-wheel is stuck, and the radio is good only for the internal use (pouring loads of optimistic garbage on spacey passengers). With all that, on the upper deck people are fighting for the bridal suites. The captain’s bridge has become a hotbed of intrigue, whereas navigator and his aids keep jangling over the salvation plan. The men responsible for propaganda are pushing each other and fighting for the intercom microphone. Occasionally, some of the appliances actually start functioning, but it doesn’t improve the situation. The officers’ scramble details might either be exiting or disgusting. But the ship keeps drifting with the stream anyways.

When hit a rock the ship will sink. The newspaper might mention its captain’s name. But no one will ever recall either his aides, or the ambitious company officers, claiming to navigate the doomed ship.

The Prokhanov’s novel is unlikely to be added on the list of the Russian classics or even to become a course book on the country’s political culture in the 21st century. Not because it was badly written, but because the topic chosen is too vain, and the characters are too worthless.

Boris Kagarlitsky is a Director of The Institute for Globalization Studies.

October 24, 2005