Skip to Content

Navalny: Russian Laurent Louis or an ordinary provocateur?

The Grand Chamber of the ECHR will meet in Strasbourg on January, 24 to review the case of Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny, again, since on February, 2 2017 the ECHR had ruled in the Navalny vs. Russia case: there were violations, but no political motive by the state. Will the decision be the same now, after Navalny's bid for the presidency of the Russian Federation failed?

Published: January 23, 2018, 10:41 pm

    However, the complaints of Navalny – perhaps, the most famous opposition in Russia, who has gained popularity with videos about corruption in the highest echelons of power ‒ do not deal with the election. During the first two years of Vladimir Putin’s third term (2012 to 2014) he had been charged with administrative penalties seven times for organising unauthorized rallies and participating in them. For the same violations, the punishment varied: five times he was fined, and put under 15 days of arrest after serving 7 days.

    At that time the Court decided that Navalny’s rights to freedom and personal inviolability, to a fair trial and to freedom of assembly and association (articles 5, 6, 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights) were indeed violated. Why was Navalny not satisfied with the fact that the ECHR refused to recognise the political underpinnings of these actions by the Russian authorities in dismissing the charges of violations of articles 14 (“prohibition of discrimination”) and 18 (“limits of the use of restrictions on rights”) of this Convention.

    Alexei Navalny. Photo: Wiki

    Navalny insists: all this time he was persecuted as a politician, and the purpose of the persecution is to crush the opposition. The Russian Laurent Louis, who fights the system on his own – that is how he is being portrayed. Similarly to Louis, Navalny has flirted with nationalist rhetoric, uncovered stories that had been buried or that people had just been afraid to tell. But, unlike Louis, he has never criticised the United States of America.

    Recently the Russian Constitutional Court ended Navalny’s bid to participate in the presidential election in Russia. It is scheduled for March 18, and incumbent President Vladimir Putin will stand for a fourth time, with Navalny considered to be his main rival.

    Research by Russian sociologists show that the antagonist have no real chance of defeating the long-standing Russian leader, while Navalny himself, as well as a number of high-ranking North American and European politicians, maintain that Putin is afraid of Navalny, seeing him as a “threat” in a repeat of the Ukrainian scenario in Russia.

    Formally, the evidence considered by the ECHR, as well as the measures taken against Navalny, played no part in barring Navalny from participating in election. The Central Election Commission, and then the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, ruled instead that Navalny’s criminal conviction prevented him from registering as a presidential candidate. A case of embezzlement was brought against him at the enterprise ‘Kirovles’, located in one of the northern regions of Russia ‒ the Kirov region. Navalny was then an advisor to the governor of this region, Nikita Belykh, who is currently accused of receiving a large bribe and under arrest.

    Navalny himself was found guilty of committing this crime, which according to Russian legislation is classified as particularly serious. He was given a suspended sentence: that is, left at large, where he continued to engage in political activities, becoming one of the leaders of a small Russian opposition.

    Notably, the ECHR never considered the “Kirovles case”, but rather focused on the detention of Navalny at rallies. Alexei Navalny is thus questioning the legitimacy of the election, because it is politically expedient to ignore accusations of state plundering but not how the politician’s rights are said to have been trampled.

    Navalny, in particular, claims that the police had no reason to push him into the special vehicle each time and take him to the station instead of writing a protocol on violations on the spot. Hence, their goal was to neutralize him, to deliberately deprive him of the right to say what he thinks, a politically motivated decision to deprive him of the opportunity to accuse the Russian authorities of corruption and lawlessness.

    Photographic evidence of those meetings where these detentions took place and the accompanying descriptions of those events may point to a different plan, however.

    The scheme of an unauthorised rally in Russia is a familiar one. A protest gathering where some “reasonable” slogans are being displayed, becomes tense when the police repeatedly asks the gathered to disperse, in order to adhere to legal requirements. The once orderly and calm atmosphere becomes unruly, and then someone ‒ of course, not Navalny himself ‒ “accidentally” pushes one of the policemen, setting fire to a combustible mix as tempers flare.

    Scuffles ensue, detentions follow and likely violence too: It becomes a perfect opportunity to take photographs of demonstrators suffering the blows of a police baton, but not to document the bloodied law enforcers. Do the latter deserve that? And are the protesters really prisoners of conscience?

    It may all have been accidents, but such incidents are regularly presented as examples of police brutality and aggression.

    In scrutinising the recent cases of approvals and disapprovals of Navalny’s meetings in Russia, we see a paradoxical tendency. One can not help but notice that the truth is that Navalny’s requests for rallies are more often approved than rejected.

    It is an established fact that Navalny is either often a no-show at scheduled rallies or calls on supporters to suddenly change the location. At any rate, he seems to be doing his utmost to elicit disapproval from authorities.

    It may even be that by inviting clashes with police – an inevitable outcome in the case of an illegal public gathering – the real goal of Alexei Navalny becomes apparent, since skirmishes with law enforcement are always a threat to safety, even to casual passers-by. For any provocateur, affected “civilians” would actually be a godsend. Is the same thing true in the case of Navalny?

    The Russians have a saying: “It’s good where we do not exist” meaning that the underdog always has an advantage in a stand-off. But for Europeans it may be that worshipping the underdog is easier in a different country, not too close to home. Those who struggle with power, who overthrow regimes, and who arrange excitement, are not necessarily always national heroes.

    In Brussels, on November 26, 2017, the rally against slavery in Libya turned into a massacre after about 30 people in balaclavas appeared among the demonstrators. They headed to the street of Louise, where they began to smash shopfronts. They felt that their right to speak was above someone’s right to private property, to health and safety.

    And these are the words of the mayor of Brussels Philippe Clos on that day: “Provocateur behavior is unacceptable, and the police response ‒ immediate and tough.” Was there a time and a desire for the subordinates of mayor Clos to draft protocols on the ground, and was there any political motive linked to their actions? And would the owners of the affected shops and boutiques object to law enforcement immediately intervening in the “unacceptable behavior provocateurs”?

    Russians raise a question that Europeans too may ponder: what kind of freedom is absolute? Which right is inherent? Freedom and the right to a rally, including an unauthorised one? Or freedom and the right to security, including ‒ to life?

    It may be possible that the timely detention of Navalny ‒ not discounting the violations and excesses of authority ‒ had helped the Russians to avoid mass clashes between the police and demonstrators, and to avoid dozens of arrested, scores of injured, and mounting manufactured discontent.

    Keep ​your language polite​. Readers from many different countries visit and contribute to Free West Media and we must therefore obey the rules in​,​ for example​, ​Germany. Illegal content will be deleted.

    If you have been approved to post comments without preview from FWM, you are responsible for violation​s​ of​ any​ law. This means that FWM may be forced to cooperate with authorities in a possible crime investigation.

    If your comments are subject to preview ​by FWM, please be patient. We continually review comments but depending on the time of day it can take up to several hours before your comment is reviewed.

    We reserve the right to del​ete​ comments that are offensive, contain slander or foul language, or are irrelevant to the discussion.

    • rapid31

      Putin can be respected or not respected, but considered that Navalny equal rival to Putin in the elections of the President of Russia is complete idiocy. For Navalny, there is no valuable support, with the exception of the United States. This is why Navalny is not popular. Russian do not like those who live at the expense of others, all seeking with someone’s help. We have about say: “the raking fire proxy”. Navalny without the support of the US – loser.

    Europe

    Official files a complaint against anti-Macron comments on Facebook

    The prefect of the Drôme, a department in southeast France wants to file a complaint against a Facebook user, who had denounced an "apartheid" speech by Emmanuel Macron on Facebook. Macron had spoken of his desire for a "society of vigilance".

    Influential economist predicts the end of fossil energy by 2028

    Jeremy Rifkin believes the fossil fuel civilization will collapse by 2028, and he has proposed a bold economic plan to counter that.

    German journalist says climate protests are for the privileged only

    The journalist Dirk Maxeiner has accused the "Fridays for the Future" movement of having no sense of the everyday problems of a large part of society.

    Salvini plans massive anti-government rally in Rome

    RomeThe anti-immigration League party leader Matteo Salvini said on Thursday that Saturday's massive anti-government rally would be open to all including the CasaPound party.

    Dutch MPs demand investigation into Ukraine’s role in MH17 crash

    The HagueUkraine will cooperate in an investigation that should answer why Ukrainian airspace was not closed during the downing of flight MH17 on July 17, 2014. Dutch Foreign Minister Stef Blok said he received this commitment from Ukrainian President Zelenski.

    An elected RN official challenges a veiled woman

    Julien Odoul, a member of Marine Le Pen's National Rally (RN) and other elected RN officials created a controversy by asking a woman accompanying the class of her son to remove her veil at a plenary meeting of the Regional Council of Burgundy-Franche-Comté, on Friday, October 11.

    Nobel highlights male scientific achievements

    This week, as every year, the Nobel Prize winners were announced. The winners in the categories physics, chemistry and medicine are, as in many years before, exclusively male.

    Marine Le Pen: ‘The State is criminally absent’

    ParisDuring a recent press conference, Marine Le Pen, the leader of National Rally in France, addressed the deadly jihadist attack on the central Police Prefecture in Paris, as well as the effect that mass Islamic immigration is having on public order in France.

    Several French police stations targeted by Islamist chants

    ParisSeveral law enforcement establishments in the Paris region were targeted by Islamist chants in the wake of the Paris knife attacker's rampage at police headquarters. A complaint has been filed.

    Malta Pact on migrant redistribution a flop as landings increase

    RomeItaly's former Interior Minister Matteo Salvini noted the increase in migrants landings and said the new leftist coalition's open port policy should be blamed for recent deaths of migrants in the Mediterranean Sea.

    Go to archive