Dani Garavelli: Pussy Riot pander to self-serving pop stars

By DANI GARAVELLI
Published on 19/08/2012 00:00

THE jailing of three members of Russian punk band Pussy Riot for performing an anti-Putin song in an orthodox cathedral is an affront to justice, of course it is. But the celebrity hoo-haa that has ­surrounded the trial has been as much an indictment of the superficiality of Western culture as it has been of life under Vladimir Putin.

The sight of pop stars ­jostling to back the band members, who look more like newbies at the Edinburgh Fringe than agents of political revolution, has been ­unedifying and counterproductive.

By staging highly visible displays of ­support, Sting, Paul McCartney, Madonna et al have shifted the focus away from the actions of a regime which is clamping down on dissent and on to the self-conscious and self-congratulatory libertarianism of the West. The donning of Pussy Riot T-shirts; the writing of supportive letters, is less an expression of solidarity than an exercise in gloating. “Look,” it says, “here in the West, Madonna can grind her crotch and bare her breast without being labelled ‘a moralising slut.’ ”

Their attitude is reckless as well as self-serving; these global superstars have nothing at stake. They can shout their mouths off about oppression at no risk to their personal safety. To put pressure on the remaining members of the Pussy Riot collective to continue their campaign, by crediting them with the power to change the system (what, like the Sex Pistols did?) may satisfy their appetite for grand gestures, but it does nothing to benefit the individual band members whose liberty will still be threatened after their famous cheerleaders have moved on. Especially given that a recent survey by an independent Russian polling agency suggested only 6 per cent of Russians sympathised with the band members, while 51 per cent felt either­ indifference, irritation or hostility.

The issue of political prisoners in Russia did not start with the arrest of the Pussy Riot protesters. Concern has been mounting about the apparently arbitrary jailing of Putin’s political opponents, including Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who criticised ­government corruption, since 2003. They have not attracted much public sympathy, partly because many of them are former oligarchs and partly because the waters have been muddied with accusations of tax evasion and embezzlement.

The reason Pussy Riot have become a cause célèbre is not just because they’re artists, or women, but because they chose to protest in an ultra-provocative way which appeals to Western sensibilities. Not for them the dignified cessation of ­artistic endeavour and impassioned speeches of those behind the Velvet Revolution or the self-immolation of those who inspired the Arab Spring. No, the jailed women – whose previous exploits include drawing a phallus on St Petersburg Bridge and one of the women stealing a chicken from a supermarket and stuffing it into her vagina – chose to disrupt a service in Christ the Saviour ­Cathedral in Moscow. And there’s nothing the liberal, secular West enjoys more than a direct attack on Christianity, particularly if it involves mocking what other people hold sacred.

I understand that the women were hitting out not at the religion itself, but at the way the Russian Orthodox Church, under Patriarch Kirill, has cosied up to the Putin regime, and against Kirill’s extravagance, including his sporting of a £20,000 Breguet watch. This seems entirely worth protesting. But one woman’s amazing piece of political theatre is another’s crass publicity stunt and I question whether the best way to draw attention to the Church’s dubious behaviour is to invoke the Virgin Mary to become a feminist or to declare: “The Lord’s shit.” It also seems to me that referencing the 1990s feminist punk movement Riot Grrrl, with its First World preoccupations, suggests a serious dislocation from the more modest aspirations of oppressed women across the globe, who are fighting for the right to vote, go to school, drive a car.

None of this justifies Pussy Riot’s treatment by the Russian regime. Those who covered the trial say it was a travesty, with the accused denied food and sleep, and defence witnesses and lawyers ignored. It has drawn attention to Putin’s increasingly repressive policies, which include recriminalising libel and introducing huge fines for unauthorised demonstrations.

But we should be wary of buying in too readily to the hyperbolic language of some commentators who have said that the case takes Russia back 100 years and compared it to Stalin’s show trials. It suits the West’s xenophobia to portray Russia as heavy-handed and intolerant (particularly given the country’s current stance on Syria). At the very least such criticism deflects attention away from its own economic, social and judicial failings, not least its collusion in the torture of terror suspects. Nor should anyone labour under the illusion that a British feminist punk group who invaded a mosque and insulted Mohammed during Friday prayers would be treated with equanimity.

Pressure on Putin is rising, with Amnesty International behind a series of petitions calling for the women to be freed. If celebrity attention can bring enough pressure to bear, that will be a victory of sorts. But the fate of Alexei Navalmy – the anti-corruption activist and opposition leader accused of embezzlement who has attracted none of the showbiz ­furore of Pussy Riot – will still hang in the balance. If Russia is, as its critics claim, heading towards a new era of repression, it will take more than a punk band’s anarchic acts and a bunch of do-good celebrities to force it to change tack.