A year has passed since Alexei Navalny died in a Russian penal colony — a death his supporters believe was ordered by the Kremlin. Twelve months later, President Vladimir Putin and his inner circle, the ones Navalny was fighting, are still in power, and the mass opposition protests that were once Navalny’s greatest strength have evaporated.
Meanwhile, Navalny’s Anti-Corruption Foundation (the ACF, also known by its Russian acronym, FBK) — which in his lifetime outraged millions with its revelations of corruption among Russia’s highest officials, including Putin — has “irrevocably lost” its authority, said independent Russian political scientist Alexander Kynev.
Speaking with DW, Kynev said the ACF was once a figurehead of the opposition, an organization that influenced political life in Russia. “The ACF was always worth reporting on; it was an event in itself.”
But that, he said, is no longer the case, for two main reasons. The first was Navalny’s arrest. “As soon as the most important opposition politician had been isolated, the field of political action was reduced,” he said. Public interest in “second or third-level” figures, as Kynev called Navalny’s inner circle, was no comparison to the interest in Navalny himself.
Russia’s war in Ukraine changed the conversation
Kynev believes the general public began to lose interest after Navalny’s arrest, when the focus shifted to the struggle for his release. “It was no longer a fight for the people, for the interests of Russia, but a fight for him as an individual,” he explained.
The second reason is Russia’s war against Ukraine, which Kynev, who lives in Moscow, referred to as a “special operation.” The use of the term “war” in connection with the Ukraine conflict is still punishable by law in Russia.
This “special operation” drastically changed the political agenda, he said. “Put simply: When there are armed conflicts, the country is living under sanctions, and in an emergency situation, the topic of corruption investigations against a few big and small officials very much becomes a secondary concern,” he said.
According to Kynev, Navalny’s ACF has now been “relegated to the outermost fringes of the public interest,” with nothing more to offer. That’s despite the fact that many political activists, including Navalny’s wife Yulia Navalnaya, have fled Russia in the past three years, and could have made a fresh start and spoken for at least part of Russian society.
Opposition fragmented without Navalny
Instead, Navalny’s people — all well known as Kremlin critics — have had to defend themselves against accusations from other notable dissidents. These claimed that the ACF, which had spent years exposing dirty dealings with its investigative research, had itself resorted to dubious activities. A full-blown mudslinging battle ensued in certain Russian exile media and social media outlets.
As the former lawmaker Dmitry Gudkov told DW, it wasn’t just the Navalny Foundation that was affected. “Unfortunately, the opposition has failed to unite and agree on anything,” he said.
Gudkov, too, now lives in exile. Last August, he was sentenced in absentia to eight years in prison, accused of “discrediting the Russian army.” Gudkov had publicly criticized the Russian offensive in Ukraine.
However, as Gudkov said, it’s difficult for the opposition to agree on any measures, “because nothing is really possible from abroad. All we can do is support the media in conveying our point of view to a section of the public.”
He also can’t think what sort of political action in Russia could actually effect any change, as “anyone who takes to the streets now is given a long prison sentence.”
Have people been demoralized by Navalny’s death?
Maxim Reznik, another former Russian politician, agrees with Gudkov. Once a member of the St. Petersburg parliament for the opposition party Yabloko, he too had to flee abroad because of his criticism of the Kremlin. Speaking with DW, Reznik criticized the opposition’s inability to unite.
“None of us is a moral benchmark; we’re as far from Navalny as the moon,” he said. “We shouldn’t try to take his place, which can’t be taken. But we should try to grasp his legacy, which, in my view, consists of coming together to fight.”
Reznik said Navalny’s death may have discouraged people who wanted to get actively involved in the opposition and resistance. “I think that, among other things, Putin’s aim was to shock society again, and the murder of Navalny was an attempt to kill hope,” he said. “Many people became discouraged, disillusioned, lost faith, and experienced tremendous pain.”
However, he added, there are others who are capable of “processing this pain, who keep on going, and are doing everything to make sure Alexei’s sacrifice was not in vain.”
Reznik believes that, for this reason, there will still be freedom fighters in Russia in future. “I am firmly convinced that, sooner or later, Navalny will win this fight,” he said, optimistically.
‘Who will have the courage now?’
Gudkov believes Navalny’s name will increasingly take on symbolic meaning, inspiring more and more people over time. However, he pointed out that Navalny’s “murder took place in the second year of the war, when the regime in Russia could already no longer be curbed.”
He believes that, for many people, this made his death less shocking; instead, it “intensified their abhorrence of the government.”
At the same time, he thinks it’s a lesson for the future. “In Russia, it is customary for people always to shy away from responsibility. A politician shows up, and everyone thinks he’ll do it all for them. He gives them hope. Navalny, who showed no fear in prison, gave us this hope. But the symbol of fearlessness was killed. Who will have the courage now to do something on behalf of us all?”
This article was originally written in German.
