Two years ago, a 17-year-old anarchist entered a Federal Security Service building in Arkhangelsk, Russia, and blew himself up. Soon afterwards, Svetlana Prokopyeva, a freelance contributor who worked for the Russian service of The US-funded Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, made comments in which she inferred that the Russian government bore some of the responsibility for this terrorist attack because of the political climate that Putin had created. As a result of her remarks, Prokopyeva was arrested and placed on Russia’s official list of “terrorists and extremists.” The trial is underway, and she is likely to be sentenced to six years in prison and banned from working as a journalist for four years once her sentence is over. (source)
Three questions occurred to me after reading this article:
- How can the Russian government claim that Prokopyeva’s viewpoints are wrong when this very trial seems to confirm her comments that Putin’s authoritarianism has become unbearable? - I think the answer is obvious. But even if this case is blatantly unfair and abusive, the Putin administration doesn’t care that it may be perceived as brutish. It is an authoritarian regime whose internal popularity stems in extreme nationalism and conservatism. It is likely that people will regard Prokopyeva as a threat to Russia’s national values.
- Assuming that the political climate that Putin created in Russia is indeed an authoritarian one, was the 17-year-old anarchist justified in committing the terrorist attack? - I think the answer is no here. If the answer is yes, then any individual who perceives the authorities as oppressive will feel justified to detonate a bomb in a government building.
- Can political authorities be held responsible for people’s violent reactions to the government’s actions and decisions? - I think this is a more general question and I find the issue quite debatable.