Why do we ourselves do what we accuse the citizens of Russia and Belarus of?

From his point of view, citizens of the Russian Federation need to retain this right in local elections, at least as a political outlet. He does not consider it possible to express this opinion in his publication or even openly on a social network. And in my circle of friends he is not the only one.

At the same time, we both understand perfectly how symptomatic it is when, in a democratic state with a high place in the press freedom rating, a practicing journalist who considers the actions of politicians unreasonable and unfair in relation to part of the population remains silent, because it is hellishly inconvenient to speak out -not a very generally accepted position. And I understand perfectly why. This is truly hellishly difficult and psychologically unnatural, which is why periodically this or that country experiences its own “era of silence.” Where this was allowed and where institutions are unable to prevent this process. Countries where they are interested in, for example, rewriting the Constitution.

There is nothing exceptional in the dictatorship of Putin and Lukashenko, this is a natural result of socio-political processes and the very connivance of which we now accuse the citizens of the Russian Federation and Belarus, although in similar circumstances, without a doubt, they would have ignored the obvious political changes in the same way, leading us away from the hypothetical ideal democracy. And while my colleague and I would like to believe that EU membership gives Estonia some immunity from sliding a little closer to dictatorship, we both know that there is no special vaccine against it. And our colleagues in Hungary and Slovakia have already seen this.

Another topic that has come up too often lately in private conversations is, excuse me, the “final solution” to the famous national question. Too often, in conversations with people who do not know each other, of different ages and nationalities, this parallel is drawn for it to be accidental. That same feeling of evil in the air when those with whom you shared work and leisure yesterday, today avert their eyes, although, like you, they consider depriving part of the population of the rights they had to be wrong. And those whom you brought to power, foaming at the mouth, prove that the loss of rights, citing the crimes of others, is in the interests of your own state. Because you have no other.

Of course, the comparison with Endlösung is hyperbolic. But it’s good to keep it in mind, because, I repeat, social processes are not unique to each country, and accordingly, their possible results are to one degree or another predictable. Otherwise, why do we study history at all?

What trade-offs are we talking about when we punish a population group with deprivation of rights for a crime they did not commit? What kind of social solidarity can we talk about when we demand that holders of incorrect passports sign a signature of loyalty, but at the same time we do not demand this from an Estonian politician who believes that if we give the occupied territories of Ukraine to Russia, the war will not come here? Although, of course, he also has every right to any, even the most idiotic, opinion.

Institutionalized massive inequality is itself a problem, and now we are about to make it worse, without thinking about the blow this decision will have on trust in the state, on political forces professing liberal values, on relationships, productivity and the ability to jointly confront genuine threats. By depriving non-citizens of the right to political choice, we do not leave it to those to whom such a decision does not seem worthy of a rule-of-law state. It would be worth keeping this in mind.