Ronald Hingley on the ideals of a dissident
Andrei Sakharov, now in his early fifties, is the rn„nst prominent political dissident active in the L'SSR of 1974. An outstanding atomic physicist, Once known as 'Father of the Soviet H-bomb' (a description which he himself disavows), Sakharov stood for many years near the peak of the rlrernl105 privilegocracy. Within the pecuar limits of that society he enjoyed enormous status and fabulous wealth. All these things Sakharov has sacrificed in order to become a kind of one-man political n„PPosition. He began by trying to induce rushchev to change some of his policies — Intervening to protest against that rumbustious statesman's crackpot educational proposals, and also attacking the Lysenkoite establishrrient which at one time held a stranglehold on Soviet geneticist theory. Fortunately Khrushchev fell from power just as he was showing signs of going gunning for the brash Sakharov. Thus reprieved, that gadfly of Soviet officialdoni graduated to 'addressing the world in general, and Secretary-General Brezhnev in Particular, with a series of provocative manifestos. These have been privily circulated throughout the Kremlinite orbit on the samiz5Qt network, and more widely and openly loroadcast by Western publicity media. Sakharov has also become, within the difficult Soviet context, a busy petition-signer, a champion of persecuted individuals and an agitator for civil rights. To give up serious work in order to become a Politically philosophising pundit . . . anyone Ignorant of Sakharov's precise programme might be forgiven for expecting a stream of Sheer dottiness. In fact he is by far the most level-headed dissident of them all. Here, in this new book,* are his opinions as expressed in a sequence of documents dating back to 1968, When the same publishers brought out his b, road-sheet Progress. Coexistence and Intellectual Freedom. That work is here reprinted together with an updated introduction by Mr Harrison Salisbury and a number of later, s. honer policy statements. There are also two 1.niPortant interviews: one with a Swedish Journalist, another with a Soviet Deputy Public Prosecutor,
Harrison E. Salisbury's introduction is a Pseful and workmanlike affair, marred by an Insistence on referring to Russian notables in the style "Lavrenty P. Beria," and by a grossly Misleading and sentimental profile of the
Russian intelligentsia. It is followed by a second introduction, by Sakharov himself, in which the same points are made all over again, rather More crisply, after which we come to the meat Of the matter.
As the material shows, Sakharov's thinking has by no means stood still over the last six Years. His 1968 pronunciamento is largely concerned with international affairs — with an *Sakharov Speaks Andrei D. Sakharov (Collins and Harvill Press E.300)
alleged tendency for the Western and Soviet 'systems' to converge; with the desirability of ending the arms race; with the need for the USSR and the USA to co-operate in solving global problems such as environmental pollution and overpopulation.
Since then further reflection has turned Sakharov's eyes inwards upon the Soviet Union. He soon began to realise that his 1968 programme presupposed, in his own country, a degree of progressive liberalisation which was just not on the cards. Not being a Western 'expert' or Russia-fancier, but simply an intelligent man living in the place, Sakharov can see precious little trace of any dismantling of totalitarian controls. He has therefore switched his energies to bringing about such a desirable consummation. That he is in disgrace with the Soviet authorities; that he has lost his main job; that he and his relatives are subjected to official harassment; that he is the object of a bitter campaign in the Soviet press and so on . . . these have been the more or less inevitable consequences of his activities. All these troubles he could foresee, and he is well aware that he may be running far worse risks. What sort of future does this outstanding Russian want for his country? The last thing he desires is any violent upheaval or new revolution which would sweep away Communism lock, stock and barrel. Rather does he seek a phased democratisation within a system which — he hopes — might be induced gradually to demolish itself; for — unlike many another dissident — he retains few illusions about the desirability of Muscovite-style 'socialism.' Early steps in the democratising process would be freedom for Soviet citizens to emigrate; the liberation of all political prisoners; the abandonment of the atrocious disposition whereby psychiatric hospitals are used as detention centres for dissidents; free, multi-candidate elections.
Sakharov would, in general, be glad to see the establishment of the rule of law in the USSR, knowing full well that the Soviet Constitution enshrines all manner of sweeping democratic freedoms which no one can in practice lay claim to. Such democratisation is not merely desirable for its own sake, claims Sakharov, but is even essential for purely economic reasons. He sees the USSR falling back as an industrial competitor in the modern world, and even sinking into the status of second-rate power, owing to technological stagnation and, in particular, to a pathetically low level of computerological sophistication. These defects directly stem, in his view, from the generalised system of bureaucratic terror which inhibits a free flow of ideas and information, both across and within the Soviet frontiers.
Less concerned with world affairs than formerly, Sakharov has outlived the stage when he saw the Chinese as the supreme danger to Russia and the world: that point of view he now considers overstated. As for the West, Sakharov is extremely disillusioned — as well he might be — by the general failure to appreciate the nature of Kremlinite terroristic bureaucracy and the kind of menace which it poses. He cannot understand why Western states are so willing and even eager to play the coexistence game by Russian rules; the answer is, of course, short-term advantage sought by politicians from electorates judged — perhaps mistakenly — to be moronic. Be that as it may, Sakharov is sufficiently sophisticated in Western political matters to support, for example, the recent Jackson Amendment put forward in the USA with the intention of making increased American-Russian co-operation dependent on a relaxation of Soviet emigration controls.
None of this is, to put it mildly, intellectually stimulating, and personally I find it all as dull as ditchwater. But that is only because I agree with almost every single word of it: with the Sakharov of 1973-4, that is, more than with the Sakharov of 1968. At one point, though, the material really did begin to flare into life for me: half way through the interview with the Swedish journalist 011e Stenholm, Sakharov makes it clear that he is by no means, at heart, a starry-eyed visionary but rather a pessimist and a tragic figure. He is certainly not so naive as to think that he heads or belongs to a powerful 'movement' which will eventually transform Russia and the world. "If a man does not keep silent it does not mean that he hopes to achieve something," he told Mr Stenholm, . Sakharov simply soldiers on, not because he believes he will win, but because, like Martin Luther he Kann nicht cinders. He also feels that "there is a need to create ideals, even when you can't see any route by which to achieve them." He hopes, too, that the history of Russia might at least serve as a warning to the world. It should, as he is made to say in this lamentably cumbrous translation, "hold back the West and the developing countries from committing mistakes on such a scale as we have done during our historical development."
What a hope! When some archaeologist of the future seeks to document the fall of our civilisation he may well list Andrei Sakharov as one of the few prominent men of his age who was not engaged in somehow or other undermining his environment, and who seems to have been geared by no subconscious death-wish.
Ronald Hingley has most recently written Joseph Stalin: Man and Legend, published. by Hutchinson
Previous page
