MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti political commentator Pyotr Romanov.) The appellate court has upheld Mikhail Khodorkovsky's sentence, which turned him from a defendant into a convict, therefore depriving the former oil tycoon of the opportunity to run for the Russian parliament in the forthcoming elections in Moscow that he and his associates had dreamed of.
Theoretically, another appeal is possible, but it does not seem likely that it will change anything. So the criminal case of the former owner of the Yukos oil empire has come to an end. The question is whether the same is true about Khodorkovsky's political career. History has seen many examples when jail only strengthened a prisoner's political ambitions, his spirit and ideology, as well as improved his influence in society. This, however, will hardly be the case.
There are several reasons to doubt it. First of all, it is becoming increasingly obvious that although Khodorkovsky wants power, he does not have a stable platform. The image of a liberal and democrat, created by his spin doctors, hung over him as a smokescreen for a long time, but gradually it began dissipate, partly due to the prisoner's own articles where his affinity towards leftist ideas surfaced, and partly due to some facts of his past that became public knowledge.
A telling example is a recent article written by Mark Deutsch for Gazeta. The facts he reports do not justify Khodorkovsky as a politician. There is no reason to mistrust Mark Deutsch, a committed liberal and journalist who worked for Radio Liberty and often criticized the Russian legal system in the context of Khodorkovsky's case.
His article can be seen as the first serious acknowledgement by democrats that they for a long time followed a lying prophet. Another is the news that the SPS (Union of Right Forces) will consider disciplinary action against members that joined a group promoting Khodorkovsky's candidacy for parliament. In other words, Russia's extreme right-wing party has expressed mistrust in the "sacred lamb of the liberal idea."
Deutsch reminds liberals that in recent years Khodorkovsky financed both the right and left wings, trying to insure his business against any trouble. Moreover, he has long suffered from a split of political personality. "In August 1991, he was one of the top executives at Menatep, a pyramid financial structure, which also included a bank of the same name," he writes. During the attempted coup, he sent part of his employees to help the defenders of the government building and another part to those who supported the insurgents. "I worked for Radio Liberty at that time and I remember very well how our radio station broadcast this poignant story." So, Khodorkovsky, the former young Communist leader, was ready to live both in the future - with Boris Yeltsin - and in the past - with the remains of the abhorrent Politburo. By moving to the left he easily passed social democracy.
Khodorkovsky has repeatedly stated that it was persecution by the authorities that made him go into politics. Deutsch uses documents to prove that the businessman was not sincere. Gazeta quotes protocols of meetings of the Open Russia organization born inside Yukos that he co-sponsored with co-owner Leonid Nevzlin. They reveal that the organization's goal was not to strengthen Russia's civil society, but to create a party specifically for Khodorkovsky. Of course, this is not a sin, but Deutsch doubts that the party was to be democratic.
He cites some of Open Russia's PR plans. One of them is called PR Strategy No. 1: Storm and Rush. Under it Mikhail Khodorkovsky was to be presented as the spiritual leader of Russian young people. Another one, titled Smokescreen, sought to disguise the true political ambitions of the organization and its leaders. Why would a democrat and "spiritual leader of young people" need a smokescreen? Documents obtained by Deutsch show that there were plans to set up 50 centers supporting Khodorkovsky in all regions of Russia. The number is not accidental, of course. To comply with the law on national parties, it must have divisions in at least 45 regions in order to be officially registered. It would be very logical to ask when Khodorkovsky really went into politics.
Another document that was obtained is a list of candidates for election. It was discussed on September 25, 2002. "Open Russia intended to get six of its deputies to parliament with each of the five parties that ran in the election," the journalist writes. "This gives us a total of 30. The same meeting discussed candidates from federal constituencies that numbered 58. The total of 88 makes quite an impressive force."
These documents show that the deputies' ideas and political persuasion are of no interest to Khodorkovsky. Deutsch also provides calculations showing how much money the organization needed to get candidates to vote as it wanted. As a politician, he slightly reminds of Zhirinovsky, who has gained wide notoriety both at home and abroad. There are only two differences. Khodorkovsky pays for services, while Zhirinovsky, as the mass media claims, is paid for services. Zhirinovsky is ready to do and say everything in order to stay near power. While Khodorkovsky is ready to do and say everything to get all the power. His ambitions are much greater. "Businessmen, who are concerned about not keeping all their eggs in one basket, call it caution," Deutsch writes. "But for politicians it is unscrupulousness, isn't it?"
Apparently, Khodorkovsky lost both in court and on the political stage. He is being abandoned by liberals and democrats. The former oligarch and secretary of a Moscow district young Communist committee will hardly be taken in by the left wing. The Bolsheviks took money from anyone, but that did not mean they were ready to admit any moneybag.
A split of political personality is a serious disease. It seems that Khodorkovsky will have to go back to the source and to do business and politics via his associates who remain out of prison, himself being reduced to a shadow. After all, he is evidently more successful in the twilight than in broad daylight.
