Anatoliy Globa-Mikhailenko

ANATOLIY GLOBA-MIKHAI’LENKO: Good evening, friends.

Although I myself am probably a modern political prisoner, it's the first time I've attended such an event. And to be honest, I am surprised that among the experts there is not one modern political prisoner. Although for example both Maksim Gromov, who’s just come forward, and I are here. This is bad. Because people who are knowledgeable of the topic talk about political prisoners, yet have never actually been political prisoners themselves.

What is a political prisoner? This is not an article nor someone’s subjective assessment. It is a historical-temporal factor. It is the sum of certain actions of a person and the state which pursues them. That is why we cannot really say that “this is a bad, and this is a good political prisoner.” He’s just the way he is. It is a concept above all black and white definitions of good and evil. We cannot speak like this here. Therefore, the question of whether Tikhonov and Khasis are political prisoners, or those of us who occupied the Ministry of Health, or people who seized the presidential administration, cannot as such be made.

What has pleased me? It’s the idea that all should be treated equally on a legal basis. Those who go on peaceful demonstrations and are terrorists. All those who happened to be behind bars, one way or another, for political reasons. The view of Amnesty International is close to mine.

What else is important? On my way to this gathering, I familiarised myself with the list of questions. One of them has not been heard here. It is the opportunity for an agreement between diverse political forces. If we were to organise some expert councils and gatherings for evaluating whether a person is a political prisoner or not, it is important to bear in mind that the political affiliations of a man, whether to the liberals, communists or nationalists, do not matter. What is important is that cases of prisoners are objectively assessed. These cases should probably be reviewed so as to give an objective assessment of their deeds.

I am not saying that all political prisoners should be immediately released. Speaking of myself, I do not deny that during our seizure of the Ministry of Health we held some blame for disturbing the public order. After all, we went there and held a rally. It’s likely people in the Ministry of Health weren’t happy about it. Another question is whether it was necessary to give us five years? An objective assessment needs to be there, that is the most important thing.

In regards to the status of a political prisoner, we already had it. Because of this, we have had “political prisoners” in our history who incorrectly wielded in their hands the portrait of a leader. If we were to think in such terms, a string of them will now appear. Society recognises political prisoners on the basis of what the person did, but also on the basis of public response provoked by his actions.

Next ›

Back to Overview of Part II ›