Statement of Moscow bureau for human rights 

20th anniversary of the decease of Andrey Dmitiyevich Sakharov obliges us not just to recall the great human rights activist but also to think: why did his heritage get no adequate continuation?

This question may be responded in different ways. For example: unfortunately a person of this scale having similar indisputable authority did not appear in Russia during these years. Or: the political regime existing in our country does not permit a person similar to Sakharov ripening and showing its worth. Or: the democratic opposition in today’s Russia is too weak and incapable to propose the ideas that would be followed by significant public majority.

There is a grain of truth in each of these assertions but still they do not provide an answer that would satisfy us. Yes, we don’t see a leader similar to Sakharov today. But the conditions under which Sakharov lived and worked were tougher than today and this did not prevent him from acting “in spite of circumstances”. Yes, the democratic opposition is weak in our country and has no public support. But in 1960-1980s (up to Gorbachev’s time) it was even weaker and scantier and had no mass support either but it was a moral power the authority had to reckon with. And this moral power was basing to a great extent upon the firm position and fearlessness of academician Sakharov. Besides, other moral authorities were available in the country: father Alexander Men, Dmitry Likhachev, Alexander Solzhenitsin. It’s hard to call them human rights activists in the narrow sense of the word but they created the spiritual climate that enabled the development of human rights movement.

Before trying to respond the question set by us, it’s necessary to understand what the heritage of Sakharov is. Yelena Bonner wrote about this in detail in her recent article. But in brief words – this is (using Pushkin’s word) “self-reliance”, or standing in truth. Being a mild, intellectual, tolerant man, Sakharov was absolutely uncompromising when it dealt with moral principles. This took place under Brezhnev, Andropov, and Gorbachev. This would take place today too. No doubt many tendencies of contemporary Russian policy would get a sharp protest on the part of Andrey Dmiriyevich. He knew that considerations of “political expedience” and rationality that is perceived untruly can lead to a deadlock.

Sakharov was not just an outstanding scientist – he was a citizen and a fighter for human rights. Rights of not abstract but quite specific human. He did not avoid everyday, rough work. He sustained long-term calumnious campaign against himself and his nearest people stoically. Neither searches, nor actual arrest, nor exile could make him reject his views. He suffered from public incomprehension but did not leave the road he chose. He was really modest. Awareness of his own greatness was alien to him. He did not separate his life from the life of his country. The strength of spirit was his weapon.

Those who continue the cause of Sakharov today are people deserving every respect. They also withstand the state machine and undergo a real risk. But they work under the changed conditions. On one hand, human rights community exists legally and on the other hand it is disintegrated and acts in the atmosphere of social atomization, public apathy, disappointment with previous ideals and moral decline. Great courage is necessary for resisting almost general disbelief in favorable prospect for our country, for withstanding such an atmosphere that demoralizes the soul. It is necessary to maintain adherence to Sakharov’s moral imperative: “Do what is due and come what may”. This Socrates’ wisdom would not let down.

On December 16 Yegor Timurovich Gaidar died. A lot is already said about him – that this is a man who saved our country from hunger, civil war and disintegration, that this is s great economist and outstanding statesman, that this is a modest and courageous man. This is all fair enough, this is true. But how can one determine in brief formula who was Gaidar? Without fearing to be mistaken one can assert: Gaidar is a hero of our time, hero without quotes and without irony. His heroism was quiet, not ostentatious, and hidden.

But the hero does not only accomplish the feats – he suffers more than anyone. Instead of gratitude he deserved, Gaidar received another things: avalanche of hatred fell upon him. Not only on the part of Communists, ruling bureaucracy, numerous envious persons but also on the part of the majority that did not understand what Gaidar did for Russia and that yielded to malicious, pseudo-patriotic propaganda.

Years will pass and we think the majority would understand that it was mistaken cruelly, that it was for saving the country from blood and for saving the people from brutality and death that Gaidar’s reforms were undertaken.