Сообщаю также, что слово Riot означает "бунт; восстание, мятеж, нарушение общественной тишины и порядка, разгул; необузданность.
На плакате, который держит мой анонимный оппонент написано: "free speech zones make me riot", что означает приблизительно: "зона свободных высказываний превратила меня в хулигана" Между прочим снимок для пущей конспирации также зашифрован. представьте себе его номер: 785759_366894
На эту тему можно также прочесть:
20.06.2002, Shamseeva E.
Rioting in Moscow: the Inside of Russian Democracy
The overwhelming majority of respondents (93%) are aware of the rioting that occurred in central Moscow on June 9 (80% of the respondents said they “know” about the events and 13% said they “have heard something about it”). Naturally, the most informed people were from groups with the most resources (respondents with university or college degrees, residents of large cities, and also respondents whose monthly income is over 1,500 rubles).The awareness level in these groups varied from 96% to 100%, which is similar to the results of the expert poll. There is no doubt that such high awareness of these events is due to the promptness of the mass media, which the majority of the experts noted:
• “As far as promptness is concerned, the television people did great” (expert, Volgograd).
• “No doubt, everything was prompt and fast – the mass media worked excellent” (expert, Yekaterinburg).
• “I watched it right after the soccer game, and I was amazed at how prompt the mass media was, I liked it” (expert, Kemerovo).
• “In general, it was quite prompt, especially the television … Unforgettable, unique shots from the scene, especially from the RTR vehicle, which was just ravaged, everybody was getting hurt, glass was broken, the camera was jumping in the hands of the cameraman” (expert, Novokuznetsk).
• “Unfortunately, the mass media was more prompt than the police. Because they were airing the rioting while the policemen themselves must have still been watching soccer” (expert, St. Petersburg).
The respondents did not arrive at a common conclusion on the causes of the rioting. However, the experts were more unanimous in the search for the culprit. The respondents were asked two open-ended questions: about the main cause for the rioting and about the possible culprit. Although at first it seems that these questions are aimed at clarifying one problem, this is not true. The question about the causes of the riot is more general, as it aimed at finding out to what extent Russians see these events as an uncontrolled “adrenaline surge,” which can occur in other societies as well and at a different time, and to what extent they see it as a manifestation of certain problems that plague Russian society. The second question (about the culprits) is more local and specific. The range of subjects, which can in principle be blamed for the rioting, naturally, does not match the range of hypothetically possible versions of the fundamental causes and situational background of the events that occurred in Manezh Square. The distribution of responses to these two questions also shows that these questions are not seen as identical.
For example, over half of those who responded to the open-ended question as to who they believe is to blame for the June 9 riot (37% of the total number of respondents surveyed) named the authorities. At the same time, speaking about the main cause of the rioting, only 17% of the respondents (about one-forth of the total number of respondents surveyed) mentioned the generally poor organization of the event and the inappropriate actions of the law enforcement agencies, both Moscow and federal. Most of the complaints concerned the actions – to be more exact, the lack thereof – of the Moscow police, who demonstrated an amazing helplessness:
• “It happened because the Moscow police were not ready for such things” (expert, Vladimir).
• “The main cause of the events was that the administration of the Interior Ministry and law enforcement were not ready for it” (expert, Kazan).
• “The main cause was the utterly poor performance of the police. I was shocked by their actions more than I was by the rioting itself. The head of the Moscow police said they had been working in the regular mode, as if nobody had thought that the airing of the game could result in something like that” (expert, St. Petersburg).
• “The blame rests mainly with the law enforcement agencies. It’s their job. They are military people and they get paid for it” (expert, Novokuznetsk).
• “It was the fault of the law enforcement agencies – they were not controlling the situation” (open-ended question).
• “The police were not prepared for it, they didn’t even have shields” (open-ended question).
• “The police are to blame, you can’t disperse such rallies with rubber batons” (open-ended question).
Many respondents were baffled by the fact that the Moscow police, who have experience working with fans in stadiums during soccer games, were unable to predict the June 9 developments. The respondents believe that Russian law enforcement agencies have analytical units, which are supposed to predict such things:
• “Who was supposed to predict it? I think the law enforcement agencies, because in today’s Federal Security Service – like it used to be in the KGB – there is some analytical unit, which predicts such things” (expert, Tula).
• “It is the fault of the Federal Security Service – they should have known about it. The law enforcement agencies are to blame: they should have been prepared for it, especially considering those huge screens that drew a great number of people. They knew what to expect from a crown of drunken people. They should have foreseen everything” (expert, Kemerovo).
• “They know very well that after every game a fight occurs of the fans who are not happy with something. They already send additional troops there, although there were not that many people there. They already stand in circle, people are let in and let out. And here they were not prepared. Why weren’t they? Were they unable to predict it? They should have known it just from their experience!” (DFG, Moscow).
• “It was obvious that our team could lose. I think every policeman who has worked at Spartak matches knows how fans behave after their team loses. Therefore, I don’t think it takes a lot of brains to prepare for it properly” (expert, St. Petersburg).
• “Participant 1: They knew there would be a lot of people. They should have involved an ambulance, and the police should have been involved.
Participant 2: In any case.
Participant 3: They should have predicted it” (DFG, Moscow).
• “Poor performance by the police: they didn’t predict the situation and just went with the flow” (open-ended question).
• “The police should work better and predict various situations” (open-ended question).
Participants in the focus group discussion in Moscow demonstrated an extreme degree of surprise. Even having accepted the fact that law enforcement was unable to predict the developments, they could not understand why the police did not react properly to the alarming signals that emerged during the airing of the game. It is known that the rioting began long before the game was over. Here is a characteristic dialogue:
• “Participant 1: The airing lasted for two hours. And the police were watching: 500 people, then 9,000 – and they were still watching. The people were coming and coming, they should have reacted!
Participant 2: Negligence.
Participant 1: They were not doing anything.
Participant 2: They were playing Russian roulette” (DFG, Moscow).
Some respondents believe the authorities wanted to do a good job. “You can’t do good things for the Russian people,” a participant in the Moscow focus group discussion said. “You are right,” another participant said. “They did it to enable everyone who wanted to watch the game, they just wanted to do a good thing, and this is what they got in return,” the first participant said. “As usual,” the other participant said laconically. However, respondents still believe the authorities carry some of the blame. They think so for two reasons. The first is that they believe the police were unable to predict the possible consequences of the event:
• “There should be specialists who wanted to predict this herd instinct. When rallies were conducted, the police were always close by and prepared for a big crowd of people. It was poorly organized by the Moscow authorities” (DFG, Voronezh).
• “Participant 1: I think the Moscow authorities are to blame for it.
Moderator: What exactly do you mean?
Participant 1: Poor organization. They have specialists that are supposed to watch the situation.
Participant 2: They should have predicted it.
Participant 3: And the law enforcement agencies should have stepped up their work. They should have foreseen and calculated everything.
Participant 4: I think it’s the authorities’ fault” (DFG, Voronezh).
• “I think Luzhkov is to blame. He should have predicted such a situation when he put a screen on the street, thus drawing a large number of people. Some of them were carrying vodka, etc. He should have calculated what it would eventually cause. Did the events that have recently occurred in stadiums not show that these people are not quite normal? Why did such rioting become possible?!” (expert, Krasnodar).
• “The authorities did not perform very well, they should have forecasted and prevented everything” (open-ended question).
• “The government did not expect such an outcome” (open-ended question).
On the other hand, the respondents believe the authorities were to blame for the riot because they did not ban the sale of alcoholic drinks, especially in glass bottles, in the area. These bottles later became the main weapon of the rioters:
• “The sale of alcoholic drinks was allowed in that area” (open-ended question).
• “They didn’t sell only beer” (open-ended question).
• “The sale of drinks in glass bottles – the bottles became a weapon” (open-ended question).
The respondents who attribute the Moscow rioting to the negligence of the police (or the authorities) as a rule see the rioting as a manifestation of “the herd instinct.” They believe that the surge of adrenaline was fully spontaneous and developed according to the classical rules of social psychology:
• “It’s not likely that it was done on purpose. I don’t believe it. Even somebody’s remark could have been a provocation, the crowd was close to the boiling point. It’s the herd instinct. You don’t even need provocation here” (expert, Barnaul).
• “I don’t think it was organized on purpose. As a rule, such things take a group of ten people who know each other well and begin to voice everything emotionally, and it’s very easy to get people excited. Naturally, somebody was pushed, somebody threw a bottle, provoking a response. It’s not difficult to launch such a mechanism, I don’t think anybody would prepare it on purpose” (expert, Kaluga).
• “A crowd, which is not thinking very clearly, you don’t even have to provoke anything. It’s enough just to shout something” (expert, Barnaul).
• “It wasn’t staged, it was just a herd instinct” (DFG, Moscow).
• “It’s just that some group of drunken youths came there. They started hurling bottles at people. If somebody hits me with a bottle, am I supposed to keep silent?”(DFG, Voronezh).
However, some respondents do not consider the rioting to be spontaneous. They believe that it was thoroughly planned and directed by someone:
• “This action was planned and directed by someone”(open-ended question).
• “It was to someone’s benefit to provoke hooliganism” (open-ended question).
• “It was ordered and paid for by someone” (open-ended question).
• “This rioting is good for somebody” (open-ended question).l
• “It was pre-arranged” (open-ended question).
The fact that rioters had pieces of metal bars and bottles containing explosive liquids, which were used for setting cars ablaze, indicates that this version is highly probable:
• “I think the crowd was prepared for it. They say there were bottles, metal bars and so on there. Somebody was prepared to celebrate, no matter a victory or a loss. It’s not just that there was a release of energy, but somebody was preparing for it” (expert, Yekateringburg).
• “You know, that burning makes me sad. For example, how do you burn a car? Do you take matches with you? You can’t do it with matches. You have to prepare. This leads me to believe that somebody knew what would happen” (expert, Smolensk).
• “This action was really planned. It was organized, they had metal bars and everything. How do you get something spontaneously? They had everything with them. It means that they planned it” (DFG, Moscow).
• “Participant 1: They prepared those bottles beforehand.
Participant 2: No, they didn’t. They drank, and then they didn’t score a goal and somebody hurled a bottle, he missed, and a fight occurred. And cars were set afire using those bottles of vodka.
Participant 3: Give me a bottle of vodka and let’s make a fire. It won’t explode. Therefore, I believe that everything was prepared” (DFG, Voronezh).
Being confident that the rioting was “contracted,” these respondents voiced various ideas about the “main manipulator.” Some respondents believe the rioting could have been organized by the Russian defense or security structures, which are interested in redistributing power:
• “Interviewer: Who do you think organized the mass rioting in Moscow?
Expert: A person or a group of people who are interested in making the defense and security agencies more powerful. The defense and security agencies, including the police, must prove that they are doing something. In the past, it was the fight against international imperialism, and now they need to find an enemy so they can continue to get money. I think the defense and security agencies are interested in it, so they can continue to get paid” (expert, Nizhny Novgorod).
• “Moderator: What forces are behind it, do you think?
Participant 1: I think all our special services are now in such a difficult situation, they dislike each other so much and they are struggling so hard that they will do anything to accomplish it. I don’t rule out that our special services do such things without consulting with each other. It doesn’t matter to them how many people got beaten up or killed there or how many people were watching it in horror. I think it’s just the special services settling their accounts.
Participant 2: It’s the same as with the war in Chechnya” (DFG, St. Petersburg).
Other respondents are suspicious of the fact that these events “surprisingly” occurred at the time as the State Duma was discussing the bill on extremism. These respondents are not inclined to consider this a mere coincidence. They believe that the June 9 riots could have been initiated by those to whom this law is important:
• “Expert: I’m getting the impression that these riots were inspired by someone. Why? There were very few policemen … The police were totally unprepared. The advertising on the monitors, including those on Manezh Square. You name it. And this all takes place when the State Duma is discussing a law on extremism …
Interviewer: Do you think that politics are behind it?
Expert: Yes, I do” (expert, Vologda).
• “Interviewer: Who do you think organized the mass rioting in Moscow?
Expert: It’s complicated. I think the people who really want to get this bill passed. I don’t have any other explanation” (expert, Vologda).
Other respondents believe that the June 9 riot is the doing of the skinheads. These respondents tend to blame the skinheads (representatives of ultra-right extremist organizations) for provoking the soccer fans:
• “Interviewer: Did somebody organize and drive the crowd to such actions?
Interviewer: Why do you think that?
Expert: Because these extremists have been very active recently. Therefore, I think it was pre-arranged” (expert, Vladimir).
• “Interviewer: Who do you think organized the mass rioting in Moscow?
Expert: It’s most likely the skinheads. And Barkashov’s people and other extremist organizations. They probably have united and are preparing the youth for such actions” (expert, Vladimir).
• “Expert: You know, nothing is spontaneous. Maybe it was organized.
Interviewer: Who do you think could have organized this riot?
Expert: Maybe the Russian National Unity group” (expert, Bryansk).
• “Maybe it was the skinheads and the young people whom they recruited” (open-ended question).
• “The skinheads have become unruly” (open-ended question).
• “The organizers of the riots are those who ravage cemeteries and markets” (open-ended question).
• “A group of skinheads did it, as usual” (open-ended question).
A considerable number of respondents (17%, or almost one-fourth of respondents surveyed) are inclined to blame the growing divide between the rich and the poor, the poor living standards and unemployment, which have existed in Russia for the past ten years, in other words, “the inside of democracy,” for such actions:
• “Unfortunately, it was caused by the economic situation which has existed in Russia for over ten years: the growing divide between the rich and the poor. And the actual withdrawal of the state from the area of education and the absence of a normal and real youth policy are causing a social explosion in society, first of all among young people. And unfortunately, no one is paying attention to it” (expert, Vologda).
• “It happened because of the economic instability in Russia and because young people have nothing to do: there is no work, there are money bags everywhere and they let their anger loose”(open-ended question).
• “Soccer fans are not the main culprits, they are the result of the condition of the country, which has been ruined for the past 10-12 years” (open-ended question).
• “It’s the result of our entire life: everything is bad in the country, everyone is unhappy, and this causes such riots” (open-ended question).
• “Social problems and humiliation of the country, poverty” (open-ended question).
These respondents said that the June 9 rioters are the first “free” generation, which grew up on the ruins of our Communist past. They believe that we are now harvesting the fruit of our own irresponsible attitude to young people and the absence of a real policy in this area. Therefore, these respondents believe that responsibility for what happened rests with us all and with society in general:
• “These young people were not raised properly” (open-ended question).
• “A lost generation” (open-ended question).
• “Every person should think for himself. But this generation is raised on denying everything, and it is probably the fault of everyone” (expert, Kemerovo).
• “Most of these rioters were not even young people, I mean those in the 25-30 set, but teenagers, people under 20. It is a part of Russian society that has been left by itself since the beginning and until now. That means we are now reaping the fruit of that absolute helplessness in the creation of a new state ideology, a new education policy, the flaws of the school system. The generation that was left by itself has grown up like grass in the field; it’s very frightening” (expert, Stavropol).
Some respondents (about one-tenth of those who responded to the question about the causes of the riot, or 8% of the total number of respondents surveyed) believe that responsibility rests not solely with the authorities and society in general, but with the rioters themselves. These respondents believe that they are the direct culprits:
• “The fans themselves are to blame” (open-ended question).
• “Fans who don’t know how to occupy themselves and what to do with themselves because they're so bored” (open-ended question).
• “It’s the fault of the jerks who think they are soccer fans” (open-ended question).
The situation was aggravated by the fact that practically all the rioters who watched the soccer match in the Manezh Square were drunk:
• “They were all drunk” (open-ended question).
• “Alcohol is the main reason” (open-ended question).
• “They consumed alcohol and started ravaging everything” (open-ended question).
• “A regular drunken riot” (open-ended question).
It is interesting to note that almost half of the respondents (43%) said they believe that behavior of foreign soccer fans basically does not differ from that of their Russian “colleagues.” As an example, they mentioned the riots caused by British fans:
• “Participant 1: It’s a regular thing, it has been there for over 100 years in all matches.
Participant 2: British fans have the worst fights” (DFG, Voronezh).
• “I think there is no big difference: human psychology is about the same everywhere. Such cases have occurred in Latin America, England, and Germany. We have had this before. Sometimes there are dozens of casualties in such fights. It’s the psychology of the crowd” (expert, Volgograd).
• “It’s a typical reaction of fans who support their team. It’s no different” (expert, Kemerovo).
• “Drunken soccer fans do a lot of nasty things when their team loses in any country” (expert, Rostov-on-Don).
Their opponents (over one-third of those who responded to this question, or 32% of the total number of respondents surveyed) insist that there are basic differences in the actions of Moscow and foreign soccer fans. And they believe this difference in behavior is caused by differences in mentality: foreign fans live in a legal state and are fully aware of their responsibility for possible illegal actions:
• “Russian soccer fans differ from the majority of European fans, even including the British, in that they are absolutely irresponsible. A British fan, who is part of free British society, assumes responsibility for his actions, and therefore he or she does not do things that will get him in jail. They do not use knives, they don’t hit people in their stomachs with a broken bottle. They are ready to go on riots to express their animal instincts, to smash crockery, glass, shop windows, but they pose very little threat to other living beings. This is the basic difference” (expert, Kaliningrad).
• “In other countries they respond to such things appropriately: the police come right away and spray everyone with tear gas. Rioters are immediately put in detention facilities. They live in a legal state and are fully aware of their responsibility. Generally, they know what they will get. In any case, nobody will beat up policemen there” (expert, St. Petersburg).
• “For some reason it seems to me that if they do go on riots there, they do it in a nicer way” (expert, Tula).
It seems quite reasonable that Russian fans are irresponsible because they feel they will not be punished. Russian society appears to be very pessimistic about the prospects of punishment for the rioters. The respondents believe that in this case the authorities will not do anything, which will convince the rioters of their impunity and will give them more confidence:
• “Expert: I would like them to be punished, but I’m afraid it won’t be enough.
Interviewer: Why do you have such doubts?
Expert: Because in many cases such things went unpunished. They have gotten away with many things and I’m afraid they will get away with this one, too” (expert, Vladimir).
• “Maybe they will find them. But they will get such punishment that they will forget about it in a week. It’s very bad, unfortunately. Because people are never punished for anything in this country” (expert, St. Petersburg).
• “I don’t think they will find them. They will not do anything. They won’t be able to or they won’t want to. It’s the problem in the entire world. People rarely get punished” (expert, Voronezh).
However, there are doubts that although officially this riot will be investigated, only the young people who were photographed during the riot will be punished, and the main organizers will get away:
• “They always punish those people who were either photographed or those who shouted the most. But the organizers were very quiet, they were not even present in the square. Somebody will surely be punished, but it won’t be the organizers and true culprits” (expert, St. Petersburg).
• “Those who ordered this will not be found. The entire experience of fighting manifestations of extremism in the past 10-15 years shows this. Naturally, several young people will get punished” (expert, Vologda).
To be fair, one should note the optimism of some respondents, who believe that the law enforcement agencies will try to do everything they can because their professional honor has been affected:
• “I think they will find someone and punish them, because the police will work hard on it. They will protect their professional honor. They will find them if they want to, they know how to do their job” (expert, Rostov-on-Don).
• “We should show it to the whole country that the law enforcement agencies, whose uniform was so soiled, can do their job. Even if they don’t have enough evidence, the law enforcement agencies will be able to find all possible accusations, which is why I think those people will be found and punished” (expert, Yekateringburg).
• “I think someone will be found and punished, especially considering that there are a lot of complaints about the police . Of course they will try to do something” (expert, Yekateringburg).
Eight percent of the respondents are inclined to believe that the riot took place solely because the Russian national team lost:
• “The riots were caused by our loss to Japan” (open-ended question).
• “Our soccer players did badly, and the fans got angry” (open-ended question).
• “Anger because of the defeat of our team” (open-ended question).
• “Russia’s loss, bitterness for the country” (open-ended question).
The last statement contains an element that is very important for understanding the whole situation. Several months ago the authorities tried to use Russian sports as the long-sought national idea. The mass media devoted all the time that preceded the World Cup to the creation of “patriotic hysteria” in Russian society. Regional experts believe the very idea of such use of sports is not bad, but the authorities made a critical mistake here by choosing soccer, which is not Russia’s strongest sport. The initiators of this action simply did not foresee how angry a disappointed society can get, which backfired on June 9:
• “To my mind some circles were absolutely sure that we would win these two matches… They were really trying to convince us that this victory is our national idea. They wanted to distract our attention, and this is normal and correct. But the consequences of a loss were not predicted” (expert, Volgograd).
• After the first mach was played by the Russian team, it was clear to everyone, even a soccer fan, that our team is very average, that it plays very average soccer and one can’t expect miracles from it. They couldn’t do more than they could do and they were not serious competitors to anyone in that championship. And these ungrounded expectations were maintained, which, naturally, could not result in anything good. When people began to believe in it, especially young people, who are easily led, when they started to believe that Russia could show something in that championship, disappointment was a big blow to them” (expert, Stavropol).
• “Interviewer: How do you feel about the idea that the mass media carries some of the blame for this riot?
Expert: I agree with you here, because that advertisement, that patriotism which is present in any commercial that preceded the event … Even the beer commercial which said: “Guys, we believe in you!” and the numerous slogans: “We’ll kick Japan!” That is, the mass media played some role in it. People wanted the Russian team to win so badly that they were already programmed to it. So what were they supposed to do with their emotions?” (expert, Novokuznetsk).
However, the mass media found themselves on the culprit list not only because they – voluntarily or not – provoked an ideological perception of the soccer game, but for a more serious reason. The respondents believe that it is the mass media - primarily electronic – that forms the image of the world and sets the role models for modern youth. And the violence that is shown on all channels now, criminal clashes and other manifestations of cruelty, do not promote harmonious development of the younger generation:
• “Of course, the mass media plays a special role, especially television. The cult of violence and resistance, the cult of disrespect for the law is penetrating Russia with cheap trash movies” (expert, Yekaterinburg).
• “The systematic savoring of violence, the savoring of blood, etc., the airing of Western movies that are so violence-laden, has yielded its result” (expert, Krasnodar).
• “Interviewer: How do you feel about the idea that the mass media carry some of the blame for this riot?
Expert: I totally agree with you here. These movies featuring shooting and fights harm the youth. It’s horrible. It’s becoming unbearable” (expert, Smolensk).
• “Moderator: How can you explain such behavior?
Participant 1: The influence of the West, movies about violence, about bloodshed.
Participant 2: Too much violence is shown on TV” (DFG, Voronezh).
Respondents believe it is very likely that the airing the aggressive commercials during the game triggered the riot. The young people readily accepted the model of behavior that had been suggested to them:
• “Participant 1: The commercials they are airing were not very good.
Participant 2: Yes, there were commercials.
Participant 1: Some big guy was hitting a car, they showed some commercial about it.
Participant 2: They should have thought what they were airing!” (DFG, Moscow).
• “They aired a commercial where a young man was damaging cars, which created tension” (open-ended question).
Following this logic, the respondents insist that the presence of violent or aggressive actions that take place (such as the events of June 9) in the mass media should be limited. “Moscow is setting the tone,” they say, fearing that such images can be perceived by provincial youth as a direct behavioral model:
• “They shouldn’t show it, because it’s a bad example, and it is very catchy in Russia. They should just quietly arrest them, set punishment for them and put them in jail. And that’s it. It shouldn’t be advertised” (expert, Krasnodar).
• “They [the mass media] carry the responsibility, moreover they provoke such things. They have released this information, it reached Bryansk, and fans said there: “If this is the way it is done in Moscow, we will do it, too.” And they start doing the same tings. The mass media is responsible, and editors should have this ethical code. To evaluate objectively, but at the same time to carry some key to upbringing and give appropriate evaluations to events” (expert, Bryansk).
The main task of the authorities now is to learn lessons from what has happened. The respondents provide very clear ideas on what these lessons should be. Their recommendations fall into two groups: tactical and strategic.
Tactically, the authorities should thoroughly prepare for such events, predict the possible negative developments and prevent unforgivable negligence:
• “It is necessary to consider all options, including very negative, and prepare for it. To my mind, it was not difficult to predict the outcome of the match and such manifestations of the fans’ unhappiness with the results” (expert, Vladimir).
• “If it is known that a large number of people will gather in a certain place, the police should have been put on high alert, alcohol sales should have been banned, and there should have been one policemen for each fan so that any illegal actions could be prevented. It can’t be otherwise” (expert, Kemerovo).
• “The performance of the law enforcement agencies. When so many people gather together, the number should always be estimated. All options should be checked. Policemen should be well equipped. It’s simply unacceptable that policemen were wearing such light uniforms and were hit with knives. They have families, too, and such a death is simply pointless, to my mind” (expert, Novokuznetsk).
An interesting idea was voiced in the St Petersburg focus group discussion. A young man, apparently a long-term soccer fan, suggested that the Russian authorities use the experience of their Western colleagues in the neutralization of soccer fans:
• “There is a method when they plant their person in a group of fans, and he should located the initiators. The day before the match, he should come to the police station and report the initiators to prevent them from attending the match. If they come, they will be fined. They do it in England. And those initiators who are located in this manner are barred from attending matches in the future” (DFG, St. Petersburg).
One of the regional experts suggested not limiting it to intelligence work among fans, but also to looking for mutual understanding with soccer fans and skinheads:
• “It seems to me that the law enforcement agencies should not just fight with their batons, but should establish some contact with the soccer fans and skinheads. Everybody knows about skinheads in the West. One needs to reach an agreement with them, it is always possible to find suitable options. And it seems to me that the authorities are not looking for contacts with such groups and are not trying to govern them to this or that extent. They are only trying to take radical steps like that” (expert, Kemerovo).
The majority of the respondents believe that the main burden of the authorities is to implement their strategic program for supporting the younger generation. Only when the state begins to seriously deal with the education of the youth will society be able to avoid a possible recurrence of events like the one that occurred on June 9:
• “The lesson I would like to learn from this and tell the authorities is that it is necessary to solve problems relating to education, culture, healthcare, and not stimulate predator attitudes in people” (expert, Nizhny Novgorod).
• “First of all there needs to be a serious analysis of the processes taking place among the youth. Young people are no longer studied or talked about, they have stopped working with them. There are very few areas where young people can express themselves. They are oriented towards looking for talents, including in sports. The majority of the young people, however, get cut off and are left by themselves. It is necessary to give it serious thought as to who is working with young people and how they are working with them, because nobody is taking care of it. It appears that our young people are not organized in any way. This means that they get organized themselves, and they don’t find the best ways to do it” (expert, Yekateriburg).
• “The first lesson is the cultivation of moral and spiritual criteria in society. This is the key task of the authorities” (expert, Krasnodar).
• “Participant 1: Young people should be raised properly.
Participant 2: Of course” (DFG, Moscow).
• “Interviewer: What lessons should Russian society and the authorities learn from the June 9 events?
Expert: There is only one lesson: young people should not be left by themselves. We today carry responsibility for the youth of the 21st century” (expert, Bryansk).
POF database > Power and Politics > Government Institutions > Law > Individual and the Law > Crime > Rioting in Moscow: the Inside of Russian Democracy
When using materials from the site english.fom.ru and the POF database (bd.english.fom.ru), please refer to the source
© 2003 The Public Opinion Foundation