Can activists join forces with ideological opponents when concrete causes or people’s lives are at stake? Representatives of regional initiatives and human rights movements told 7x7 where they draw the line between pragmatic, case-by-case cooperation and betraying their own principles.
“I don’t take money from those who support the war”
Mikhail Popov, independent urbanist from Chelyabinsk
I’m not prepared to work with security service officers or with people for whom deception, pressure, and manipulation are the norm. My experience shows that such alliances are rarely honest and almost always end with one side using the other.
My values are simple: human life, freedom, dignity, and people’s right to decide for themselves how they want to live. These are not things I’m willing to bargain over.
It is a matter of principle for me not to take part in anything that goes against my fundamental beliefs or harms people. I won’t take money from someone if I know they support the war and want to use their money to influence my position.
I can work with someone whose values I don’t share without necessarily becoming their ally. To me, there is a difference between cooperating toward a shared political goal and working with someone to help people. In the first case, shared values and mutual trust matter. In the second, people’s lives and safety may outweigh reputational risks.
In activism, there are situations where specific people’s lives are at stake. The ends never justify the means. But that doesn’t mean you should give up a real opportunity to help someone just to preserve the purity of your own principles. If, for example, I need to get someone released from a police station after an unlawful detention or resolve an urgent humanitarian issue, I’m prepared to work even with people with whom I have fundamental disagreements. If I need to get someone out of the country, I don’t look for the “right” ally, someone I’d be comfortable dealing with. I look for money, accommodation, and transportation. If I need to support a deputy mayor who has been jailed by their own mayor, I go to court and support them. Not because we agree on everything, but because there is no one else to do it.
When it comes to political cooperation, I don’t look for a perfect alignment of values either. That’s hardly the priority right now. If we can save lives on the city’s streets, make a pedestrian crossing safer, or establish a decent public transportation system, I can work even with a mayor I consider a cannibal. What matters more to me is what ultimately happens to the urban environment and the people who live there. When it comes to whom I talk to, which meetings I speak at, or whom I work with to push through a useful decision, I’m far less concerned about principles.
I think that’s simply how activism works: you don’t choose the people you’d be happy to pose for a photo with; you choose actions that actually change people’s lives. The important thing is not to confuse temporary cooperation with an alliance.
“I won’t accept help from state-controlled organizations”
Anonymous representative of the Irek human rights organization, Tatarstan
We always need people and funding, especially since we provide legal assistance free of charge. That’s why we try to work with everyone, as long as it is within the law.
We communicate with everyone, but we do so extremely carefully and cautiously because experience shows that even exchanging messages, making a phone call, or trying to contact a human rights organization that operates abroad or has been placed on some official register can have very serious consequences.
If a political party or organization controlled by the state offers us help, United Russia, for example, I won’t accept it. I understand that information could end up in the wrong hands, and by discussing something with these people, I could only harm the client I’m defending. That’s why we try to accept help directly from people we know personally or from organizations we have dealt with before and know are safe.
As for the security services, the authorities are naturally interested in what we do, whom we defend, where our potential funding comes from, and who works for us. There have been cases when members of the security services and representatives of the regional head’s administration contacted us. I worry about the safety of the organization and its staff, so I have had to attend certain meetings, but cooperation was never on the table.
There have also been cases when people whose views are completely at odds with ours have asked us for help. For example, a woman whose husband had volunteered to fight in the war and was killed approached me. She wanted to receive the payments she was entitled to. She has three dependent children and no means to support them. In the end, I decided to help her. My reasoning was that I wasn’t helping the person who had gone to war; I was helping a woman who needed to provide for three children. In this situation, I put the children’s interests first.
“I refuse to work with NOD on principle”
Anonymous activist from a Penza movement against forced conscription
Just a couple of years ago, I was at odds with various political parties. I didn’t like the Communist Party of the Russian Federation (CPRF), and I had disagreements with representatives of the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia (LDPR). But times have changed, especially in Penza Oblast, and now, if anything, I support everyone.
Right now In Penza, we are facing the problem of “busification,” with people being abducted and sent to war. Everyone is unhappy about it. But most political parties, with the exception of Yabloko and activists who have left the country, support the war.
I’m not prepared to work with liberal forces like New People, although I haven’t come across any active members of the party here, or similar groups. Those who have remained [in Russia] no longer even try to present themselves as any kind of opposition to the current authorities. There is no way to build a dialogue with people like that.
I also refuse to work with the National Liberation Movement (NOD) on principle (editor’s note: NOD is a far-right organization seeking to restore Russia’s territory to its 1945 borders). To them, everyone around them is part of the fifth column or an agent of the CIA. That includes your media outlet, as well as any movement that has ever spoken out against the current authorities. They clearly wouldn’t agree to cooperate anyway. And the people involved are rather peculiar… They seem to have disappeared lately, but they used to march through the city center every Wednesday and Saturday, shouting pro-Putin slogans and waving their “Colorado beetle” flag (editor’s note: the organization’s symbols feature black and orange stripes resembling the coloring of Colorado potato beetles).
At the moment, we’re not working with anyone. None of the people I approached [about working together] supported what I’m doing to oppose the cannibals who grab people off the streets. Even the Russian Community (editor’s note: Russia’s largest nationalist movement, known for its anti-migrant campaigns and attacks) refused, whatever I might think of them. The communists ignored me too.
“We have nothing in common with those who discriminate against people and justify violence”
Anonymous representative of the Mynam feminist community, Udmurtia
We won’t work with people or organizations whose values and practices directly contradict the core values and principles of our initiative. We have nothing in common with those who discriminate against people on any grounds, justify violence, or systematically violate the rights and safety of others.
It is important for us to understand whether a potential partner respects the boundaries and autonomy of other projects and is prepared to honor agreements. At the same time, complete alignment of views is not a prerequisite for cooperation. The key question is: “Can we work together safely and respectfully without compromising our own principles?”
We still have little experience with this kind of cooperation. One example was a women’s poetry evening held at a state-run venue. We did not discuss our political views or broader beliefs with the people responsible for the venue. It wasn’t necessary for that particular event. At the time, working together was mutually beneficial: the venue needed to meet its event quota, while we needed a space. The venue made no attempt to interfere with our program.
Later, the venue ran into problems, likely due to external pressure. We did not work together again. A local entrepreneur even advised us to change the name of our initiative and use more vague wording in our media. We didn’t take his advice, of course.
The city administration prohibits various state-run art spaces from working with us, even though feminism is not banned. We used to visit colleges when we held MATKA-fest (editor’s note: a festival dedicated to women’s bodies) and talk about the festival during “Conversations About Important Things” classes. That is no longer possible.