On Friday morning when the deputies argued whether the issue was even worth discussing, independent deputy Alexander Fedulov suggested that instead of returning the Dzerzhninsky statue or erecting one to Andropov, a monument to the last Russian Tsar Nicholas II ought to be installed in Lubyanka Square. Fedulov, however, did not submit any official document to the effect. His initiative received a rather harsh response from deputy Lyudmila Shvets, who said that Fedulov ''urgently needs medical help''.
Eventually the State Duma vice-speaker Lyubov Sliska summed up the morning squabble saying: ''It seems the Duma has opened a theatre season.'' And her words proved to be accurate as the discussion of bills on Friday proceeded somewhat merrily.
Throughout the day the deputies continued to share their opinions as regards to what should and what should not be installed in Lubyanka. Another Duma vice-chairman Vladimir Zhirinovsky backed the Moscow mayor’s idea, noting that ''no monument should ever be dismantled altogether, and those who do [such things] must be punished''.
A little later, however, Zhirinovsky clarified that actually he spoke in favour of creating some ''historic complex'', where all Soviet-era monuments would be gathered. But such a complex should not to be located on Lubyanka Square, he said. In the opinion of the LDPR leader, the square that the FSB building looks out on to should be decorated with a flowerbed and a 20-metre-high fountain.
Irina Khakamada, the co-leader of the rightist SPS party, said that so far none of the authorities had expressed their opinion on the issue. ''We need to respect not only our history; we should save the people who dismantled the monument in the early 90s from humiliation,'' she said.
Khakamada reported that the Union of Rightist Forces had gathered 114,500 signatures against the reconstruction of the monument. Among those who put their signatures to the resolution drafted by the rightists are famous artists, writers and poets, including Bella Akhmadulina, Vladimir Voinovich, Mstislav Rostropovich, Eduard Radzinsky, Galina Vishnevskaya and Yuli Gusman. ''Each monument has its place,'' the deputy added.
Some deputies tried to remind Khakamada that back in 1998 the State Duma deputies themselves decided to address the Moscow government with a request to restore the monument.
To that she retorted that the present-day Duma has little in common with the previous one, since the house was re-elected in 1999. Some deputies attempted to defend Dzerzhinsky, saying that in truth it was Trotsky who was to blame for the Soviet-era political repressions. Others cited Italy’s example saying that when Mussolini was hanged they even continued to fire at his dead body, but the monument to him has been preserved.
Khakamada tried to persuade her colleagues that ''sometimes symbols speak more than political statements, and the reconstruction of the monument to Dzerzhinsky is a sign to the public that the era of political repressions is returning''. But deputy Chuyev, to all appearance, expressed the general opinion, when he said: ''It is not the Duma’s job to make such statements.'' And 145 to 91 votes rejected the SPS’ proposal.
The discussion of the second document did not take long either. Only 38 deputies backed the idea of erecting a monument to Yuri Andropov, despite Mitrofanov’s arguments that by doing so the parliament could boost the prestige of the FSB. ''We need professional, intelligent employees who can guard the state. It is ridiculous that the work in such organs is not prestigious, and the FSB employees drive old cars, searching for spare parts.''
Mitrofanov’s reasoning inspired the deputies, but the effect of his statement proved to be different from what he had intended. Deputy Ryzhkov said the discussion itself seemed strange. If there is to be no monument to Dzerzhinsky, then no monument should be erected there at all – not to Dzerzhinsky, or to Alexander II, as the SPS has proposed; although Andropov quite deserves a monument, he said.
Deputy Draganov went further and added: ''Don’t the deputies think that public ethics is above their personal preferences,'' and that one should consult with the people on the matter.
But that did not stop the deputies from continuing. Vice-speaker Zhirinovsky, understanding that the house would never reach an agreement on Friday, called on the Moscow government ''to take into consideration everything that has been said here''. In his opinion, reconciliation could be achieved through construction of three separate memorials – to the tsarist, to the communist and to the democratic governments.
Then deputy Kolomeitsev came up with the idea of installing a monument to Vladimir Putin in order to attain reconciliation, to which Zhirinovsky answered: ''I do understand that everyone is eager to give presents to the president, but let’s wait a bit and after October 9 (date of the next plenary session), erect a monument to Seleznyov. After all, to all us deputies he is very dear.''
And when deputy Vulf generously suggested that a sculptural image of the Moscow mayor Yuri Luzhkov himself be installed in Lubyanka, Zhirinovsky urged the house to stop the discussion. And during the vote, the speaker remarked caustically: ''Vote, vote, but remember – the lists will be forwarded to a certain address.''
01 ОКТЯБРЯ 17:02
