Either, or.

Tyranny and “anti –“ tyranny.

In the story of the Michael Khodorkovsky trial, and that of Platon Lebedev, it is important given Mr. Khodorkovsky’s talk at Khamovnichesky Court, Moscow; on November 2, 2010, that ‘in Russia’ the goals of the new generation of business people who have built up the country again are not necessarily congruent with those of the centrist and now dominant officials in the realm.  The business people who ran Yukos and its related businesses, and they made a tidy sum at it, worked privately to promote economic activities and the development of that society, especially in the Far East.  The disagreement between the judiciary and Mr. Khodorkovsky with Mr. Lebedev is the state considered much of what Mr. Khodorkovsky was doing to be its business, including the spending of petro – currency it intended to use in the treasury, but that was going to build up one or another region in the country.  

Mr. Khodorkovsky is apparently accused of manipulating people, money and the system, all of which were in flux in Russia during the time of Yukos, and developing his own economic and political fiefdom.  That some good came of the economic and oil booms in Russia is inarguable, and one cannot argue as to the benefits of the ends.  Mr. Khodorkovsky is dealing singly with issues that befall developing sectors in developing economies everywhere:  Growth can be unmanageable, and while Mr. Khodorkovsky was an excellent boss in view of this, the Russian government is arguing he clearly was not.  The trial itself has been, from what I have followed, instance after instance of finger – pointing and name calling, and no one has been able to speak freely about what the operations of the business in this ‘anti – trust’ case were really like, or other pertinent issues.  The court sessions become a profile and precedent of poor interpretation of facts on the one hand and legalistic and oppressive regulation on the other, both parties suffering this and other difficulties in a problem circumstance for everyone. 

In his speech in this court case on November 2, the defendant used the past imperfect tense many times.  It is important to understand this as an appeal to the court to apply the same standard of justice to the operations of the state in this process, in its inventories, checklists, and internal debates, etc., that it has applied to statutes applied against Mr. Khodorkovsky and Mr. Lebedev in penalty or penalties against them and any other accused.  The Russian system of justice, probably with its tendency to “nod” to the prosecuting attorney and the judge in fierce enforcement of many statutes, might entirely not have heard this plaintive appeal.  That this is the tradition is highly unfortunate, and one this case challenges the system to begin to reverse.  This is perhaps why the defendants have attempted to highlight the historical context of the trial.  It is unfortunate this tradition dates to the Okrana (sp?) and the courts of pre – revolutionary times, up through Beria and so forth, and why many Russians in this case themselves have cause, especially in view of a prosecutorial decision in this case, to again view their patrimony as unfortunate, and a gain for the state at the expense of, again, common people or those who represented them or stood in their shoes to help their cause.