A bridge too far

Can a bridge be a metaphor for what is wrong with an entire country?

Spare a thought for the twenty-four members of the St Petersburg Toponymic Commission. All they had to do was choose a name for a new, rather nondescript, bridge over the Duderhov Canal in the south-west of the city.

There are so many names they could have chosen, native Petersburgers who have yet to be commemorated in steel and stone – this being the cultural capital, Vladimir Nabokov comes to mind, say, or Joseph Brodsky. But the late Akhmad Kadyrov, Chechnya’s first president, might not be the first name one would think of.

On Monday of this week, having first learned of the Commission’s existence, Russia was gripped: would the faceless toponymists really vote to christen a so far nameless bridge in honour of Akhmad Kadyrov (father of Ramzan), who was killed in a terrorist attack in 2004.

The whole affair had actually been shelved until the autumn, and the Commission was about to pack its bags for the summer holidays, but this naming thing had become a matter of national importance. So the poor old toponymists were gathered for an emergency meeting – specifically in order to discuss this one burning issue. And, as they later told Fontanka.ru, the St Petersburg City Administration had dropped many heavy-handed hints that only those in favour of correctly naming the bridge should attend.

Having finally assembled, the toponymists were informed by several liberal-minded city deputies that the denizens of Petersburg – including famous film director Alexander Sokurov and veteran actor Oleg Basilashvili – had condemned the whole idea. It was then proposed to take another break and discuss the matter further with yet more experts; all to no avail. Of the Committee’s seventeen members present, nine voted in favour of the proposal, but then something incredible happened: one of the toponymists announced that she was retracting her “yea” vote because – and I quote – “pressure had been exerted on her.” As for who had exerted this pressure, what sort of pressure it was, and what purpose it served – well, she neglected to make those things clear.

This vote isn’t binding – the final decision lies with the Kremlin-appointed governor of St Petersburg. Tempers, however, are running high. City Council deputies have already hastened to arrange a meeting on the issue, with the aim of dissuading him. Yabloko has even threatened a referendum, though this would be virtually impossible under current law. Even as I write, an unsanctioned rally has been taking place on Nevsky Prospect. And there will even be an official rally next Monday, in the Field of Mars. Apparently, though, nobody has yet stood on the actual bridge and built a barricade with booby-traps.

It can safely be assumed, however, that the decision has already been made, and most likely even endorsed by the presidential administration. If the reverse were true, it’s unlikely the toponymists would have been gathered for an emergency meeting.

Of course, the real question isn’t whether or not this will happen, but what the underlying purpose of the whole affair might be. Many democratically-inclined commentators and bloggers have compared the future Kadyrov Bridge to the informally renamed Nemtsov Bridge in Moscow, where Boris Nemtsov was gunned down. Posing a rhetorical question, they ask: How can it be that the Kremlin can support the naming of a bridge in St Petersburg after a man who had nothing to do with the city (and was a murderous thug, to boot); and not support the renaming of a bridge after a man who fought for democracy?

One could describe this bridge-building exercise as a storm in a teacup. Petersburgers will grouse a bit, but then they’ll get used to the new status quo; after all, Muscovites got used to having a Kadyrov Street on the outskirts of their city.

There are two ways to look at this naming battle: one is to see this affair as a true Petersburger, to shrug one’s shoulders, and make fun of it, as Pushkin might have done. Already, the Petersburg wits, playing on Anna Andreyevna’s second name and Kadyrov’s first, have suggested a more poetic name for the bridge: the Akhmatovsky. The other way is to look beyond the bridge, and see it as one more river to cross, before the population at last gets heartily sick of the whole corrupt bunch – let’s call it a bridge too far.