St Petersburg’s Bookstore Battles With ‘Foreign Agent’ Labels

At a literary establishment nestled in the heart of St Petersburg, Russia, workers are engaged in a meticulous activity of snipping labels and affixing them onto book fronts, only to neatly encapsulate the books in a transparent plastic shield. Each adornment expresses the rather poignant statement: ‘THIS CONTENT (DATA) IS THE WORK OF A FOREIGN AGENT OR PERTAINS TO A FOREIGN AGENT’S ACTIONS.’ A law that stepped into effect on the 1st of September restricts those branded by Russia as foreign agents from participating in educational initiatives or creating ‘informational products for young audiences’; an ambiguous terminology that could possibly encompass books, although there is no direct prohibition on books penned by such ‘agents’.

Prominent authors find their names on this infamous ‘foreign agent’ register that Russia maintains, which strangely includes a multitude of individuals and organizations indicted by the officials for engaging in majority foreign-funded disruptive activities. Renowned novelist Dmitry Glukhovsky is a notable mention in this catalogue. This labelling practice precedes the Ukrainian conflict and has been extensively employed against advocates, politicians, NGOs and several others who found themselves in conflict with the authority.

For Elena Neshcheret, a managerial staff at the St Petersburg bookstore named ‘Vo Ves Golos’ (At the Top of My Voice), the legal landscape is laden with ‘unforeseen pitfalls’. ‘It has now become our responsibility not only to stay updated about regulations pertaining to print media,’ she stated. ‘We are now obligated to stay informed about all cultural laws and some trade regulations as well. Navigating through all this has become extremely intricate.’ Neshcheret pointed out the onerous duty her bookstore, staffed by five employees, has adopted of spending three to four work shifts a month just isolating and branding books penned by ‘foreign agents’, ensuring their conspicuous identification for the patrons.

Currently, no known incidents of financial penalties imposed for inappropriately vending books by foreign agents have been reported, but there is an air of palpable anticipation for an eventuality, Neshcheret added. Understandably, no enterprise wishes to be a ‘first’ in this regard. Taking preliminary steps to avoid any untoward situation, some book retailers have initiated clearance sales of such books ahead of the law’s implementation.

The Russian Book Union, a prevalent entity within the literary industry, has alerted booksellers about the heightened risks associated with ‘foreign-agent’-centric books, cautioning them about potential surprise authority checks. Dmitry Glukhovsky, one ‘foreign agent’ author, who was symbolically convicted in his absence in 2023 with an eight-year-long imprisonment sentence for disseminating incorrect information regarding the Russian military, perceives the recent law as a systematic, escalating effort by the government to suppress oppositional voices.

According to Glukhovsky, the intention behind such legislative moves is to quarantine dissenters from the public sphere and media, especially those who speak against the ongoing warfare, criticise the president, or present any form of disagreement with the government’s policies, and consequently brand them as outcasts. It is notable that the author had left Russia preceding the war.

The Russian authorities justify the ‘foreign agent’ law as indispensable to shield the public from malicious external influence, especially in light of the heightened tensions reminiscent of the Cold War era dispute with the Western world. During an impromptu opinion survey among four shoppers gathered in a St Petersburg bookstore, it was evident that the majority (three respondents) sternly rebuked the idea of banning books. One respondent, a youthful Anastasia by name, provided valuable historical insight, indicating that prohibitions on literature, as past evidence suggests, always yield undesirable outcomes.

Furthermore, she argued that if certain pieces of literature incite questions or invoke fear, alternative solutions could be devised to mitigate their influence instead of enforcing an absolute prohibition. Another respondent, named Irina, presented an alternative viewpoint, considering censorship as ‘perhaps normal’ and a practice that has existed from time immemorial. However, she concluded on an optimistic note: ‘A book will invariably find its reader. This natural process is beyond the realm of interdiction.’