CRISIS II

Buy yourself a bit of power

An analysis of crises in the era of stability and a time of changes

 
THE GOVERNMENT SAYS EVERYTHING IS FINE: THE ECONOMY IS GROWING, THE OPPOSITION IS BECOMING CONSTRUCTIVE, RUSSIA'S INTERNATIONAL STANDING IS IMPROVING, AND THERE ARE ONLY A FEW SCATTERED GANGS OF GUERRILLAS LEFT IN CHECHNYA. THE GOVERNMENT AND THE PEOPLE SOMETIMES LIVE IN DIFFERENT WORLDS.

How does a crisis in an era of stability differ from a crisis in a time of troubles?

Crises in a time of troubles stir up a nation and force it to solve problems. They make the nation move - perhaps in haste, perhaps in the wrong direction - but it must move, because standing still becomes impossible.

Everything is different for crises in eras of stability. Problems accumulate at the same rate as during radical reforms, but the people and their government prefer not to notice them. Problems are pushed aside, to the nation's periphery, or - even better - into neighboring states. Thus, the Chechens are to blame for Russia's troubles. And Georgia is to blame for the persistence of the Chechnya problem. And the United States is to blame for Georgia's treachery.

As for events in Russia, the government assures the people that everything is fine: the economy is growing, the opposition is becoming constructive, Russia's international standing is improving, and there are only a few scattered gangs of guerrillas left in Chechnya.

This is where a conflict - small, but fatal - may arise between the views of the government and the views of the people.

The government is not always right, by definition; and the people are not always a font of common sense. The reverse is sometimes the case, but that doesn't matter. What matters is that the government and the people sometimes live in different worlds.

For example, the government is aiming for Russia's integration into global organizations and  networks. The people hate the West in general, and the United States in particular.

The government is forced to admit foreigners who come to Russia to work; and the people respond with violence and rioting.

The government takes action to protect Russian car-makers; and the people boycott the census because of higher customs duties on second-hand foreign cars.

The government argues to its partners that democratic institutions are developing in Russia. The people vote against all candidates at elections, since they know their opinions aren't taken into consideration.

The government pretends that Russia has decent Armed Forces, and speaks of military reforms. The people bribe officials at enlistment and recruitment offices, and desert from military units.

Finally, the government is working on its hierarchy of governance; but the people know that there is no system of governance in Russia.

That is why crises in an era of stability are more dangerous than revolutionary changes...

A total lack of confidence in the existing political system is the citizenry's first and most important independent act. The crime rate, corruption, drinking, and drug abuse are only the consequences of a devaluation of politics and the collapse of power. According to various estimates, no more than 30% of the population now have confidence in elections. This means that 70% distrust this basic element of democracy. This is the worst corollary of "controllable democracy".

The people are shown over and over again that their opinions do not matter. That there are more important things - administrative resources, campaign funds, oligarchic conspiracy, and the Kremlin's will. A different argument is used for the so-called elite: it is told that a political decision has been made.

The media has focused its attention on what is actually the least interesting aspect of the election scandals in Krasnoyarsk and Nizhny Novgorod. Newspapers and TV channels are seriously debating which oligarchic group has won this round of the endless battle. This is a captivating topic, no doubt. What counts, however, is that we are watching the end of politics in Russia.

Something quite different is replacing politics and policy: that is, the instruments which enable the people and the nation to achieve common goals.

Clearly, given the situation, the opinion of the ordinary citizen does not count. And what does count? "The stakes are too high," analysts sigh.

Those in positions of power communicate with the people through the national elite, primarily via the media and analysts. Even when the national leader addresses the people, his speech has to be relayed and commented on.

Unfortunately, the media and analysts in Russia are not exactly up to the task. The elite is supposed to evaluate what is happening, and find the reasons behind it. The elite is supposed to view events in their broader philosophic and historical context. To do this, the elite needs to be independent of the state.

With rare exceptions, however, our elite is not like that at all. It does all it can to play along. The elite agrees that the "stakes are too high": that is, it explains to the people that elections are the business of the rich and powerful...

In this situation, the national elite ought to be saying: "Political criminals, secure in their immunity, are encroaching on what really matters - the will of the people."

The independent media say that all political issues are decided at the Kremlin or Staraya Square. I do not know whether they like it or not. What counts is that this situation does not compel them to protest.

The elite has died. It has died as a social organism. To be more exact, it never did recover from the 1930s and 1950s.

The standard view is that the government is a mediator in the process of achieving common goals. The government is needed in order to avoid violence. That is why the government has symbols that force the people to show respect, to pay taxes, to serve in the military.

All this includes special lights and sirens installed on government vehicles. They are also a symbol, like the presidential flag. In fact, they are more important. The flag flies over the Kremlin, and we don't have to do anything about it. But when luxury cars with special lights and signals drive along the streets of Moscow, everyone else has to give way to them. The police cannot stop or search them. It follows that the police (the lowest level of state power) are helpless against them.

Anyone can buy a car with all the necessary paraphernalia, including a police license plate, or hire the police, and so on. Money is all that is needed.

Given this situation, it's odd to hear all the moaning about corruption.

Paradoxically enough, the devaluation of state power is taking place against a backdrop of speculation about strengthening the hierarchy of governance. The nation is doing all it can to please the president.

What will the outcome be? It is impossible to corrupt the state and society any further. Should we sign a document testifying that the army is surrendering to its generals? Should we auction off the positions of regional leaders and mayors, and force them to contribute a tenth of their salaries to the war on crime and corruption? It is possible, but that will hardly attract the public.

The top state institutions should form a barrier between money and government.

The state's monopoly on enforcement has to be restored, and all quasi-security structures disbanded.

Unfortunately, our state institutions are inseparable from big money. And big money likes to be protected by special security forces. It's a vicious circle. Who will break it?

The national elite is supposed to do so. What is left of it...

(Translated by A. Ignatkin)