True story: A U.S. naval commander and Canadians had an exchange by
radio. The Canadians advised the Americans to change course to avoid collision,
but the Americans insisted that the Canadians change course. The Canadians
prevailed: They were calling from a lighthouse.
Alas, steady forward movement does not always lead to victory. For the
past 18 months, Putin's government has triumphantly cleared all obstacles
from its path. It has put the governors in their place, exiled the undisciplined
oligarchs and is systematically exterminating the Chechens. Everyone agrees
the president is proceeding wisely and correctly. Everyone is ready to
follow him through hell and high water. And no one has dared ask, "Where
are we going?"
Where is the government heading? Who set the course and when?
Instead of formulating a political and economic course, Putin's team
from the start has focused on eliminating obstacles, real and imagined.
The course was already set under Yeltsin, although the Russian ship of
state suffered from inertia. It continues to move forward and has even
picked up steam with the change at the helm. Even the 1998 ruble crisis
stopped no one, although it should have forced people to consider whether
the chosen course was correct. Russian bureaucrats instead look for guilty
parties while admitting "individual mistakes." References to individual
mistakes are a refuge; there are always plenty of mistakes. But these petty
tactical mistakes obscure serious strategic problems. And still the steady
forward movement continues.
Andrei Illarionov, Putin's official advisor, is a convinced liberal
who believes a liberal course can have no shortcomings. If something is
wrong, those who were implementing the course must be guilty. Those who
were in power earlier were not true liberals; they were inconsistent and
insufficiently radical. Had they been a little more decisive, Russia would
already be a prosperous country. And if you ask them how this could be,
they will tell you that all the unpleasantness was caused by "populism,"
or
concessions to the public. In fact, all misfortune comes from the people.
Were there no people in the country, how easy the government's life would
be!
Those at the top like this point of view. Even Anatoly Chubais, head
of Unified Energy Systems, and Illarionov have the same idea of power,
despite their squabbling. The public is not so unfortunate overall, although
the standard of living is falling, civil liberties are diminishing bit
by bit, and life expectancy is decreasing almost to an African level. The
authorities are tranquil, sensing no particular threat. One can try any
radical reform with such a public. Of course, one can also miscalculate,
but for now everything is splendid.
In fact, the Russian government's problems in recent years are more
a result of the resistance of economic reality and life itself than to
mass opposition.
And paradoxically, it is the hidden hand of the market that suffocates
our market reformers. For our liberals, the market is a sort of deity and
they are its priests and interpreters. Illarionov and Chubais, each in
his own way, interpret God's will. However, the market is no god, but simply
a system of economic relations. The poorer the country, the sharper the
contradictions will be. In the celebration of market principles, the public
has been ruined and industrial development undermined. Our reformers created
a market model that is headed for troubled waters. Meanwhile, the Russian
ship of state has no intention of changing course. It will continue to
eliminate obstacles until it founders on them.
Boris Kagarlitsky is a Moscow-based sociologist.
ко=мент