Recent initiatives by the Russian government, particularly those involving tax code modifications, reveal a total lack of the officials' desire to seek outside advice. In making these decisions, officials do not bother to have discussions with either companies' representatives, who would have to bring much more insurance payments into the treasury in case of legislative decisions taken , or employees, who are likely to carry the burden of increased taxes passed on to them by businesses. Advice from State Duma deputies is disregarded as well. All this results in the government losing credibility - and credibility has always implied that no decisions derogating civil rights were taken behind their back.
Take for example the country's trade unions, which are supposed to represent the people yet seem to be totally irresponsive. At his meeting with Vladimir Putin in early October, Mikhail Shmakov, Chairman of the Federation of Independent Trade Unions, started his speech by saying: "Mr. Putin, let me report to you..." This very phrase proves that Shmakov takes the opposite approach to trade union leadership that he should be taking. A union leader is an advocate for peoples work rights when dealing with government policy and should not be reporting to the prime minister on the work done.
Russian citizens want to know and should know what is actually happening in the country. With no one to express or represent people's rights in government institutions, there will be no coordination of public interests. In this case, disturbances and difficulties result in various rumors, misinformation and panic.
Today's credibility crisis is not new. The lack of government credibility started long ago. Although people have confidence in Putin and Medvedev, in such a big country as Russia the system cannot rest entirely on the trust for two individuals. If so, the system turns into a personalized power regime if not a personality cult. No matter how much people confide in certain leaders, their trust is disappointed if there is no credibility in social institutions. Interestingly, while stepping down, Putin mentioned, and not without reason, that he was tired of running the country "manually."
Medvedev's public address was very representative in this regard. On one hand, he spoke rigidly, saying society should take control of executive power. On the other hand, he went on to promote an increase in the presidential term from four to six years, thus admitting that "manual control" continues. It seems obvious that any system of government that is fine-tuned for use by specific leaders will inevitably have problems, as today's unstable and ever-changing economic situation requires fast, efficient decisions.
Now seems to be the best time for the authorities to overcome this credibility crisis, urge society to take responsibility, and maintain a dialogue with people by seeking diverse opinion. The time-tested practice of public discussion should be recommenced in the Russian parliament.
Meanwhile, the people who actually make decisions in the government are caught in a dilemma: whether to hope for a miracle, an attitude common in Russia, or to start doing something relevant. Relying on a bit of luck will not only fail to help politicians' image but will ruin it - especially the image of those who favor an authoritarian style in solving state problems. It would be a mistake to assume that common citizens are unable to express their will. A recent example are the events in the city of Barnaul, where people came out to protest by halting traffic in response to benefits monetization introduced by the local authorities. Another example would be the businessmen who began speaking out against Putin's initiative on increasing obligatory insurance contributions in 2010 announced in early October.
Certainly, the country's citizens remain somewhat apathetic both in politics and socially. However, if people are held back and can't take it, there could be a civil response.