Non-transparent policies in economic downturn benefit red tape
The recent statement by the Prime Minister's spokesman to radio Voice of Russia that it is natural for a President to criticise the Government's work has highlighted several important points in Russian politics. "It is only natural for a President to criticise the Government, and it doesn't mean there is a conflict," Dmitry Peskov said. The reason for his statement was the host's question about several criticisms by President Dmitry Medvedev of the Government's slow implementation of the adopted anti-crisis policies.
What did sound unexpected, however, was Mr Peskov's obvious determination to get a simple truth across to his audience. The White House spokesman kept repeating over again: "Let me repeat that they never mix up their personal relationship and business, and most importantly, that both leaders - President Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin - are dedicated to the country's prosperity. Mr Putin criticises his ministers, and Mr Medvedev, his Government, but this is never criticism for the sake of criticism. Their goal is to improve the work and make it more effective."
This long speech to rub in a simple truth no one is actually disputing, in fact prods on to question whether it is as incontestable as one might think. But is it?
First of all, there is no evidence that the President and Prime Minister have had any irreconcilable differences. Considering the unique format of the current Russian Government, officially "dual" in many ways, one has to admit that neither Mr Putin nor Mr Medvedev have ventured even the smallest shade of criticism about each other.
What has happened in the past month? The impeccable tact and caution exercised by the President and Prime Minister no longer restrain their retinue. The deepening economic downturn, growing unemployment and crime force various elites to seek scapegoats, preferably in the rival team.
However, with Russia's traditionally closed politics, society has no tools to assess the true scale of the problem it could be facing or even discuss blunders of high-ranking officials.
This lack of transparency leads to a paradoxical situation where any criticism issued by the President against a Government official is seen as a sign of his dissatisfaction with the Prime Minister. This naturally irritates both leaders.
The latest example was Mr Medvedev's furious speech (as strong as the good-mannered leader was capable of) at the St Petersburg meeting on the anniversary of the end of the siege of Leningrad. His outburst, which sounded very much like a well-prepared ad-lib, was in fact provoked by an education issue. He found one of the multiple choice questions provided for practice for the history Unified State Exam "stupid" and "provocative" because one of the possible answers was "mass shooting of German military prisoners". His rebuke is likely to be interpreted as another attack on You-Know-Who's Government.
It is high time the public stop seeing top officials' criticism of departments and their heads as something extraordinary. This situation in fact benefits government officials, giving them an excuse to dismiss the criticism, which is often fair and to the point, as more political turmoil "up there."
There is no change within the Putin-Medvedev duo. They still share positions on many issues. Thus, they have both underestimated their direct subordinates' survival skill - their adaptability to a changing environment.
The rules of political behind-the-scenes games imposed by Russian bureaucrats can be changed only if problems are discussed openly and freely. Otherwise, the Government is bound to deny rumours over and over again, instead of clearly arguing the need for specific reforms in front of the public.