On the number of Russian governments and their salvation concepts
When I am asked to give my opinion on the government's anti-crisis strategy, I tend to say: Which strategy? And, more dramatically, of which government?
I don't want to say that we don't have a Government. On the contrary, we have at least three Governments.
One government is the government of ministers Alexei Kudrin and Elvira Nabiullina. Another government is that of Igor Sechin and Viktor Chemezov. And the third government is the government of Vladimir Putin.
Their goals and tasks are not simply different, but in fact polar opposites, because they are based on totally different systems of logic. Even the word "anti-crisis" has a specific meaning in each of these systems. Their modus vivendi and systems of coordinates are so different that these three governments do not even argue with each other. They simply coexist.
The disputes we see happen within each of these governments. For example, the ministry of Mr Kudrin is at loggerheads with the ministry of Ms Nabiullina. They are not comrades, although they have one sphere of responsibility - the economy - and they are talking economy in the same language. They cannot agree on which measures will stimulate the economy and which may de-stimulate it, where to invest and when to save, what can happen if the country has a budget deficit of this or that size, and what effect they can expect from supporting this or that sector.
The intensity of these disputes keeps them from thinking about the other governments, which are also waging their own anti-crisis disputes.
Deputy Prime Minister Igor Sechin, who is in charge of industry, and Viktor Chemezov, Head of the state corporation Russian Technologies, are not quite allies either, though both are responsible for industry, not for the economy. The economy is the competence of Mr Kudrin and Ms Nabiullina, while industry has a different logic. The economy is focused on figures, while industry is about assets.
The economy, as Mr Kudrin and Ms Nabiullina see it, can be stimulated or de-stimulated, while the industry, or assets, as Mr Sechin and Mr Chemezov would say, can be controlled or not controlled.
Mr Kudrin and Ms Nabiullina love to stimulate the economy, although they cannot agree on the ways of doing it, while Mr Sechin and Mr Chemezov are set to control industrial assets, although they may differ on which and how.
Lastly, Mr Kudrin and Ms Nabiullina think that an anti-crisis strategy is anything that can stimulate the economy, while Mr Sechin and Mr Chemezov have no doubts about the true meaning and goal of the anti-crisis strategy for industry.
Stimulating and controlling are not different economic notions, but rather different reflexes.
And finally, there is a third government, the government of Vladimir Putin. This is a political government, whose main anti-crisis goal is to minimise the political consequences of the crisis for Vladimir Putin. Therefore, this government wants Mr Kudrin and Ms Nabiullina to find a way to stimulate the economy while at the same time controlling industry with the help of Mr Sechin and Mr Chemezov, and not forget about the people. I mean, they must find a way to show the people that not everything is bad, or at least not as bad as it could be.
The future of the first government is gloomy. It would like to help the economy, but cannot. When 75% of your revenue comes from the export of commodities, and imports make up 50% of the consumer market, you cannot do anything when commodities prices plunge besides debate forecasts ("we will have minus 2% or 3% here, and minus 8%-10% there") and throw darts at your own reflection during the tea breaks.
Indeed, what can this government tell us about our future, the rouble rate, the budget parameters, the availability of loans, and prospects for economic recovery? It can only say that all of these depend on the price of a barrel of oil. Oil is our golden standard, our personal "international financial centre."
The future of the second government is enviable but not long, because consolidating an increasing amount of assets amid falling demand and a credit collapse is like collecting cracked dishes. Well, it is nice getting such dishes at a discount, but then what do you do with them?
All industrialists expect to receive budgetary assistance, and they will receive it, at the first stage. However, the longer it lasts, the more their interests will clash with the interests of the third government. What I mean is, the more money the treasury spends on the industrialists' efforts, the less money it will have left for encouraging the people to think that not everything is as bad as it could be.
So, does the government have an anti-crisis strategy or not? As of yet, it does not. It reminds me of the Russian real estate market, where buyers no longer want to buy at old (high) prices, but sellers are not yet ready to sell at new (lower) prices.
Likewise, the Russian government would like to have a strategy for fighting the crisis, because it really frightens those in power, but our leaders are not prepared to abandon the pre-crisis chimeras because they still love them. They repeat to us - and themselves - that the crisis will last for long, but they in fact do not believe what they are saying and keep looking at oil quotes, hoping for a miracle.
Kirill Rogov