Yesterday marked the one-year anniversary of President Dmitry Medvedev's election.
The forum Strategy-2020 held by the United Russia Party in Moscow yesterday was devoted to the first year of Dmitry Medvedev's presidency. The conversation inevitably drifted toward a discussion of the economic crisis, as the two themes proved to be interconnected. One of the most notable speeches was made by the First Deputy Chief of the President's Executive Office, who assured those present that the political system was working effectively while the calls for changing it were "extremely risky".
The meeting of political scientists and journalists, civil servants and economists to mark the anniversary of Dmitry Medvedev's election was held in the shadow of the Kremlin, in the GUM department store showroom at 3 Red Square.
"A year ago it seemed that measured and calm work lay ahead for Mr Medvedev, but life introduced its corrections," the editor-in-chief of the journal Expert, Valery Fadeyev, said when opening the meeting.
In August of that year a war broke out that showed that "Medvedev is a tough leader". Next came the crisis, and "few people expected it to assume such a character". As a result Russia found itself "under serious threat". In the opinion of the speakers, the crisis has also influenced the political system in the country.
Valery Fadeyev believes that the Medvedev-Putin tandem has improved the political system in Russia, which has become "more complicated, with each of the leaders contributing something personal to it". In Mr Fadeyev's opinion, "politics is a complicated matter, and it would be foolish to object to the situation in which Mr Putin remains a strong leader."
It is this political system, thinks the Head of the Effective Policy Fund, Gleb Pavlovsky, that "spared us the fate of Iceland, Hungary, Latvia, and Ukraine, which is an achievement in itself". Opinion polls have revealed a kind of paradox: on the one hand, people take a realistic and unfettered view of the crisis and its consequences for themselves, while on the other hand, they support the authorities. The March 1 regional elections have shown that voters do not separate Medvedev and Putin.
"Attempts to split or defeat the two electorates have failed. Those who support Medvedev have voted for United Russia, which is rightly considered to be Mr Putin's party, says Mr Pavlovsky. "But support for United Russia is not based solely on the support for Putin. Today people support the party as a national unity institution that guarantees security in the midst of the crisis. Support for the governing party in the crisis conditions is unusual, and credit for this must go to the system, and not to any individual."
In the opinion of Mikhail Yuryev, an economist, "a political line that is all things to all men does not exist in nature; every policy has its flip side". As for the crisis, it is important that the current interests of the Russian economy are not sacrificed for strategic interests.
"If we commit ourselves to a policy that would limit our dependence on the world economy, in the long run it will reveal some shortcomings, but they will not be very serious, whereas we will obviously win in the short term," Mr Yuryev says. "Conversely, while we cannot be assured of a positive result from our total integration with the world, we can be sure that we will lose a great deal in the short term."
Mr Yuryev's views are shared by TV commentator Mikhail Leontyev: "The main cause of the crisis in Russia is our country's total dependence on the outside world." In addition, our Government has proved to be "unprepared for the crisis intellectually, institutionally and ideologically".
At a certain point TV presenter Tina Kandelaki, tired of the heated debate, asked for the floor. She said that President Medvedev has "the right computer and the right watch", which was why "he goes over well with the young people". Mrs Kandelaki then confessed that she knew nothing about economics, but told the audience how the crisis had affected her personally.
"I cannot make money on corporate parties anymore," she confided, "but I have found a recipe for combating the crisis. I bought a stake in an innovative Internet company."
TV presenter Vladimir Solovyov assured the meeting that President Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin were working in concert and had a "civilized relationship", whereas the same could not be said about the elite, where there are "constant attempts to unleash some kind of squabble".
"I want to speak up in defence of the current political system. It may be boring, as it is always much more fun to change everything, to renounce everything and start something new," Vladislav Surkov summed up after listening to the spirited argument for about two hours. "Nobody has made any calculations; nobody has said what the new system would look like and what the cost of introducing it would be." He said that if our political system were "looser and sloppier" today, when loans and government money are being handed out, we would be in a terrible mess.
"What if we all get drunk and disorderly and start smashing furniture? Perhaps it is time to call it a day? Perhaps we can do without it?" Mr Surkov asked. "I think there is nothing wrong with one party being dominant today; there are many more pluses than minuses. If we had entered this turbulent time in looser condition, I assure you the damage would have been much greater."
He said that the current political system was working and would cope with the crisis. "Of course, it will change and modernize itself, but on the whole it needs to be handled with care and in a more considerate way," the Deputy Chief of the Executive Office said. "Why do we always start talking about a revolt? Don't scare anyone, including ourselves. We should believe in our country, no matter how critical the outside world may be."
* * *
Verbatim
FIRST DEPUTY CHIEF OF THE PRESIDENTIAL EXECUTIVE OFFICE VLADISLAV SURKOV:
The trendy line of reasoning among our political scientists goes like this: in the previous eight years there was a sort of contract between society and power. Power distributed the petrodollars, gave handouts to everyone, and in exchange society was ready to forgo some of its rights and freedoms. Now that the flow of petrodollars has dried up, people have decided that if there are no petrodollars, they should receive freedoms. I would like to tell the people who think along these lines that they should not give up decency even in times of crisis. One widely known instance of a person directly renouncing his rights in favour of a material reward was the biblical personage of Esau, who traded away his birth right (which conferred many privileges, including the privileges of a free man) for a mess of pottage. This suggests many conclusions... the "old" political system was either created with an eye for the wrong kinds of tasks and cannot fulfill its function today, or it was the fruit of earlier affluence and now everything should be different and the system should be urgently changed. I would like to speak up in defence of the existing political system. This is boring, as it is always much more fun to change everything, to renounce everything and to start something new. I think this is our main fault: we don't want to follow through with anything and are always ready to give up halfway on an impulse without considering the consequences. Nobody has calculated what the new political system would look like or what the cost of introducing it would be.
Look how the "model" democracies that we are supposed to emulate first respond to any crisis. They say: we believe in our institutions and we will not renounce our values.
By contrast we, as soon as there are signs of squabbles, as soon as we feel the wind blowing from some direction, immediately declare: we should revise our institutions and, moreover, review our values.
Read President Medvedev's Address: freedom, justice, patriotism, love of family. What is there that needs to be renounced? Most importantly, to what end?
I disagree with those who say that any change of landscape must entail a revision of strategy. You know, when our troops were fighting their way from Moscow to Berlin they encountered all sorts of landscapes along the way, but the strategy remained unchanged: to seize Berlin and defeat the invaders. When one is on a major expedition, one should not be nervous; one should not act in haste; one should not duck for cover and hasten to renounce everything. Forum-2020, which we are attending, was planned before the crisis broke out.
I believe that our political system is working, to borrow a phrase from our friends who instruct us in the ways of democracy. It is indeed working. It is true that we bear some of the blame for what happened. When I am told that it is all the fault of America, I like to recall that our economic growth is a derivative of the bubble that the Americans were inflating. We did not deserve such growth. But let us be honest with ourselves: we have warned about it, including during the forums organised by United Russia. Mr Putin said it. Did I say something new there? This is why we are calling on everyone to create a different economy that is less exposed to such blows.
Imagine what would have happened if our political system were even looser and more unhinged than it is, if it were more like in the 1990s than in the first decade of this century. Imagine what would have happened on the eve of the crisis now that the state has started distributing money and other privileges.
The fact that we have one predominant party has many drawbacks, but it is my deep conviction that at present it gives us more benefits. If we had entered this turbulent zone in a looser condition, I assure you that the nation would have sustained much greater damage. In conclusion, on this day marking a year since the election of Dmitry Medvedev, I would like to repeat that everything is normal. The elections yesterday were a success. People expressed different opinions. Yes, United Russia has won, but not in all the regions - the Communists have won in some places and they have won very convincingly. That too is a sign of democracy. Such are our political institutions. Such is our political system. Thank you.
Oksana Yegorova
