Political scientist Nikolai Zlobin: "Russia risking to turn into the world's obsolete gasoline pump"
In recent time, Russia and America remind us of polar opposites who have become twins. Having looked into the abyss of the economic crisis, Yankees gave up on the free market principles and started using federal money in the spirit of the Soviet State Planning Committee. But isn't this similarity purely external? Won't the crisis increase our lag behind the developed world? Director of Russian and Asian Programmes at the Washington-based Centre for Defence Information Nikolai Zlobin gave an affirmative answer to both questions. Are they twins or opposites?
Question: Nikolai, would you agree that while we were trying to catch up with America under Nikita Khrushchev, now America is trying to catch up with us? In dealing with the crisis, Washington has also made a stake on increasing the state's role in the economy.
Answer: The main instinct of any state machinery is to take advantage of the crisis, squeeze the free market and regulate something there. Indeed, Russia and the United States have much in common in this respect. They have both been putting off the modernisation of their economic and financial systems.
But there is also an important difference. American economy is bound to emerge from the crisis modernised and more competitive. I'm not sure whether it will retain its power in the global economy, but it will be more modern. In the meantime, the Russian Government has focused on patching up holes and an attempt to calculate how long the crisis will continue, whether it will have enough money to cope with it, and how to distribute it. Everything boils down to the hope that the hard times will pass, oil prices will go up sooner or later, and everything will come back to normal. This position is a huge political miscalculation. It may throw Russia to the economic and political sidelines in the post-crisis world.
Q: Considering the Russian economy's extreme dependence on the world's demand and supply situation, do we have any other option?
A: You are right to some extent. But Russia has chosen to have an economy oriented to the export of energy sources. It wanted to use high prices on raw materials, save money for the rainy day, and stash it away under the mattress, following the example of your average granny. This is what the Russian Government's policy was about for the last eight years. As a result, Russia has developed double dependence on the world situation. Now this situation will determine whether Russia will have enough money or not.
Could all this have been avoided? I think so. The Government should have invested money not into the financial security cushion but into the economy's modernisation. In that case, the national economy would not have been in such a bad shape today.
Q: But is it possible to argue that the crisis has knocked off not only us but also countries with the modernised economy?
A: A whole number of other countries have built their economy on a different modelthan Russia. They have created world brands and monopolised whole sectors of the world economy. They are in a difficult position and although they do not have as much money as Russia, their economies are adapted to emerge from the crisis stronger and catch up with what they are losing now.
If Russia had followed their example, its economy would have been much harder socially hit by the crisis. The trouble is that the crisis will not make Russia better. The Russian economy has already started servicing other economies. After the crisis, it will continue depending on prices on energy sources and the correlation of global currencies. During this time, other states will have gone far ahead.
Q: During the last hundred years we were permanently sacrificing normal life for the sake of the vague bright future. Do you think we should be doing this again?
A: Attempts to get rid of social problems were only justified by the slogans about care for the people. In reality, the Russian leaders made social problems their priority for a somewhat different reason. The main goal for them was to guarantee their own survival. To achieve this, they had to win the public's loyalty and high ratings for themselves.
Q: Aren't Western politicians concerned about their high ratings?
A: The current crisis in the West is a crisis of the market economy. The crisis in Russia is a crisis of the market economy's imitation. I think Russia has never had a normal market economy. Its system can be called a pseudo-market - a neo-command economy with the state's huge direct and indirect participation, pocket oligarchs and telephone rights. In this economy, it is possible to go down the drain when profits are rising, and prosper when they dwindle. Economically, this is pure madness. But in building its economy, the state did not set itself the aim of making money. It was guided by group interests and was tackling all kinds of political or personal tasks, but not economic ones. In the United States, the crisis does not put in question the foundations of the state machinery. In Russia, the problems should be resolved in a way so as not to lose control. In the United States, the state interferes in the market economy to regulate its failures. In Russia, the state that has established a non-market economy is thinking how to avoid failures in order to consolidate itself and not to be thrown out of it.
Q: But aren't America and Russia doing the same thing - both countries are putting their taxpayers' money into saving their ineffective car-makers?
A: In the United States, the state interferes in the market economy, realising that sooner or later it will have to leave it. If Ford or General Motors do not survive this crisis, America will part with their two national symbols with tears in their eyes. After all, it parted in the past with PanAm and other symbols that once symbolised its power in the world. It goes without saying that national symbols are important, but each generation has its own ones.
In Russia, the problem boils down not so much to the economic crisis as to the crisis of the state that created this economy for resolving its political problems. If this economy collapses, the state as we know it will also collapse together with the vertical of power.
Ratings and screws
Q: Will the economic crisis destroy Vladimir Putin's rating?
A: Does it matter whether there is a crisis or not? I'm convinced that as a politician, Mr Putin is acting independently of his mythical image of a popular hero like Dobrynya Nikitich. This image embodies expectations rather than real actions. This rating is based on despair because there is nothing else. Mr Putin's current activities have nothing to do with the ratings of the Government and the Prime Minister. This popularity will remain for a long time because of the public demand for positive emotions and hope. Even if Mr Putin fails as Prime Minister, he will remain a great leader in the national memory.
Q: However, people are becoming increasingly aware that the content of their pockets has changed. Won't this influence Mr Putin's rating?
A: This will be justified. Blame may be placed with the Americans, bad ministers, United Russia, and certainly the press. Even President Medvedev may be blamed, though this is not likely.
Q: Will it be correct to say that the economic crisis has put an end to the unofficial social contract between the authorities and society?
A: Needless to say, a period of stability is over. The reserve of the public demand for evolutionary development and the expectation that the Government will treat us well has ended. In principle, this is fully justified. Mr Putin's presidency was a unique chance for Russia in all respects. But Mr Putin appeared to be a leader of lost opportunities. It goes without saying that he has not missed all his chances, but if he had used at least the bulk of them, Russia would have been in a much better situation, both economically and politically.
Q: If the crisis is dragged out, what feature of the national character will the nation demonstrate - "a pointless and merciless riot" or "ability to display patience for a long time"?
A: Having lived through communism, the people have overcome both children's diseases - patience and a desire to rebel. A riot should be prevented by all means. But the Yeltsin period with its opportunities to travel all over the world and compare did not make people more patient, either. I hope people understand that it is necessary to conduct finer work with the authorities. After all, the nation's pressure on power means democracy.
Q: But does the country have channels of civilised pressure on power?
A: The situation with these channels is not simple. "Vertical channels" were opened in the 1990s, and there immediately appeared many interesting people at the top. A considerable part of the current elite came from the part decade. But today these channels have been actually shut down. Their work is being actively imitated with lists of presidential reserves. There is normal political struggle, in which it is necessary to prove that you are better and submit yourself for the judgment of the nation. The voters rather than officials should compile lists of elite. Building a political system like Russia is doing now is like incest. This road leads to the degeneration of the elite and the state.
Q: If there are no channels, then valves will fail or we will have stagnation. Do you agree?
A: The mechanism for changing the elite will appear when the leaders come to understand that they are not permanently in power; others will come sooner or later. Such understanding does not exist today. With the exception of Boris Yeltsin, Russia did not have the experience of voluntary retirement. Nobody else gave others the opportunity to rule the country. Therefore, everything will depend on the responsibility of those in power who must leave. If they do not leave, and will have to be pushed from their positions, this won't be good but the channels will be open in any case.
Q: Is the Government trying to tighten the screws during the economic crisis or not?
A: When the situation is stable and there is economic growth, monopoly on power can let one down. Monopoly is the best method of making mistakes but when everything is going well, mistakes can be made up for. Monopoly is impossible when everything is collapsing. Trying to tighten the screws is trying to keep monopoly. At the last economic forum in Davos, Mr Putin preached things that were directly opposite to what he was doing in the country for the last eight years. He urged eliminating monopoly on global decision-making, but this also applies to Russia.
Q: But not tightening the screws means risking losing power.
A: Let me reiterate: Everything will depend on the readiness of the Russian leaders to put their carriers and state under threat. If they are not ready to do this, after the crisis Russia will play the role of a global gasoline pump for China and the West. Moreover, this pump will be technologically obsolete, from the previous generation.
Who is Mr Medvedev?
Q: When asked who is more important in Russia now - the President or the Prime Minister-most experts choose the latter. Do you agree with this?
A: I think so. Incidentally, the question should be put differently: Who is more important - Mr Putin or Mr Medvedev regardless of their posts? If they switch places, the President will become more important again. Mr Putin has more weight now for a whole number of reasons. The main of these is that today Russia is a country of President Putin. He worked on it for eight years. Whether he likes it or not, but for President Medvedev to become the number one figure in the country, Mr Putin's Russia has to be destroyed. All Russian history boils down to the fact that the assertion of the new leader in power is achieved by the destruction of the system created by his predecessor. Mr Putin destroyed Mr Yeltsin's system, while Mr Yeltsin did away with Mikhail Gorbachev's. Mr Gorbachev tried to get rid of Leonid Brezhnev's system, and so on and so forth, all the way back to Peter the Great. Today, Mr Medvedev is not destroying Mr Putin's Russia, and for this reason Mr Putin is the main figure in the country where he is President.
Q: Is the President going to destroy the current system? Has enough time passed to answer the question, Who is Mr Medvedev?
A: Enough time has passed for this, but there is still no answer. When Mr Medvedev ran for President, he was going to become President of a completely different country. He had no idea about the war against Georgia, the economic crisis, or several contract murders. But they all took place. Mr Medvedev's first year as President proved to be different from what he imagined.
Mr Medvedev has not yet shaped as an independent politician. I have always thought and still think that there will be a split despite good personal relations between Mr Putin and Mr Medvedev. At first, they tried to make sure that their teams cooperate but later on they decided that everything was going okay. As soon as they stopped controlling their people in the broad sense of this word, conflicts began to break out. To what extent are they capable to smooth these contradictions and prevent them from developing into a personal conflict? Everything depends on whether Mr Medvedev will be able to behave as President or whether he will yield to the pressure of government officials.
Q: Who will run for the presidency in 2012 - Mr Putin or Mr Medvedev?
A: I won't be surprised if it will be Mr Medvedev. Today, we are all victims of President Medvedev learning to become President. Having become Prime Minister, Mr Putin started learning to be Prime Minister. At one of the Valdai meetings I asked him what he liked about his job as Prime Minister. He replied: "I work and learn every day - what social security is, how the healthcare system is run..." His answer was great but can Russia afford to have a Prime Minister who is just learning how the economy works? Or a President who is also only learning? However, by 2012 Mr Medvedev may become a good President, and will have an opportunity to prove to the country and the rest of the world that he is no worse than Mr Putin.
Q: In the next elections Mr Putin will have a constitutional right to run for President. Why should Mr Medvedev run?
A: He really shouldn't if Mr Putin thinks abut the way his place in history will be described in textbooks in the next few years. But if Mr Putin thinks about textbooks to be written in 20 to 40 years, he should not run at all.
Russia is a very difficult country to rule. It is believed here that nothing can be achieved in four years. However, being a President in Russia for eight years is like working in a quarry, where one year equals three. A person is exhausted emotionally, intellectually and psychologically. I don't think that Mr Putin will run for the presidency again. Needless to say, anything can happen, but I'm hoping very much that the 2012 elections will not be similar to the ones we had in 2008.
By 2012 Mr Medvedev may become a good President."
"Building a political system like Russia is doing now is like incest."
"Mr Putin appeared to be a leader of lost opportunities."