Vladimir Putin was writing a report but ended up with an address to the Duma
Alexander Chudodeyev, Nikolai Galkin (photo)
Government
"We are starting a new tradition, the report of the Government to Parliament", said Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin addressing the State Duma last week. True, it was not a traditional report, i.e. a review of measures taken to combat the crisis, assessment of the Government's performance and correction of mistakes. The head of Government devoted most of his speech to driving home the message that Russia, in spite of the difficult year 2009, will overcome the crisis and preserve its position as a leading world economy. As a result, the Government's first report to the Duma turned into the Prime Minister's address to the law-makers.
The provision that makes it binding on the Government to present annual reports to the State Duma was put into the Russian Constitution quite recently, simultaneously with extending the presidential term to six years and the parliament's term to five years. The idea was put forward by President Dmitry Medvedev in his address to the Federal Assembly in early November last year.
At the time it was not quite clear what concept of the Government system the President had in mind when making it obligatory for the Government to present the annual report to parliament. The State Duma has ways to know what the Government is doing. For example, it has the Government Hour almost every week. It is another question that given the current alignments in the Russian Parliament any Government report becomes a formality. After the Prime Minister's speech the Duma merely passes a non-binding resolution. The United Russia, which holds two thirds of the seats in the Duma did not even dare to put the assessment of the Government's performance to the vote (even though the outcome was a foregone conclusion).
However, everything clicks into its place if one looks at Vladimir Putin's speech as an address. Because this country is ruled by a tandem, which is openly admitted both at the Kremlin and at the Government, the powers of both its members should be in many ways identical. That applies to the power to deliver historic messages to the nation. Vladimir Putin's speech was billed as a report only in a token gesture. But what's in a name?
It is another matter that the Prime Minister's report predated the President's report to the Federal Assembly scheduled for the autumn. That answers the question as to who should assess the Government's anti-crisis measures. Our Prime Minister is not a technical figure, but a political leader determining the country's strategy, but the President still has the final say. Dmitry Medvedev will deliver his address after the effect of the Government's anti-crisis measures, if any, becomes evident.
Presidential Aide Arkady Dvorkovich believes that the effect of the Government's plan will kick in during the second and third quarters, that is, by the autumn. In his opinion, unemployment would stop growing, production would stop falling and there would be signs of growth in some sectors. Whether or not these forecasts come true would determine the content of the presidential address, which will give marks to the Government's performance.
Needless to say, it is much harder for Vladimir Putin to score political points. The Prime Minister delivered his address at the height of the crisis. He had to publicly answer some probing questions from the Duma opposition and beat back attacks on his ministers - the Government as a whole and individual ministers.
However, in the opinion of observers, Mr Putin coped with that task with flying colours. As the President of the Strategic Development Centre, Mikhail Dmitriyev, told Itogi, "the Prime Minister did not say anything that could be described as untrue or as window-dressing. He sounded quite convincing in formulating the possibilities the Government is using and demonstrated that these possibilities could substantially improve the situation." Thus Vladimir Putin again demonstrated that he could engage the nation in a dialogue even in a situation that put him at a disadvantage. Politicians possessing this valuable quality are referred to as "Teflon" leaders. As the Russian Prime Minister has demonstrated, such leaders easily "put their political life on the line" without much damage to their approval rating. Even though they are occasionally engaged in wishful thinking. Thus, Vladimir Putin brushed off any criticism of his Government for allowing the Russian economy to slide into the crisis. "The problems did not arise here or through our fault. This is obvious, nobody is challenging that," the Prime Minister clinched the issue.
Actually the challengers are many. Not everybody agrees, for example, with Mr Putin's thesis that the Government and the Central Bank did the right thing when opting for a smooth devaluation of the rouble and supporting the banks. However, the majority in the State Duma, and perhaps in society as a whole, is prepared to believe the Prime Minister.
"The whole world envies us... you can take my word for it," Vladimir Putin told the Duma referring to the flat income tax rate. This was greeted with applause. It was not the only burst of applause that day. And with good reason: Vladimir Putin reeled off even more figures than usual to convince those present that the crisis was about to start receding. "The rouble is stable... inflation will go down". The country's gold and currency reserves have increased by $5 billion lately. He said not a word about the disastrous results of the fourth quarter of last year.
Many observers noted what they thought to be the key sentence in the Prime Minister's speech: "Regarding the shortage of money: there is never enough money. The point is to set the priorities right. What is more important, to build a barn and pocket 20-30% on construction, or give the money to teachers and doctors"? Social policy has been declared as the Government's priority. That thesis has not been challenged. However, this is not the only anti-crisis priority.
Significantly, the Prime Minister put in a word for bankers. He said that financial institutions faced many problems, including defaults on credits. Everybody today predicts a second wave of the banking crisis citing astronomical sums that may be required for additional capitalisation of the lending institutions. Will the Government have enough money for the jobless, the pensioners, the bankers, the automobile and other industries? The answer to that question would determine the marks that the President will give the Government in his address in autumn. At the end of the day the fate of the ruling tandem depends on it.
* * *
Opinion
Form and content
Itogi has sought the opinion of representatives of parties in the Duma about the form and content of the Government's first report to Parliament.
Dmitry Vyatkin (United Russia): "It would be wrong to see the Prime Minister's report as ticking the box. During Putin's speech the opposition, above all the Communists, even made some noises over some passages. There were also some "hear, hear" voices and applause. The Duma is preparing a resolution giving an assessment of the report and the anti-crisis programme. If the Government's actions are judged to be wanting or mistaken the Constitution envisages mechanisms for reaction.
In my opinion, what marks out the first Government report is that it offers a plan of anti-crisis measures which has never been commented on at such a level and so fully. The plan envisages measures of social support. On the other hand, the Government has earmarked millions of roubles to refinance major Russian industries in order to prevent them being claimed as collateral by foreign banks. It is an important economic security measure. Mr Putin stressed that there can be no return to a planned economy."
Sergei Sobko (KPRF): "It's the same as usual: we talked and then went each our own ways. There is no real control over the actions of the executive branch. I asked Vladimir Putin: "If the state has created the Unified Aircraft Building Corporation (UABC) - a good measure undoubtedly - and has provided funds for it, why don't we see any results?" He replied that the aircraft are bad and nobody wants to buy them. Why have the UABC then? It is also unclear why the Government has admitted that injecting billions into authorised banks had yielded small effect, but is not demanding this money back. If they haven't managed to channel that money to the real sector let them give it back to the state. Instead the top managers of the banks - mind you, banks with Government stakes - got 70 million rouble bonuses each at the end of last year when they reported losses. I hoped that at least the report would provide concrete answers to long-standing questions. My hope hasn't come true."
Valery Gartung (Just Russia): "As for the general assessment of the event, I think it was useful. But the format must be changed. Why should the Prime Minister read out his report? It could have been sent to the Duma in advance, everybody could have read it and the three hours could then have been used to discuss it. As it happened, the discussion part was too short. If the Government's measures had been widely discussed before being adopted, perhaps some amendments to the anti-crisis plan would have been introduced".
Leonid Slutsky (LDPR): "I think this form of dialogue between the Government and Parliament is right. It is the standard form of the Government head reporting to Parliament accepted throughout the world. There were some sharp questions and some surprises for Mr Putin himself and he clearly made a note of some things. As for the substance of the anti-crisis plan, the priority given to the social sphere is important. The Prime Minister stressed it in his speech and in his answers".
Svetlana Sukhova