On May 7 of last year, Dmitry Medvedev was inaugurated as President of Russia. On the next day, May 8, Vladimir Putin was confirmed as Prime Minister. How has the country lived through this year under a two-man tandem? What difficulties did the tandem face? How is it taking the country out of the crisis? What challenges will it have to meet in the near future?
All these questions are being answered in an interview with Valery Fadeyev, editor-in-chief of the magazine Ekspert.
No quarrels
Q: Do you think the new power pattern has lived up to popular expectations?
A: This pattern was not chosen by the people. It was chosen by Mr Putin, who decided to become Prime Minister following the election of a new President. That a young, energetic and very strong politician decided to work as head of Government was his choice, not ours. But the new President was elected by democratic procedure. For democracy it was very important that President Putin decided against running for a third time. We all remember the complaints of the bureaucracy: please, do not step down, stay on for a third, for a fourth term ... Mr Putin's decision to follow the letter of the Constitution was important in principle. As for the tandem, I think it is performing well. A new centre of power - the Government - has appeared. Previously, it was weaker or stronger, but always under the President's thumb - first Mr Yeltsin, then Mr Putin. Now the Government is quite independent.
Q: Has this created differences between the Kremlin and the White House? Experts forecasted this could happen.
A: So far, fortunately, it has not, although the danger of contradictions exists. Differences in the tandem would have suited certain forces who would have tried to play on them.
A bureaucrat's dream
Q: What are the forces that want Mr Putin and Mr Medvedev to quarrel?
A: Above all, it is the bureaucracy. The Russian bureaucracy has too much power and too many vices: it is greedy, corrupt and unwilling to fulfil its state function. Tell us, it says, who is our boss - Mr Medvedev or Mr Putin? The question of "who is the boss" in a democratic set-up, which we are trying to develop, cannot be answered. Our bureaucrats would be very much surprised if they were told that their real boss and master is the people, who under democratic rules chooses political forces to lead the country. Instability in power echelons always affords the bureaucrat an opportunity to snatch a bit more and stuff his pockets more fully. We witnessed this in the 1990s when huge Soviet property was "sawn into chunks". Some would have gladly repeated the trick now. As soon as the country got some crisis vibes, calls went up immediately: let us bankrupt the banks, let us divide the property in a new way. Mr Medvedev and Mr Putin again warned everybody: the crisis was no time to redistribute property and for some to rob others.
Acid test
Q: What was the biggest test for Mr Putin and Mr Medvedev last year?
A: Of course, Georgia's attack on South Ossetia. It was an acid test not only for the power tandem - it was the key moment for Russia, perhaps for the first time since the breakup of the Soviet Union. Russia's response to Georgia's aggression was immediate and ruthless. Everybody saw that Russia will never allow anyone snub it and its neighbours. In that situation a military answer was the only correct option. Some credited the victory to Mr Putin. But this was not so. The Supreme Commander-in-Chief is the President. The final decision was no doubt Mr Medvedev's. I think this step was crucial for him as the President of a strong power. He must really have felt President of Russia at that time.
Fighting the Crisis
Q: The crisis has also put relations in the tandem to the test. In the winter, the President sharply berated the Government for slowness.
A: No one is ever prepared for a crisis. Nor was the Russian Government. Only last summer the Finance Minister said Russia was a safe haven, an island of stability, although many saw that the safe haven was a myth and the blow would be crushing. Some believed it was a bureaucratic way of calming down the population, but I think some members of the Government still do not understand what is happening. Hence the criticism of the Government coming from the President. But this does not mean that the Government is doing it all wrong. That means that the elite is still undecided which strategic actions to take and which moves to make.
Q: Another criticism was that the authorities first rushed to bale out the banks, distributing lots of cash to what Mr Putin described as "fat cats".
A: To begin with, it was no aid, but loans to be repaid. Second, during the first phase of any economic crisis the weakest spot is the financial system. If it crumbles down, so does the entire economy. Therefore the financial system had to be kept working despite everything. How effective was the Government's policy? Perhaps not very. But to say that so much cash need not have been injected into the banking system, that less could have been enough, is light-minded, because the Government had to act in very narrow conditions. And it acted right. The financial system did not falter for a single moment. We remember what happened in 1998. A general rule in assessing political action, the management of a very sophisticated system, is: if there are no negative effects, then everything is in order. What the authorities have done has had no negative effects. True, bad debts are mounting now. When the crisis hit, many businesses took out short-term and high-interest loans. In the autumn, these must be paid off. But there is no cash to pay them. So to avoid a new wave of crisis ...
Q: While we are riding the first wave...
A: ... the state should help market players - the lending banks and borrowing businesses - to reschedule loans for longer terms and less interest. Then there would be no problems.
What lease on life has a grafter?
Q: Mr Medvedev has declared war on corruption. But can graft be totally controlled?
A: If left alone, never. If fought, in 30 years or so. Corruption in Russia today is no departure from rules. It is, alas, a rule. That is the way the economic and even some of the political system functions in Russia nowadays. Corruption is part of the social fabric, which needs changing.
Q: Some experts say that Mr Medvedev has no team of his own. But, on the other hand, he has long been a member of Mr Putin's team. Does it mean each must have a separate team?
A: This question will crop up when the tandem begins tackling strategic tasks, or the Strategy-2020 programme. So far the programme is waiting to be addressed. At the beginning of Mr Putin's presidential rule, the task was to put an end to Chechen separatism, because, by growing, it could break up Russia. In fulfilling that task, Mr Putin created a power vertical, however flimsy, restored the state machinery and set it in motion. Now Russia is facing different tasks. When the need to come to grips with these tasks becomes paramount - we cannot do otherwise - then these new teams will make their appearance. Perhaps many of the current politicians may become their members. But they will be fulfilling another role.
Q: The West believes Mr Medvedev is more liberal than Mr Putin. Does this mean Mr Medvedev will find dealing with the West easier?
A: Maybe Mr Medvedev is a greater liberal than Mr Putin, I do not know. But is he less of a patriot? Of course, not. His decisions during the Georgian-South Ossetian war show it. Did he expect the West to condemn him? I do not believe he cared a fig if he was blamed or not. In such situations, factors other than Western opinion prevail. Must the President seek the good graces of the West? The question should be rephrased. Does the West need Russia? It does. Do we need the West? We do. Russia badly needs an innovation path of development, but does it have too many supertechnologies? They are all in the West, but they are essential if we are to make progress. We are forty or so years behind. And cannot make up for lost time without the West. We should work with the West, not seek its good graces.
Q: Mr Putin was on friendly terms with Mr Bush. Will Mr Medvedev make friends with Mr Obama?
A: I reckon they will get along fine. Signals from Mr Obama that he is willing to talk nuclear reductions are something positive, though few in Russia like the idea. We are not well off with other types of weaponry, and if we cut back our nuclear arsenal, we may find ourselves weaker than America. But his proposal does not mean we should make immediate cuts in nuclear arms. It means we should negotiate and then see what we will see. Any talks are better than none. Coming to brass tacks, US problems are more serious than ours. At some moment the US decided to lead the world. But the US is not that sort of leader, as everybody now sees. America should find a new place in the world, on top but not at the peak. However, the American elite hates the idea - the stance of a scowling global steward offers more opportunities and allows skimming off such fat cream. Americans are used to high living standards, but these cannot be supported by the current US might. They should be cut to size. But this is next to impossible for them to do. It is these American problems that keep the world negatively vibrating. Meanwhile, we should watch and take advantage of the situation.
The full text of the interview is available on the KP.RU site