Alexander Budberg's article "Jamming-Proof" (MK, May 6) timed for the anniversary of Dmitry Medvedev's inauguration had every chance of providing a model of a jubilee article. Alas, it was not.
Granted, the article contains some very precise and succinct sentences that are impossible to challenge. "Russia has a president who is responsible, hard-working, is ready to make decisions, is not like his predecessor, but who can work together with Prime Minister Putin." Any citizen in his right mind would subscribe to this. The problem is not even that Mr Budberg constantly strays away from the main topic, i.e. reviewing the results of the first year of Medvedev's presidency, and that he gets sidetracked time and again. For example, he could not refrain from patently inappropriate criticism of the 2007 Duma elections (for those who have forgotten, it paved the way for Dmitry Medvedev's convincing victory). The author alleges that the campaign had degenerated into a "money-grubbing witches' Sabbath". Well, after all, every author has his own "hang-ups".
The real stumbling block is the general approach. At this point a short digression is in order. Unfortunately, many liberal-minded Russian journalists and analysts are overly personal in assessing various actions or events. In other words, they reduce everything to personalities and relations between them while ignoring objective, for example, institutional, factors. Not that they are avowed "anti-institutionalists". When they write about the West they make a point of praising the impressive strength and effectiveness of its institutions, and they have no faith in Russian institutions. They show open contempt for them describing them as undeveloped and puny. That makes for a very simplified, if not simplistic, picture of the world. There is "real politics" made in the quiet of offices and restaurants, which is an endless string of intrigues, frictions and stratagems. And then there is the box which provides the electorate with the "right images and signals." There is nothing in between. And indeed, how can this country produce anything else?
In Budberg's case this approach leads to some tell-tale conclusions. For example, in his opinion, one of Medvedev's main achievements has been to find new formats of communicating with the citizenry. "This did not only enable him to acquire his own political face, a very natural face, incidentally, but prevented a deterioration of the social and political situation in the country in every sense." Sure enough, the formats are different. But one can hardly claim, especially in a jubilee article, that Mr Medvedev has preserved stability in the country only because of his way of communicating with its citizens. The anti-crisis measures taken on his initiative and under his guidance have played at least as big a part. Take another statement: "Throughout the year he has come under pressure from various sides. He was ‘tested' and ‘probed' in every possible way. On the whole, I think he has displayed a surprising degree of jamming resistance." Is it being said about the president of a great country or about a spy sent into an enemy headquarters?
But Mr Budberg's most dubious assessment of Medvedev's presidency is delivered after a review of our political institutions. According to him, the Russian political system is supported only by personal approval ratings of the President and the Prime Minister. Both houses of Parliament, all the parties, including United Russia, led by Putin, the Public Chamber, the citizens' and human rights groups - all this is "made from cardboard".
That, incidentally, is very serious criticism, and not only of the former President and current Prime Minister (what a dire legacy he has left behind). It is also a jab at Dmitry Medvedev whom the article purports to congratulate. First, as the closest associate and co-worker of Putin, who held high posts in government in 2000-2008, he is directly connected with the state of the political system. Secondly, it turns out that during his year as President, Mr Medvedev has done nothing to improve things. Just approval ratings and "cardboard", no progress.
Luckily, Mr Budberg is wrong on everything.
Putin's eight years were marked by many achievements, but one of the most notable achievements is undoubtedly the optimisation and modernisation of the political system. We have an active and responsible Parliament, an adequate party system with a dominant party and quality electoral legislation. The relations within the Federation have been put in order, an optimum form of the President's participation in empowering the heads of regions has been found, etc.
"Our political system now operates in a fairly stable manner," Mr Medvedev said in Tula on March 11. Even so, from the outset the President was committed to improving the system. And he has kept his word.
During his election campaign he proclaimed institutions to be one of his priorities (one of the four i's). He is currently preparing a new reform of the judiciary, he has launched an anti-corruption programme and is forming a pool of future civil servants... Mr Budberg claims that Medvedev has opted for a tactic of "small deeds". I leave that without comment and may the readers themselves assess just how "small" our President's deeds are.
Mr Medvedev embarked on painstaking work to improve the political institutions. I am referring to his political reform. During the year he initiated the constitutional strengthening of the institutions of the President and Parliament and measures to make the Government more responsible. He gave the political parties the exclusive right to propose to the head of state candidates for governor making the process of appointments more public and transparent. He made things easier for the political parties by announcing a phased reduction of the minimum requirement to the size of their membership and guarantees of equal access to the state-owned media. He even paved the way to the Duma for "small parties" by introducing a five-percent barrier for them. He vested the Public Chamber with the right and duty to scrutinise draft legislation.
Meeting with the United Russia members Mr Medvedev referred to them as like-thinking people. It would have been odd if he had not said that. After all, it was United Russia that nominated him for President. That party is helping to implement all his initiatives and projects.
The President recently received a large group of human rights activists and members of NGOs at the Kremlin. Among them were many critics of the regime, but he called on them to work together. That too is an important step.
Mr Budberg, incidentally, makes no mention of all that. He has no reason to do it. These are in his view "cardboard" institutions.
Mr Medvedev, however, thinks otherwise. That is why he succeeds in everything he does.
By Vitaly Ivanov