"Novaya Gazeta": "The signals Medvedev sent"
Novaya Gazeta analysts believe that President Dmitry Medvedev has mentioned crucial points in his state-of-the-nation address, and that such points run counter to the policy of Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.
We asked analysts and politicians to share their impressions of President Medvedev's November 10 state-of-the-nation address. The respondents have mixed feelings about Medvedev's statements.
Politics
Fyodor LUKYANOV, Editor-In-Chief of Russia in Global Affairs magazine:
The President has briefly repeated well-known points. Foreign policy was not meant to be the main or substantial part of his address. Medvedev first said nobody should be accused of the problems facing Russia, and that all such problems were caused by domestic factors. His statement about the need to create a methodology for assessing effectiveness of foreign-policy and the extent to which it served the tasks of modernisation sounded interesting to me. Although I cannot imagine how it can be done, this sounded like a new approach.
Dmitry ORESHKIN, political analyst:
Medvedev indicated that a switch-over to the 5% election hurdle was essential during elections to regional legislatures, and that signature-collection campaigns should eventually be renounced. Although the electoral legislation is not so bad, it's ctual practice is quite repulsive. It is extremely difficult to change such practice, which is determined by the interests of regional and federal elites. The words "manipulation" and "rigging" were used for the first time with regard to the election system. Electronic voting systems are just a glove that someone is wearing. The situation will not change if that hand belongs to a confidence trickster.
Medvedev mentioned crucial points on which his policy runs counter to that of Prime Minister Putin. Foreign policy should be based on pragmatic interests, rather than "nostalgic prejudices." Medvedev spoke about the influx of capital and ideas, while Putin said we do not need friends wearing cork helmets. However, Medvedev is ready to engage them. Putin meticulously created a model of state monopolies, while Medvedev considers this model pointless. Innovation programmes imply a fight against corporate raiders. Putin has repeatedly noted that he will take allocations out of the stomach and give them to the poor in case of excessive profits. However, investors do not like it when someone who has recently rubbed out terrorists in a toilet is rummaging inside their stomachs. Medvedev talks about financing non-government organisations (NGOs) that had previously begged for alms in front of foreign embassies. Medvedev also called the Caucasus, Putin's pride, an unsolved problem. "There must be someone who is personally responsible for the regional situation."
Federal Assembly (Parliament) deputies, regional elites and other vested interests have heard and understood all these messages. I do not know on whom Medvedev will rely. The Putin-era elite prioritises "historical prejudices," a unique way of development and an unfriendly foreign policy. I think some turbulence is beginning inside the corridors of power.
Corruption
Yelena PANFILOVA, Director, Transparency International Center - Russia:
It is very good that the President has mentioned the main problems in his address. There are many useful ideas, including transparent state purchases, elections, court hearings, and access to information about activities of government agencies. But there comes a time when such issues should be discussed more actively. The word "to do," rather than "to stipulate," should be used. It would be nice "to stipulate" that executive orders or decrees are issued after a presidential address, and bills formalising its provisions submitted. To be frank, we have already heard all this before. From 2001, Putin noted that corruption threatens national security.
Economy
Ruslan GRINBERG, director of the Russian Academy of Sciences' Institute of Economics:
I was delighted when the President quoted Louis Pasteur as saying "Science is the highest personification of the nation because that nation will remain the first which carries the furthest the works of thought and intelligence." How can we put this concept into pratice?
First, we should conduct an inventory of our scientific and technical potential. Unfortunately, such an inventory is becoming easier with every passing year because this potential is dwindling right before our very eyes. This inventory will help us to choose the various priorities and spheres where we can vie with foreign inventions. After that, it will become possible to allocate appropriate methods and amounts of funding for high-priority areas.
The logic of the address highlights a strive to quickly move into the post-industrial economy. Naturally, this can be accomplished, and Russia can receive a post-industrial society without industry. Everything is moving in this direction. However, Russia which prioritises well-balanced development, must also create new industry, primarily the engineering sector. As far as some of these sectors are concerned, Russia can occupy a worthy place in the international division of labour.
Yevsei GURVICH, Head of Research at the Government's Economic Experts Group:
I think that high-tech modernisation is currently a lower priority. The modernisation of the state is no less important today. We need a more cost-effective state that would intervene less actively in the economy. An independent judicial system has to be created and property rights protected.
The President has touched upon one of our principal and most difficult problems, namely, the inexplicable existence of ineffective and obsolete enterprises which use up sufficiently large resources with minimal results. Naturally, they should receive less support. Some of them will fit into the market system, while others will be shut down. This means that more cost-effective companies could emerge in their place, sometimes using the same equipment and workforce.
Energy
Vladimir MILOV, President of the Energy Policy Institute:
Industry and transport consume two-thirds of fuel and energy. This is linked with energy-intensive Soviet-era fixed assets. We need to build new plants, transport routes and railways. This highlights the unjustified nature of the energy-issue discussion launched by Medvedev.
Moreover, Medvedev has used his address to side with Gazprom in its corporate war against the oil companies which want to gain access to gas and pipelines. It is common knowledge that Deputy Prime Minister Igor Sechin demanded that such access be granted. Medvedev slammed oil companies for burning associated gas. Naturally, this is not good. However, Gazprom does not pump such gas, and companies find it too expensive to build gas refineries. It is unlikely that the President does not know about this. Light bulbs are not the main issue. Most importantly, we have to rebuild everything and to provide oil companies with access to Gazprom pipelines.
Army
Pavel FELGENGAUER, Novaya Gazeta commentator:
The presidential address contains an obvious message. Radical military reform continues despite tough resistance. This means that incumbent top Defence Ministry officials will keep their positions. General Staff Chief Nikolai Makarov, severely criticised for the reforms, will probably also remain. Speaking of various plans, such as the commissioning of one corvette, Iskander theatre-level missiles, ballistic missiles, etc., such plans were already made public at a meeting discussing defence industry issues in Reutov last month.
Education:
Alexander ADAMSKY, Rector of Evrika Institute of Educational Policy:
I was happy to hear many of the President's statements. He said education should match individual development. The innovative educators' community has been advocating this concept for a long time. And now the President claims that everything should be done with due account taken of children's individual potential and modern scientific knowledge of children's specifics. Moreover, the head of state has mentioned competence for the first time in 20 years. Professionals have been discussing education-results criteria throughout this period.
He stressed that the Unified State Exam should still be the main, albeit not the only, method for assessing education quality. I am satisfied that Medvedev has severely criticised the teacher-training system and has proposed merging the teacher-training university with classic education and creating an advanced-training system for teachers on this basis. It is unclear how the statement on altering architecture of schools will be realised. But I oppose this concept if it implies the preservation of schools for 5,000 students that the government tried to build in the late 1980s.
Civil Society
Ella PAMFILOVA, Head of the Presidential Council for Promoting Civil Society Institutions and Human Rights:
Medvedev's address contained many provisions contained in our recommendations But what aspects will the power hierarchy allow him to implement? This is the main question. As for NGOs and civil society, the presidential address is a positive step. Although charitable activity and expanded volunteer movements are wonderful, the address prioritised state contracts and funding. Charity and volunteer movements should not focus on federal funding. Russia still lacks minimal conditions for meeting civil-society requirements. Transparency is another problem in the context of the state's readiness to invest in charitable activity. The lack of such transparency would create another source of corruption. Moreover, equal opportunities should be created in order to facilitate the self-organisation of citizens in all spheres of life. And what are human-rights organisations to do if the state only plans to support charitable projects? Human rights are being violated more frequently, and the number of Russian human-rights organisations continues to diminish.
* * *
P. S. A high-ranking official invited to Alexandrovsky Hall told the paper that the presidential address contained specific reference points which would indicate what had actually been done and what was wishful thinking. However, the melody of the Soviet-era state anthem reverberated throughout the hall after the final call "Forward, Russia," and many of those present felt more cheerful.
