A number of analysts assessed the January 22 session of the State Council as a triumph of openness and pluralism, although in reality, it merely confirmed the immutability of the foundations of sovereign democracy.
Almost all those who discussed the development of Russia's political system at this session were pleased with its results. President Dmitry Medvedev was impressed by the "strong criticism of the current political situation" of opposition leaders. Governors called the session "unprecedented" and "democratic," although some of them did not agree with this "strong criticism." Members of United Russia were happy to conclude that the session demonstrated the opposition's "weak and unconstructive position," whereas the oppositionists themselves were glad that at least the president "displays the will for dialogue."
Some of Medvedev's remarks in this dialogue could suggest that some of theopposition's proposals will be heard. Observers paid particular attention to his appeal "to cooperate with society rather than try to control it," his criticism of the "stupid armchair management" of social services, and his statement to the effect that the presence of only two parties in the Moscow State Duma does not reflect "the entire diversity of political views in Moscow." Some commentators even interpreted this remark as tacit admission of fraud at the past year's elections. The democratic character of the session, which lasted more than three hours, was further emphasized by the fact that it was broadcasted live, albeit by the satellite Rossia 24 network rather than common user channels.
At the same time, Vladimir Putin's speech at the session was hardly consonant with the course towards democratisation. The prime minister not only unequivocally renounced all accusations of the government and the ruling party by the opposition, but also made it clear that changes in the political system should by no means affect the foundations of sovereign democracy. In the opposition's opinion, this kind of democracy is based precisely on "stupid armchair management" and "control of society."
It is important to interpret this seemingly obvious contradiction in the efforts of the president and the prime minister, because in reality it does not exist.
The very format of the session is evidence of this. Medvedev set forth his ideas of necessary changes in his opening address. In effect, he merely repeated the ideas of his past year's address to the Federal Assembly and appealed to the governors "to cooperate with sections of all parties even if they were supported by half a percent of voters. He did not comment on the speeches of party members in his closing address, but simply referred the governors to the instructions he had made earlier. In the meantime, members of the opposition expected to hear his specific response to their proposals, which could make it clear how far he was prepared to go in democratising the political system.
In contrast, Putin willingly commented on the speeches of the opposition leaders (on which he made thorough notes as usual) in strong and clear-cur words. It was the prime minister rather than the president that drew a line under the session. Therefore, the main point of the session was not Medvedev's ritual appeals for modernisation, but Putin's view that "any effective political system should have a sound share of conservatism" so that "it does not tremble like jelly at every touch."
By Dmitry Kamyshev