Transit (8)

Here you go. These glorious winter holidays are over. I spent them in Tomsk. There one day it was minus forty-three. I specifically wrote with the words: out of respect for Siberia and pride in myself, although I spent the whole day at home. I hope that my readers, like me, have woken up from a short winter hibernation, and we can return to the story of the transit of power in Russia.
Let me remind you that in previous publications it was written about a sharp increase in the chances of the “Security Dictatorship” scenario. After this, I moved on to discuss those changes in the landscape of the current political regime that correspond with the identified scenario dynamics. In the previous article, I talked about three of them: the complete destruction of the independence of branches and levels of government, other autonomous institutions; overcoming the threshold of violence against people (torture, political murders, brutal suppression of mass protest); overcoming the threshold of violence on the right. Let's continue this list.
Fourth: the degree of theft and corruption has reached such a limit beyond which fear of responsibility becomes not only inevitable, but also the dominant motive of behavior.

Corruption is a wonderful example of a direct connection to the issue of elections. But first, anamnesis. The growth of business corruption, recorded by our diagnostic sociological studies of corruption in 2001 and 2005, can be called catastrophic. Judge for yourself. The growth in the average amount of bribes over this period can be characterized in the following way, which allows us to take into account inflation, GDP growth, firm turnover and other economic dynamics. In 2001, an average bribe could buy 30 square meters of housing at average Russian prices on the primary housing market (a piece of a one-room apartment). In 2005, an average bribe could buy 209 sq. m. - apartments. Is it any wonder that young people now strive to become officials, not businessmen.

These numbers may seem implausible to some. Therefore, I will give examples. Example one. From the interviews that we had to take in our corruption research with all sorts of knowledgeable people, we have established record figures for the size of a bribe for appointment to a ministerial post during the Yeltsin and Putin times. So, the growth is one hundred and fifty times! The second example is from the popular area of ​​kickbacks. Before 2000, the standard kickback size range was 10-15% of the order value (project, purchase volume, etc.). By 2005, this range had shifted to the 30-50% zone. Now it is already 50-70%, although record values ​​are higher. Third example. Almost simultaneously with the appearance of our data on the dynamics of corruption in 2005, a publication appeared in the magazine “Expert” (close to “official circles”), which indicated that approximately 80% of the budget funds allocated for military R&D were stolen. The publication was not refuted. Example four (referring to the same period) - on the air of V. Posner’s “Times” program, former Minister of the Ministry of Economic Development G. Gref complained: after they sharply reduced the number of licensed types of activities (a reasonable, anti-corruption measure), the amount of bribes in this area immediately increased ten times.

I can list such examples endlessly. But we're talking about something else, aren't we? The growth of corruption was also reflected in a qualitative leap. Somehow they forgot that ten years ago, the publication in the media of information about an incredibly large fee for a book was enough for Yeltsin to dismiss a group of high-ranking officials led by A. Chubais. Now accusations of incomparably greater sins are absolutely insignificant. This qualitative difference characterizes not only the changes that have occurred in power. Society has changed, it has become more tolerant of corruption and has come to terms with it. The opposition has changed, the press has changed. The authorities are now in no danger. She is uncontrollable and can do whatever she wants. That's what he does.

Simultaneously with this qualitative change, others occurred. New types of exactions have appeared, such as seizures for the “right to live.” But for many entrepreneurs, as our research has shown, another difference is important. Previously, as they say, they “took and did”, now they “take and throw”.

Lack of control has led to the fact that corruption and the wealth it generates have become undisguised. Moreover, the black sheep in the civil service are now not those who do not take, but those who take but do not demonstrate their wealth. A display of luxury now is like being tied with blood in gangs before: until you are tied, you don’t belong, you have no faith.

But corruption is terrible not in itself, but because of its consequences. There are many of them, but here I will only talk about two, forming an amazing contradictory symbiosis. First: the opportunity to steal with impunity prompts the desire to prolong this opportunity, which makes it necessary to maintain one’s own power. But the theft itself inevitably leads to fear of retribution, which makes one cling to power even more. Here we again come to the problem of elections and the transformation of elections into an imitation of competition with a predictable outcome. Another thing is interesting: the first experience of corrupt use of fed and lowered judges to solve one’s problems was acquired in the economic sphere, for example, to seize someone else’s property. And only then was this experience transferred to the sphere of limiting political competition and ensuring the predictability of elections. And even more interesting: large entrepreneurs actively helped the authorities in disseminating this best experience.

The second consequence: the sharp increase in corruption during the Putin period and its brazen appearance “in the light” gave rise to a feeling of impunity “here and now.” It quickly became persistent and inevitably spread to other areas, breaking down legal and moral barriers. Therefore, I can safely say: the increase in violence against people and the law, which I spoke about in the last article, is a natural development of the growth of corruption. Their common mother: impunity of power. Their common father: the indifference of society.

This is how two contradictory feelings coexist in the flawed souls of our bureaucracy: a feeling of impunity and fear. An explosive mixture that deprives people of both a sense of perspective and a sense of proportion. You can expect anything from such people. And they won’t just give up power.

Any alternative players (leaders or organizations) who could actually lay claim to power have been almost completely removed from the public sphere.

Any opportunities for legal political competition, primarily in elections, have been eliminated.

I will comment on these two related developments together. Let me start with a reminder: V.V. Putin’s life in politics began with a severe and incurable injury. As one of the regional officials, he headed the election headquarters of A. Sobchak. The situation seemed completely win-win, victory was inevitable. And he lost, miserably. In these elections, two administrative resources collided, and Sobchak’s turned out to be weaker. It seemed that life had collapsed, but the Moscow residents of St. Petersburg, first of all, Kudrin and Chubais, helped. It was easy to draw a lesson from these dramatic events: competition of administrative resources is unacceptable, especially in elections. In other words: of all monopolies, the most natural is the monopoly on an administrative resource. The lesson was learned, and the homework, as we see, was completed “excellently.”

But then came another shock, the shock of an undeserved victory. Judge for yourself - put yourself in Putin’s place. Life is getting better again. A new stage of his bureaucratic career has begun, now at the federal level. What more could you want? And suddenly they tell you: “Go for president.” And you never considered yourself in the category of public politics, you avoided it, and even this recent trauma in St. Petersburg. And you have always envied these talkative politicians, their popularity among the masses, among the crowd, among journalists. And somehow it was not considered important to have all this yourself. And suddenly! Then an unfamiliar feeling of victory, of possessing everything and this love of all...! But everything is spoiled by a vile thought: “If you can make a president out of me!?... So, you can make it out of anyone?...”. Fear! And here it’s easy to conclude: “The media did everything. This means we need control over them. At least over those who win elections.” And this lesson was learned, and the homework was completed.

This is the beginning and end of a glorious journey. First, the first and main party competitor - the Fatherland - All Russia party - was absorbed. All subsequent party innovations are carried out only under strict control, and spontaneously growing weeds are uprooted. Then the controllers of two key channels - ORT and NTV - were liquidated as political and economic subjects, and the channels themselves were brought under the stirrup. As for the ORT controller, it’s just luck: there is nothing more pleasant than getting rid of the one to whom you owe your ascension. And in the finale the most disgusting thing was done. After all, it is clear that the press should know only two commands: “Serve!” and “Fass!” They seem to have taught them, they seem to serve. But there are some people getting in the way here who say: “Besides the usual bitchy journalistic existence, there is also honor, morality, and professionalism.” These are the most dangerous. Rotten! And now Manana Aslamazyan is in Paris, and Internews, an organization that has been raising honest and professional television journalists in Russia for more than a decade, has ceased its work. Lovely!

In order to compete in elections, three mandatory conditions are required (in addition to personal qualities, such as charm, talent and other things that neither security officers nor petty street hooligans can take away). First: admission to the legal market of political competition. Second: money. Third: access to the media. Normally, these three resources are independent. This is when there is independent business and independent media in the country. Now all three resources are concentrated in one hand.

Election commissions at all levels are committed to honest work for the benefit of stability and predictability. About three years ago, a complete personnel reconfiguration of this system was completed; it is completely under the control of the regional branches of United Russia. If the election commissions do not work, our native Russian court is on guard. He, in terms of his operations on the political field, is also completely controlled. Do not think that judges receive calls from the Kremlin or many “white houses” of provincial capitals on every occasion. The judges themselves know what verdicts should be made and against whom. They know that the punitive machine will begin to work strictly if they behave incorrectly. And the obedient media regularly convey to the judges the names of the wrong parties or the names of “marginal” politicians.

Everything is fine with money too. Here Natasha Morari tried to tell how election campaigns are now financed. You can't talk about intimate things! And the journalist was not allowed into the country. Strategic information resources are more inaccessible than prisons or strategic missile launchers. So you can be calm. Three reliable rows of full-profile trenches have been dug to prevent those who may pose even the slightest threat to a sovereign, governed democracy from reaching the elections.

As a result, we have no parties. Is it possible to consider parties like lapdogs like the Communist Party of the Russian Federation or the Liberal Democratic Party? It’s awkward to stutter about clients like “United...” or “Fair...”. We have no politicians except Putin. The population has been convincing the population of this for eight years. Burnt field. A vacant lot with a lonely pillar. Such a landscape. Below we discuss what this means for the country.

To be continued
The author is the President of the INDEM Foundation