Translated material
Sysuev vs Guriev
Vladimir Putin 2012: Pros and cons. This completely non-trivial issue in The New Times was discussed by the First Deputy Chairman of the Board of Directors of Alfa Bank, Deputy Prime Minister of the Russian Government in 1997-1998 Oleg Sysuev and rector of the Russian Economic School, Doctor of Economics Sergey Guriev
 |
 |
Among the apologists of Putin’s return to the Kremlin in 2012, one of the main theses: Putin is a strong president, and it is better to have a strong and predictable Putin than the weak and unpredictable Medvedev. What do you say?
Sergey Guriev: I am not an apologist for Putin’s return to the Kremlin and I would not say that Medvedev is such a weak president. Because, for example, Putin could not fire Luzhkov, and Medvedev was able to. There are decisions that Medvedev was able to make, but Putin could not. Nevertheless, to honestly look at things, we can say: Putin is located in the Kremlin, in the White House, in the State Duma or on a motorcycle, he runs the country to a much greater extent than Medvedev.
Oleg Sysuev: I would like to clarify - what do we mean by a strong president?
Word against scrap
A fair question. So what is a strong president?
Syssuev: A strong president is a politician who is elected in an open election. If we strive in the free democratic society of the Western type, then it is very important that the president is convinced of the primacy of a person over the state and realize this principle in his activities. But now we are talking about people who were not politicians and did not want to be them. Putin and Medvedev are, of course, not ordinary people, but who came to power by accident. Yeltsin, guided by considerations of the personal security and safety of his family, decided with the help of very shallow people who worked in his administration, transfer power and how and to whom he transferred it. Well, of course, he was concerned with the issue of maintaining the stability of the state (again the state, pay attention). I know that Vladimir Vladimirovich did not really want this. Remember his emotional statement about the slave on galleys - he really thinks so. Why on earth did he, agreeing to serve the homeland at the request of Yeltsin, now owe this opposition, which reproaches him, talk? He does not understand that he accidentally ended up from the chair of the politician: politicians come on the basis of free elections, and he was appointed.
Guriev: The power of politics must be measured by his ability to fulfill his promises. For example, President Obama conducted a health care reform, this is assistance to the minority at the expense of the majority. Naturally, unpopular reform. But he went to this to fulfill the election promise given by the minority, which did not have medical insurance - because it supported him in the elections. It cost him a large part of political capital, but the fact that he could afford it shows that he had a lot of this capital. So he is a strong politician. Vladimir Putin fulfilled some promises, and some do not. The economic agenda, the so -called Gref program, has not been fulfilled to a greater extent. A reform of electric power industry was carried out, foreign investors invested a lot of money in the generation under the promises that prices would be liberalized. But this never happened. I myself personally asked the prime minister this question in April 2011, and Putin replied: "We cannot fulfill this promise." Promises to curb inflation are violated every year, etc., etc. And the whole point is that the system of power in Russia is built in such a way that the politician does not have a horizon of the presidential term today, there is no need to be responsible for its promises, because the elections are not a mechanism for changing power. The only thing our power, including Putin, is afraid - that the street will overthrow it tomorrow. And, say, the Pinochet in Chile, who came to power as a result of the coup, gave power voluntarily, albeit after 16 years, but he held free elections. There is also an example of General Peresa Musharraf *** President of Pakistan in 2001-2008. ...
... who cannot come to Pakistan now and lives in London ...
GURIEV: Yes, because criminal cases have been instituted against him there. But his word that will hold honest elections, which in the West did not believe too much, he restrained. And this is an indicator of the power of a politician: not afraid to lose.
System slaves
Putin did not want to become the president. Then why is he now striving back?
Sysuev: The nomenclature purpose really makes a person “a slave on the galleys”, he cannot leave there. The output is much more expensive than the entrance. He has already become a slave of the system. Although sometimes, probably, he thinks: "That's it, I will leave." And where is the question. Then it will be necessary to answer for what has been done. We have not created democratic institutions that would allow him to protect himself. He thinks: the people who come after him will deal with him the same (as he is with their opponents), that is, on the basis of their subjective ideas.
Is Medvedev is not a guarantor for him?
Sysuev: No.
Another argument, which is often brought in favor of Putin: he defeated the oligarchs, forced to pay taxes, for which the authors of the argument noted - he planted Khodorkovsky in 2003.
Syssuev: Of course, taking advantage of the money of rich people during the 1996 elections, the power turned out to be these people. For support with them, they paid with collateral auctions. And then it rushed, off-rapprochement, to indecent, large capital and authorities who are in power with all the ensuing consequences. Before Khodorkovsky, I take off my hat, but he was also a participant in this process. About the same story happened to him: he suddenly decided that he could leave the contract.
From that famous “barbecue” agreement of May 2000 at the cottage at Putin, when they agreed that the oligarchs did not climb into politics, and Putin - in their money?
Syssuev: Yes. Both Khodorkovsky and everyone else felt that Putin had no real legitimacy, and therefore he should agree with them.
Guriev: Now there are really no independent oligarchs, in the sense that no one can engage in politics without the permission of the authorities. On the other hand, do entrepreneurs solve their problems with the help of power? The answer is yes. And today the state is not controlled by the winners of the collateral auctions, but by people who are considered to be “Putin's friends”. These are businessmen of the new call, who became billionaires in just a few years. They are not officially billionaires, but they govern the country. In the classification of Aristotle, these are oligarchs. Corruption has it less?
Guriev: * definitely no less. And one of the reasons why Putin wants to return: he is sure that, besides him, no one can cope with all these crooks. "
Oleg Sysuev: “The nomenclature appointment makes a person“ a slave on the galleys ”, he cannot leave there. The output is much more expensive than the entrance. He has already become a slave of the system "
" The head of the corporation
Syssuev: We are talking about the president of a huge state as the head of the corporation, in which they are well administered or bad. It is believed that Putin is a good manager, and Medvedev is weaker. But we are talking about the president of the country who should know that from this huge country it will come in 20, 30, 40 years.
However, fact: people over the past 10 years began to live better - and this is an argument in favor of Putin.
Syssuev: So it was possible to speak five years ago, now people have a different mood. They are used to getting a loan, buying a good car, moving to the best apartment, etc. But the authorities begin to bother, television pours kerosene into a flaring bonfire of displeasure, because it repeats the same thing. Therefore, to say that “life has become better, life has become more fun”, I would not.
Another thesis: Putin manages to observe a balance of interests, in particular, between security forces and large corporations. Still, they do not shoot at each other, after all, this is not Latin America of the second half of the twentieth century with its endless killings and coups. And if he leaves, then the Hobbcian world will begin: the war is against all.
Sysuev: If the main goal is to set the balance of interests, and people's lives will not change, then soon the 31st will go to the square not some miserable dozens of people, but thousands, as it was in the late 1980s.
Guriev: What is the difference between the undemocratic regime: at each particular moment we do not know how it will fall apart. And until he fell apart - it is not known whether he is popular or not.
Are the elites satisfied with the situation?
Guriev: Unknown. If Putin knew exactly that he was loved and revered, then why can not be held honest elections? If you do not spend, then you are not sure that the majority will support you. The same applies to elites. But in comparison with other undemocratic countries, Russia is very rich. The middle class and the elite, when dissatisfied with what is happening here, can leave. Roughly speaking, having sold an apartment on Tversky Boulevard, you cannot buy housing only in the center of London, and in Paris, even more so in Prague, buy a huge house for yourself. The so -called Curley Effect occurs. There was such a mayor of Boston Kurli, whose policy was that only those people who support him and who do not support him remained in the city - as United Russia say: the border is open. This is happening today in Russia. Many active people prefer not to fight alone with the regime, but simply leave.
Sysuev: Note that the elite is all his personal, most secret needs (children, treatment, rest, preservation of capital) not in Russia - abroad: they study, rest, keep money in offshores. This is a vivid reflection of committed distrust and discontent.
Guriev: The fact that the elite and society is unhappy is very easy to see in the Russian budget. Today you need to spend more and more money to buy a social world in order to buy the satisfaction of the people. If you fulfill all the promises by the authorities, then the budget in two years will be made up only at a price of $ 145 per barrel. Five years ago, he balanced at $ 50 oil price.
But Putin’s supporters just claim that if he returned to the Kremlin in 2012, he will immediately begin the reforms necessary for the country.
Guriev: I think that it will be very difficult for him to do this. He said many times that the system that has been built over the past 10 years works well. And he will have to go out and say: what we built for 10 years, generally speaking, works poorly. You can read such statements in Medvedev's program performances. And even find this in Putin’s speeches, for example, in his speech before the State Council in February 2008, where he said literally the following: the inertial scenario of Russia's development threatens the very existence of the country. Nevertheless, it is Putin that is associated with this system. Reforms are needed, and they will certainly be. But Putin will be able to conduct them - I don’t know.
Syssuev: Long -term, serious economic reforms without political reforms are impossible. That is, they are possible in a short site, which, in fact, Putin demonstrated in the early 2000s with the help of Gref and other ministers who well understand what democracy and liberal economy are. But they also became hostages of the system. "
Sergey Guriev: “What is the difference between the undemocratic regime: we do not know at what point and how it will fall apart. And until he fell apart, it is unknown whether he is popular or not "
” The price of loyalty
The argument against Putin: having returned to the Kremlin, he will inevitably begin to tighten the nuts, and the situation will only worsen.
Guriev: The nuts can be twisted where there is something to tighten. In today's Russia there are no such institutions.
That is, it will not be worse?
GURIEV: Looking for whom. For a specific opposition policy, it can be much worse. It can be planted, killed, sent from the country, this is quite likely. The freedom of conversation in the kitchen, in a printed publication, on the boulevard - it is impossible to take this freedom. And the fact that the opposition on the streets will continue to beat, forbid it to gather and in this sense to tighten the nuts - this can be.
Does Medvedev fundamentally differ from Putin? I remember everyone was encouraging his phrase: "Freedom is better than not free."
Guriev: Medvedev said a lot of correct words about the danger of stagnation in the political sphere, about the need for modernization. Putin said the same thing ...
Syssuev: Medvedev, it seems to me, is difficult to blame for dishonesty of a generally accepted sense. He promised a specific person that he would be loyal. Putin also promised a specific person that he would behave in a certain way. We are hostages of an absolutely subjective representation of the authorities who are in charge of their duties. Only one thing is objective: free elections and then the inclusion of the control mechanism.
That is, if Medvedev failed to dismiss the Minister of Sports Mutko after the failure of the Olympiad, is this the result of obligations?
Guriev: It seems to me that this is part of the agreement: Medvedev dismisses the governors, and Putin - ministers. Many governors who did not want to go anywhere under Putin were fired.
Or: Medvedev dismisses the police and does not touch the Chekists.
Guriev: Absolutely. Medvedev criticized the Minister of the Interior a lot, but did not fire him. This, apparently, is part of the separation of powers.
Sysuev: The “boy” attitude to solving state problems is triggered here. Nurgaliev is not corrupt personally, decent, in their understanding, a person. Such a simple hockey plays, he does not have a house in Sardinia, lives like a Soviet party servant, and in this sense it is impossible to throw.
Whose campaign?
The return of Putin is his personal desire or the need for an institute called “Putin”, that is, a corporation that is now in power?
Sysuev: I think Vladimir Vladimirovich would definitely answer that this was not his personal desire. Of course, he will remain in power. But it seems to me that Dmitry Medvedev will run for president. Of course, it may be that Vladimir Vladimirovich will say: Medvedev asks me, he can no longer, tired, and people write letters tons, and I have a high rating ...
That is, they have not yet agreed?
GURIEV: You remember the situation of 2007: when the Government of Fradkov was resigned, it was complete confidence that Sergey Ivanov would become the prime minister and he would be a successor. There was such a distracting maneuver. It is possible that the Putin Popular Front is also a distracting maneuver, although so far everything looks like Putin is holding a pre -election campaign.
Syssuev: In the last weeks, when I see Vladimir Vladimirovich with bikers, with a microphone, flags, banners and he says “forward!” In the rays of the spotlights ” - I think this is a person who is going to become the president of the Russian Federation.
It may happen that they both decide to nominate the presidency?
Sysuev: probability - 3%.
Guriev: I would not put my money on it.
Sysuev: Maybe Putin believes that he is much more important to have an obedient majority in parliament. And this is the election parliamentary campaign. And when the Popular Front gains the majority in the Duma, he can nominate Medvedev to the president.
Guriev: Putin feels that United Russia has lost legitimacy, for this he started rebranding. And perhaps this is really a parliamentary campaign, not a presidential. But too much effort has been spent. It looks that Putin, who, as the Prime Minister, should not be elected and, therefore, engage in public policy, is too much engaged in politics.
Syssuev: Putin studied political skills very well, simply brilliantly. In the sense of populism, he demonstrates excellent abilities.
How do you imagine the text of Medvedev’s renunciation of the second period?
Guriev: The country will face serious economic, social, political risks, it needs a person who has more support. We cannot find out exactly who is more popular - Putin or Medvedev, since there are no free elections. But polls show that Putin enjoys greater support. Medvedev can say that the country needs a more popular leader who can rally a large coalition around him.
From the point of view of the interests of the country, which is better: that Putin, who de facto head of state, return to the Kremlin in 2012, or is Medvedev more for a second term?
Syssuev: It would be the best for the state if they, as the leaders of the rating, both went to the polls. And, of course, to disperse the box so that everyone can participate in the elections, as recorded in the Constitution, who has reached a certain age and is a citizen of the Russian Federation.
Guriev: I can’t answer this question, because I don’t know which program Putin will go to the elections, and with which Medvedev. But Medvedev’s previous statements are more consistent with my vision of what Russia should become.
And the fact that Putin ruled the country 12 years and will rule another 12 years, does not bother you?
Guriev: There will be no 12 years. The money will end earlier than in 2018. And Mikhail Dmitriev (head of the CSR) believes that the money will end by 2014. Говорить, что в 2024 году они вдвоем будут принимать парад на Мавзолее, это все равно что читать книгу, изданную в 1975 году в Америке, о советской экономике в 2000 году. И где СССР…
The discussion was conducted by Evgenia Albats and Lyubov Tsukanova