Popurisk

In Russia, the reform can become really unpopular if it affects the interests of the elite

Speaking about Alexei Kudrin's speech at the Krasnoyarsk Economic Forum, they are mostly surprised by his statements that in order to receive a mandate of trust in the authorities, parliamentary and presidential elections must be held honestly and fairly - with ...

Speaking about Alexei Kudrin's speech at the Krasnoyarsk Economic Forum, people are mostly surprised by his statements that in order to receive a mandate of trust in the authorities, parliamentary and presidential elections must be held honestly and fairly - with the representation of all political forces.

In fact, what is much more curious is not what Kudrin says about the need for fair elections, but what he wants the elections to be fair for. According to him, only this can give the authorities "the mandate that is needed to carry out reforms."

“Only a person who knows that unpopular reforms are ahead can speak like that,” says Sergei Aleksashenko, an economist and former first deputy chairman of the Central Bank, and one cannot but agree with him.

Hearing about the next “unpopular reforms”, for which the authorities need a “mandate of trust”, citizens cannot but remember that twenty years ago they already gave it - in the honest and fair presidential elections of 1991. And then the mass desire for change was such that people were ready to endure for the sake of a better “tomorrow”. However, everyone remembers how this credit of trust was squandered.

Yes, private property appeared, the distributive economy disappeared, "small privatization" of the service and trade sectors was carried out, which created a competitive market in them, opportunities for private initiative opened up, the stock market developed - and yet the capitalism built, even its founding fathers, was recognized as "gangster ".

For the most part, the reforms were reduced to the destruction of the savings of citizens, to whom the reformers said: "Nothing was stolen from you - you had nothing." To the transition of the most profitable enterprises, as well as oil and gas revenues, on which the Soviet empire existed, into the hands of a narrow group of people. To the construction of state financial pyramids, before which the experience of MMM pales. To the liberation of monopolies from public control. And to the state's consistent rejection of most of its social obligations as "remnants of socialism." To turn quality education and health care into the privilege of a minority.

Is it any wonder that such reforms were extremely unpopular? The ideologists of these reforms still say that they “had no alternative”, but they are silent about the fact that the alternatives were not even discussed (not to mention being implemented): the society was confronted with the fact of the decisions made, and the chosen course was declared the only correct one. .

It was then that the current political regime was formed: it was possible to carry out such reforms only by “turning off” or turning into a fiction most of the democratic mechanisms.

Almost the entire Yeltsin decade passed under the talk of "unpopular reforms" - and life did not improve in any way. And even then a simple thought could not help but arise: why, in fact, reforms should only be “unpopular”? If reforms do not make things better, but worse, why carry them out? And if the reformers do not know how to carry out other reforms, maybe they should be replaced by others who can?

And today, after the end of the “fat” years, “unpopular reforms” are again predicted for us: the continued refusal of the state from constitutional social obligations and shifting the necessary costs onto the shoulders of citizens.

Not enough money to pay pensions? Let's raise the retirement age. Don't have enough money to renovate your home? We will close (which few people know about) the Housing and Utilities Reform Assistance Fund, from which 95% of these expenses were financed (citizens paid 5%), and we will offer “co-financing” on a 50/50 basis. No money for education? We will transfer schools to the status of "autonomous institutions", offering them to earn the missing funds by extorting from their parents ...

Who said that reforms that would be supported by the majority of citizens are impossible today? It is not difficult to propose a list of them - even without the traditional idea of ​​reducing the number of officials.

No money for retirement? Instead of raising the retirement age, let's abandon costly projects (up to the Sochi Olympics and the World Cup): when a family does not have enough food and clothes for children, they do not arrange a feast for the whole world and do not build mansions. No money to repair houses and build roads? Let's cut trillions of "defense spending": no one is going to attack us for the foreseeable future. Should public sector salaries be raised? We will limit the profits of natural monopolists, untouchable for the Putin regime, headed by the Prime Minister's associates, and liquidate state corporations, where more than 10% of the Russian budget is spent uncontrollably. And at the same time, we will ban huge payments to top managers of companies with a controlling stake owned by the state (Sberbank just doubled payments compared to last year, as it turned out) ...

There is no doubt that these reforms will be very popular. But Alexei Kudrin is unlikely to offer them.

Yes, there are situations when there is no other way out than "unpopular reforms." But they must be carried out in such a way that everyone feels the hardships of the reforms. And not as before (and as, apparently, it is planned now), when for the authorities and persons close to it, the reforms turn out to be very popular, unlike other citizens.