Actions are more real than programs

From the editorial office. Today we live in the new world context - in the context of the new uprising of the masses. Societies refuse to recognize a policy dictated by elites "in their own interests." The agenda of the establishment is rejected as a fake, and stable modes are staggering. How realistic is the crisis of the state system of Russia in the new world context? What is the main issue of Realpolitik within Russia today? What is the axis of the agenda of future elections and their main intrigue? The Russian Journal opens up a discussion of these issues by a number of publications that develop a discussion about the state, which began at the world political forum in Yaroslavl and continued on the pages of Newsletter of the Yaroslavl Forum.

* * *

RG: In your opinion, loyalty to the political order is not in fashion now?

Alexei Pushkov: Speaking of loyalty, one should share the loyal attitude of society towards power, meaning support for power by society, and loyalty within the system itself, that is, within the circles leading the country. Loyalty within the power system is ensured by power itself. Otherwise, it will not be able to function. Important participants are expelled from the system. Loyalty to power on the part of society depends, first of all, on society. This is a variable, it cannot be considered a constant of political development.

The basis of the political order should not be loyalty as such, but the action of established institutions of power and law. When the law is respected, then loyalty occupies the place that should, it regulates relations between people working within the framework of one system of power. But if the law is assigned to the second roles, if the law is officially proclaimed, but is not fulfilled real, then instead of the law, loyalty comes to the fore. It actually becomes the law. Society for this has to be paid by corruption and decay of political institutions.

I will explain again: loyalty regulates the relations of people who are working and operating in the same system of power (corporation). Without loyalty, not a single team, not a single government, nor the executive branch as a whole can act. However, if loyalty begins to replace the law, if special conditions are created for a narrow circle of people, when the norms of the law are not applicable to them, then we get the decomposition - both the authorities and society. In this case, instead of loyalty as a factor necessary for the successful functioning of the state apparatus, we get hypertrophy of personal relations in the system of power, a situation where it is precisely these relations that begin to determine all the parameters of the system.

This is clearly seen in the example of the modes that are now crumbling in Arab countries. There, tenth roles were assigned to the law, and everything was built on the loyalty of the members of the ruling clan (family). As a result, the moment comes when society ceases to perceive such relations as normal and organizing society itself. It begins to rebel against them, because it is, as a rule, relations of the corruption type. And the society overtakes those rulers who build their regimes exclusively on loyalty in the system of power, and forget about society. These events also show that a society that manifests itself as loyalty to power at a certain stage in the development of the country refuses this authority when it discovers that it comes off it and expects loyalty from it even when society is already incapable of ensuring it.

RG: What place would you take Russia in such a, say, historical path from loyalty to the law?

A.P.: In Russia, starting in 1917, the law ceased to have any significant importance. It has become a function of political will. The law was constantly in the backyards in the system of norms that regulated political relations and relations between the authorities and society. And although we recently hear that we need to move on to the dictatorship of the law, in real life we ​​do not see this. A huge number of exceptions are made from the law. Laws are adopted, which, in fact, violate the principles of the constitution. Just an example: law enforcement officers, investigators, judges, even teachers of the Academy of the Federal Penitentiary Service or the Ministry of Internal Affairs are actually allowed to be drunk on the road. These people are not to be arrested by the traffic police. This is a gross violation of the principle of universal equality before the law, building relationships not even on the principle of loyalty, but on the principle of a well -protected clan . In my opinion, Russia continues the tradition that has been established with Bolshevism. Then this was called revolutionary expediency, but in fact defended the interests of the Bolshevik clan. Since then, the situation has changed for the better, but not completely. Too often in modern Russia, the law is mainly propaganda significance.

RG: What do you say about the rather difficult position of the ruling class, due to the loss of the loyalty of the people in relation to the existing elite?

A.P.: In my opinion, firstly, one cannot talk about the complete loss of the loyalty of the population to power. This is wrong. Secondly, the situation depends primarily on the authorities itself. She should not hypertrophic of power at the expense of society. There should be no untreatable, untouchable ministers, loyalty within the power system should not become more important for it than relations with society.

RG: on what basis can the majority be formed on which power can lean during political innovations?

A.P.: For consensus in society, the authorities must prove that it is seriously configured that it is ready to mobilize resources and direct real efforts to achieve officially declared tasks, for example, to curb corruption. If this is not done, then society begins to move away from power, ceases to trust it and leaves to protest on the Internet. To the extent in which the authorities carry out projects that have public value, society continues to trust the authorities . But the results should not be virtual, but real. We have a budget financing too often for those projects that are used in their interests by members of the power elite and the top of the business, and society does not see the connection between these projects and its interests. The authorities should show that those projects that it begins will not be done in the interests of some group of people or clan, but in the interests of the whole society. This is the first.

The second: the authorities must realize that the unrestrained growth of the number of millionaires and billionaires in Russia is not a subject of pride and not evidence of the health of the economy, but on the contrary - evidence of the unbalanced of the entire social and economic system, and therefore the system of government. Can a country, which, according to the UN classification, in 70-72 place in terms of living standards, occupy third place in the world-after the United States and China-in the number of billionaires? And this is in a situation where Russia's GDP is 10 times less than US GDP and more than three times less than China GDP. You can not build a healthy society with such imbalance. Accordingly, the system of distribution of public wealth should be rebuilt, including by changing the tax system.

Third. To create a stable majority, the authorities must make the fight against corruption one of the main priorities of its policy. If the bureaucracy feels that such a struggle is taken seriously, it will behave differently. In order to form a stable majority on the side of the authorities, you do not need to break the open door - this door is open . Create a legal company where citizens feel protected, and not objects of arbitrariness, where citizens see that those representatives of the authorities and law enforcement officers who violated the law will be put to court, and not just dismissed, and you will receive such a majority.

RG: It seems to you, can such points enter the election presidential program, given that a year has been left before the election?

A.P.: Pre-election programs, it seems to me, currently cease to have any meaning and are no longer a factor in support from the population. The main factor in support is real actions. We still do not know what happened to the investigator who released five possible accomplices in the murder of Yegor Sviridov, although the authorities promised to report to society, to tell what measures were taken. It was criminal negligence, or, as President Medvedev hinted, was it corruption? Three months have passed, and what do we hear? Nothing. Programs do not make any sense if society does not see the desire of real transformations, does not see specific actions. Society can be raped only on the basis of actions, and not on the basis of the program. What should be done, in my opinion, obviously, starting with the president and ending with the miner of Vorkuta. Society is waiting for actions, not programs.

Conversed Ksenia Kolkunova