About the threat of Putinism

This letter is for those who are indifferent to the values ​​of freedom and democracy.

For those who are not very upset about closed television channels, pocket courts and humiliated parliament, who is not particularly worried about the war in Chechnya, the strengthening of the role of special services in public life and the persecution of entrepreneurs, dissenters, who are quite satisfied with the single -party system and Soviet symbols.

We turn to most Russian society. To those who love and respect the president for his energy and sobriety, for regular payments of salaries and pensions, for strengthening the ruble and authority of Russia in the world stage, for its active struggle with the oligarchs. In a word, this letter is for those who are going to vote on March 14 for Vladimir Putin.

Russia in its history has not often been lucky with circumstances as this has been happening for the past four years. Stablely high world oil prices, foreign policy calm, built over the years of the reign of President Yeltsin, the framework of a market economy - all this allowed the authorities without any efforts to ensure economic growth and social stability. At first, Putin took steps in the tax sphere, in the field of legal reform, land relations and labor law. However, the second half of his first term was marked by stagnation and restoration.

Favorable conditions are mediocre. Instead of economic and social modernization, a colossus on clay legs was built in our country-the authoritarian regime of Putin’s personal authority and his minions in the former KGB, based on the appearance of socio-economic well-being. This visibility, adopted by the Russian society for genuine improvement, is kept on only two factors - high prices for oil and censorship. The combination of an oil factor and a virtual television book is the basis of the regime. The socio-economic system created in Russia, unstable in essence, puts the life and well-being of tens of millions of Russian citizens depending on unpredictable movements in world fuel markets. And the authoritarian political system is from the mood and health of a single person.

Thus, based on the experience of the last four years, it is possible to state the fact and strengthening of a new socio-political formation-Putinism. Its formula is as follows: a single -party system, censorship, puppet parliament, the cessation of independent justice, rigid centralization of power and finance, a hypertrophied role of special services and bureaucracy, including in relation to business. In a word, Putinism is life according to the Kremlin “concepts”.

What does the rejection of liberal-democratic values ​​to the fate and well-being of millions of Russians have to do? The most direct. We distinguish the five main threats of Putinism - threats for the very majority that supports the president.

The first threat - Barrier banditry and the collapse of the armed forces. Every year, 20 thousand Russian boys suffer from “grandfathers”, every year a whole battalion is dying from the hazardous relations in the Russian army. And this is, in addition to Chechnya, where over the four years of hostilities, more than 5 thousand military were killed (and no one counted the dead civilians at all). Despite the fact that the theme of the combat readiness of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation has been turned into a taboo, it is widely known that in Russia today there is not a single combat -ready division. The army has turned into a car of bullying people and cannot fulfill its only function - to ensure the security of the state. Meanwhile, the attitude of the current regime to the topic of military reform was well expressed on his recent trip to the Far East, Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation Sergey Ivanov (another close associate of Putin in the KGB), who said that “the period of the radical reform of the Armed Forces of Russia ... was completed”! On the horizon, the possibility of canceling deferrals from military service for students is loosening again. The second threat - Nearby old age for 70 million working Russians. Pension reform in Putin involves the accumulation of pensions in the State Pension Fund. Such a system exists only in African countries. On the bitter and rich experience of our country in this area, we know that the money that “saves” the state for citizens has the habit of instantly evaporating. This happened with the Stalinist, Khrushchev and Brezhnev’s “voluntary-renders” bonds of the state loan, this happened in the late 80s-early 90s with the deposits of the population in Sberbank. The state rarely thinks twice before “borrow” funds from its population - and even more so will not refuse it in case of falling oil prices (which will inevitably happen). The state pension “accumulated” by citizens can turn into zero overnight. The third threat - Crime's rampant. In the 2000 elections, candidate Putin promised voters to strictly fight crime. According to the State Statistics Committee of the Russian Federation, over the past year, the crime rate in Russia increased by 8%, while the number of domestic crimes (thefts, robbery, fraud) increased by 20%. The disclosure of crimes in Russia, according to the press center of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation, has decreased by 18.2%over the past year. And the trend is preserved. The fourth threat - The persecution of entrepreneurs. The very class that, in normal conditions, is designed to form a sustainable economic growth. On charges against the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation to shareholders of the Yukos (non -payment of taxes through entrepreneurial activity without the formation of a legal entity), another 15 million Russian entrepreneurs can be imprisoned. That is, instead of creating favorable conditions for investors, the regime threatens them with bunks. It is not surprising that, turning to the business, the face of the prosecutor Kolesnikov, the regime provoked a new round of outflow of capital from the country: according to the Central Bank of the Russian Federation in the III quarter of 2003 (that is, after the promotion of the Yukos case), 8.6 billion US dollars flowed out of Russia. The fifth threat - The impoverishment of the Russian province and the collapse of the communal infrastructure of cities. If under President Yeltsin 50% of tax fees remained at the disposal of the regions, today the federal center takes 65% of income from the province. Against the background of prosperous Moscow, where almost every day new skyscrapers and shopping centers grow, in dozens of regions of the country, people barely make ends meet. The gap in the level of budgetary security between the capital and the regions continues to grow: if in Moscow the average per capita income is 20 thousand rubles a month, then on average regions are no more than 3-5 thousand. That is, it differs by 4-5 times. The threat of the well -being of millions of doctors, teachers, cultural workers and social sphere of Russia is also obvious: when choosing between their wages and the maintenance of special services, the regime invariably makes a choice in favor of the latter. In the budget-2004, the expenses for the military-police machine are sharply increased (the army will receive 19.5%more, the police and the FSB-by 26.7%) and the “functioning of the president” (20%growth). The salaries of teachers and doctors are frozen. And this is with a planned budget surplus of 83.4 billion rubles. Nothing better shows the true priorities of the current regime and his attitude to those who teach and heal our citizens.

Threats, unlike the illusion of economic improvement, are more than tangible. They relate to every citizen of Russia. For their perception, it is not necessary to be an economist or political scientist, it is not necessary to understand the connection between political freedom and a wallet. Putinism is compared with the related historical examples of the third world dictatorships, in which political authoritarianism was also combined with depressing social trends. It is enough to recall Latin America, the Philippines and Indonesia of the times of Markos and Suharto.

Many Russian liberals initially agreed to support Putinism, hoping that the political clamp and refusal of freedoms would be used to carry out economic reforms. Today it is obvious - hopes for reforms have not been justified. According to the degree of reformism, Putin’s regime is significantly inferior, for example, to Nursultan Nazarbayev, who conducted pension and communal reforms in Kazakhstan - despite the fact that in terms of political freedom of Russia Putin is equal to Kazakhstan and approaches Belarus Alexander Lukashenko.

Instead of the export of freedom and democracy to the CIS countries, which Anatoly Chubais spoke of, Russia imports the dictatorship of a la Lukashenko, Nazarbayev and, God forbid, Turkmenbashi. The Putin course is a course into the third world, a course on the final transformation of Russia into a raw material appendage. This is a dead end.

We absolutely disagree with this course. We are convinced that our country deserves the best. We advocate a qualitatively different state development strategy - a democratic alternative to Putinism. For a system based on civil society, elected democracy and parliamentarism, at the free press and independent justice, at federalism, self -government and dynamic market economy, built on small and medium -sized enterprises. This is the path that led to the prosperity of the country of the “golden billion” (Western Europe, the USA, Japan). It is on these countries, and not on the dictatorial regimes of Central Asia and Latin America, we urge to navigate in choosing a state development strategy.

We are well aware that Russian society (or rather, Putin's majority) will not see the economic basis of the regime - high oil prices. Nevertheless, we are firmly convinced that if President Putin receives 80–90 percent in the March elections (and it is quite possible that they show sociological data), then this will give power to the authorities of both the endless card blanche both on positive decisions and for atrocities. With such a powerful mandate, the regime has the opportunity to make a lot of useful things: to conduct social and economic reforms, transfer the army to a contract basis, and stimulate the development of entrepreneurship. But in the same way, such a mandate gives the authorities of the Cart Blanche to change the constitution, to cancel the still remaining democratic freedoms, to establish a full-scale dictatorship-in other words, a mandate for lawlessness.

We turn to the supporters of Vladimir Putin. Over the past four years, the president’s activity gives every reason to believe that in his hands the 80 percent mandate from voters will mean carte blanche, including their own. No one needs it.

Therefore, even if you trust Putin, do not vote for him - in the name of your well -being and your families.

Boris Nemtsov is a co-founder of the Social and Political Committee “2008: Free choice”.

Vladimir Kara-Murza (ml.) -co-founder of the Socio-Political Committee “2008: Free choice”.