Maxim Momot. "Stalin, Stiglitz and Bukovsky..."

"Stalin, Stiglitz and Bukovsky..."
Media Review

Maxim Momot

Publication date: March 9, 2004

The weekly "Political Journal" , whose expert council includes famous Russian scientists and political scientists, devotes the first pages of its new issue, among other things, to an analysis of the constitutional foundations of the Russian state, the inviolability of which the president of the country has repeatedly declared.

The article by Sergei Zemlyanoy “The share of autocracy: what kind of presidential republic is possible in Russia” is a comparative description of the presidential constitutions of the USA, France and Russia.

“What is the political essence of the general idea of ​​a presidential republic?” the author formulates the main question of the publication. “ The answer to this is given by the history of American democracy, primarily by the US Constitution, as well as the history of the Constitution of the Fifth Republic in France . ” The point here is the need for a “strong hand,” which led to the adoption of presidential constitutions in these countries. Congress in 1787 was unable to unite the crumbling confederation that was the United States, and the French parliament in 1958 was unable to cope with the Algerian rebellion.

The motives for adopting the “Yeltsin” constitution in the memorable December of 1993 were also similar, when the country stood on the brink of civil war and almost crossed this line. The need to preserve the achievements of democracy in the face of the threat of communist revenge (according to the official version), indeed, dictated the vesting of the executive branch in the person of the president with extensive powers. True, the author does not say anything about the personal motives of Yeltsin and his circle, about the desire to protect themselves from possible criminal prosecution for unconstitutional decrees and the shooting of parliament, which many qualified as a coup.

Sergei Zemlyanoy draws attention to the qualitative features of the Russian political system, enshrined in the Constitution on December 12. “Say, in the Basic Law of America such a clause (Article 80) would be impossible: “The President... is the guarantor of the Constitution, the rights and freedoms of man and citizen,” the author notes. “According to the logic of democracy, the guarantor of the Constitution, inalienable rights and freedoms is the sovereign people themselves." “This is the specificity of the Russian presidential republic: the president is not a servant of the people, but their guardian,” concludes Sergei Zemlyanoy. The functions of determining foreign and domestic policy, which were previously assigned to the multimillion-dollar CPSU, are now also entrusted to the president.

The author emphasizes the plebiscitary nature of Russian democracy, “based on the presidential power deriving its legitimacy from the direct expression of the people’s will and direct public support for the head of state . ” This is obviously caused by the peculiarities of the historical path, our faith in the Tsar’s father and concern for the boyars’ machinations.

The conclusion of the article is generally optimistic: “The presidential republic and plebiscitary democracy best of all democratic forms correspond to the specifics of Russia . ” Otherwise, there will be a Russian rebellion, from which, as we know, there is no mercy, confusion and vacillation.

A much darker picture of the state of Russian political institutions is painted on the pages of the Political Journal by the famous dissident, member of the 2008 Committee Vladimir Bukovsky . “The authorities, perhaps, think that they are so smart, so dexterous, have outwitted everyone, outwitted everyone, deceived society... these people do not understand that they are bringing the end of the country closer: its further disintegration, rotting, perhaps civil strife,” - he says in an extensive interview with the publication. “These people live one day at a time, they are temporary workers of the worst kind, of a criminal nature, they are only interested in theft and robbery,” continues Vladimir Bukovsky. “ Like any parasites, they only intensify the state of illness in the body.”

Discussing the roots of evil, the interlocutor of the "Political Journal" sets out an unexpected historical concept. In his opinion, the crisis is connected “primarily by the fact that Russia did not bother to rebuild a normal state.” The imperial structure did not withstand the test of the First World War, and the statehood, somehow glued together by Lenin and Trotsky, collapsed as soon as the center weakened.

This emphasis is unusual for the human rights movement. As a rule, the emphasis is still placed on the immaturity of society, the lack of control from which allows the government to get involved in adventures, which leads to the collapse of the state. Of course, Vladimir Bukovsky speaks about this too; he voices the thesis about the absence of society in Russia at all. However, the pre-election message of the statement is obvious - the authorities’ assurances of building a “strong state” do not correspond to reality. This cuts the ground from under the feet of the main candidate for king.

The topic of the Russian State, to which a significant part of the issue is devoted, is interrupted by an article by Joseph Stiglitz , a Nobel laureate. It is about globalization, one of the most controversial phenomena of our time. However, we will dwell on the characterization that the author gives to Russian reforms as one of the aspects of the ongoing processes in the world.

Joseph Stiglitz begins by attacking the rationality of the principle of free movement of capital, sacred to our liberals of the 90s. Liberalization of the capital market, in the author's opinion, has nothing to do with either accelerating growth or increasing investment. Moreover, "the introduction of capital controls in Malaysia did not entail the undesirable consequences that critics of this measure pointed out; on the contrary, the recession was the least long and deep."

The Nobel laureate calls the ideology of Russian reformers “market fundamentalism.” “Today, the failure of shock therapy is widely recognized: countries that chose a gradual transition, focusing on the creation of an institutional infrastructure that included a legal system for addressing corporate governance problems, generally achieved better results.” This is already a sentence.

The performance of the Russian economy, in the author's opinion, turned out to be "artificially undermined by an overly tight monetary policy and an overvalued exchange rate." During the reform period, "incentives were created to consume assets rather than to create wealth." Thus, "Russia turned out to be a poorer country than it would have been in other circumstances."

Now, by our standards, there is a completely indecent call for a review of the results of privatization. “ Ultimately, the security of an owner's rights does not depend on specific forms of legislation, but rather on the legality of ownership of that property from the point of view of society,” argues the economist. “ If owners are viewed by society as having acquired property “illegally,” their rights are insecure, in which case the motivation of the owner is distorted, incentives are strengthened to consume assets, to transform them into a form in which they can be taken out of the country, beyond the reach of those who may call the legality of the acquisition of these assets into question.”

Like this. What we are trying to pass off as the “opinion of the crowd” and declassed elements, in the West is considered a completely reasonable and justified option for solving the problem.

Further more. The Russian government "could impose a 'windfall capital gains' tax similar in spirit to what was imposed on US oil companies when their profits soared due to rising oil prices." Such a tax, according to the Nobel laureate, could amount to about 90% of excess income from the acquisition of state property. A tax on the export of capital should also be introduced.

But that's not all. Free movement of capital is a threat to democracy. “Not only in Russia, but also in other countries, the free movement of capital complicates measures for the redistribution of goods, measures designed to make distribution more “fair”, equal, one that would support the institutions of democracy,” the author notes. “ Fears that in the conditions The free movement of capital on Wall Street is becoming unduly important in elections in other countries, as has been clearly confirmed in Brazil." China provides an example of successfully attracting investment while controlling the movement of capital.

A significant place in the magazine, as already mentioned, is devoted to the Russian state, the revenge of which is designated as the theme of the issue. Boris Vishnevsky in his article “The Ring of Reverse Time” emphasizes the cyclical, closed nature of the Russian historical process, the fact that “after the completion of the full “Eastern cycle,” the Russian political system came to a state almost indistinguishable from the Soviet one.” to the Russian people’s horror Professor Dmitry Furman draws attention of anarchy in an interview of the same name. Pyotr Akopov reflects on what kind of state Vladimir Putin is building in his article “Point of Return” . The topic is completed by Oleg Davydov, who examines the stereotype of behavior typical of Russians - to get down to business seriously only when “thunder strikes.”

attracts attention Yuri Zhukov's article "Master of Democracy" . The author defends the rather controversial thesis that Stalin planned to introduce competitive elections in the thirties with the purely pragmatic goal of updating the administrative apparatus.

In general, it should be noted the high level of publications in the Political Journal. The format of the publication itself is noticeably different from Russian glossy magazines about politics. The emphasis is on serious analytics.