Translated material
Look for the owner
Today there is no one to protect and strengthen the Russian economy
Published in the latest issue of Expert magazine, an article by Deputy Head of the Presidential Administration Vladislav Surkov , in which he tries to clarify and develop the concept of “sovereign democracy,” aroused, as they say, keen interest in scientific and expert circles. And it doesn’t matter that everyone still understands Mr. Surkov’s terminology in their own way, and some still don’t understand it at all. The article, as the actual actualization of the concept of “sovereign democracy” by Mr. Surkov, brought the discussion about the paths of development of Russia, including its economy, to a new qualitative level. And in this sense, the goal has been achieved, as was recognized by the participants in the round table entitled “Economy of Sovereign Russia,” which was held by “Business Russia” at the Academy of National Economy.Scientists and economists are no longer thinking only about whether to replace, say, VAT with a sales tax or what to do with the stabilization fund, but about how, in the context of a globalizing world and strengthening transnational corporations, they can keep the Russian economy under the control of the Russian authorities and prevent it from being swallowed up economies of more powerful countries. And the danger of such a development of events, experts believe, is more than real.
Until now, 15 years after the start of economic reforms, a strategic program for the country's development has not been developed, approved and, most importantly, accepted by society. In other words, it is not clear what kind of Russia we want to see, say, in 50 or 100 years, by what means to achieve our goals, how to catch up with countries that have fallen behind and not allow those who started from similar positions to overtake themselves.
Meanwhile, hardly anyone will argue that without a strong, competitive economy, not only to build a “sovereign democracy”, you can lose sovereignty, and even the territorial integrity of the state. Many experts point out: if we ourselves are unable to supply other countries with resources, including through the development of the empty territories of Siberia, then sooner or later these countries themselves will come to us for resources. No one will allow Russia to play the role of “dog in the manger.” Governor of the Tver region Dmitry Zelenin directly says that “the Russian economy in its current state cannot be the basis of sovereign democracy.”
If in the 90s inaction could be justified by the need to constantly think about overcoming the crisis in the economy, then in the last six years such excuses no longer work. There is no strategy, because representatives of the power elites were never able to come to a consensus: their vision of ways to strengthen Russia, including economically, is so opposite that it cannot be united into one whole.
The difference in approaches to developing the competitiveness of the state was also evident during the round table “Economics of Sovereign Democracy”. For example, the head of Business Russia, Boris Titov, calls for the creation of a developed national market with the necessary level of competition, private initiative and a sufficient number of small and medium-sized businesses (we currently have 12% of the total number of firms versus more than 60% in the USA and 40% in China). According to him, “monopoly and feudalism do not allow free competition to develop, create difficult to overcome barriers to business development, and limit the growth opportunities of the national economy.” The head of the organization of small and medium-sized businesses “Opora Rossii” Sergei Borisov supported his colleague, saying that “monopoly is a great danger for society, for our sovereign economy.” On the contrary, the editor-in-chief of Expert magazine Valery Fadeev does not see anything wrong with the fact that large companies are being created in the country and monopolies are operating. In his opinion, this allows domestic businesses to compete more successfully in global markets, for example, steel or aluminum. Not to mention the influence of Gazprom on the world economy.
Rector of the Academy of National Economy Vladimir Mau proposes to solve the problem of state competitiveness by improving the quality of education - the most important component of a post-industrial society. And the director of the Institute of Economics of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Ruslan Grinberg, is confident that the emphasis must be placed not only on education and science (he noted with satisfaction that Mr. Surkov draws attention to these areas as a source of competitiveness in his article), but also on the development of the industry itself . “We need industrial policy in the old sense of this concept,” says the scientist.
The conditions in which the Russian economy is forced to develop were not forgotten either. The round table participants, as at all similar events, talked about corruption, insecurity of private property, etc. Constitutional Court judge Gadis Gadzhiev spoke unflatteringly about the judicial system. “A competitive state is a competition of the judicial system, and this is precisely the weakest point today.”
And only the director of the Center for Corporate Entrepreneurship, Sergei Chernyshev, suggested using as fully as possible a resource that seems to have begun to be forgotten - the Russians themselves (however, this is apparently what Messrs. Titov and Borisov had in mind when they called for the development of small and medium-sized businesses , and also fight monopolies). “Economic sovereignty begins with the sovereignty of economic agents. We must let the citizen become an owner, teach him to be an owner. The sovereignty of a democratic country begins with the secure ability of a citizen to be the owner and manage his property,” said Mr. Chernyshev.
The only question is whether the preachers of “sovereign democracy,” as well as their colleagues in power - supporters of other political science concepts, need so many owners - independently thinking people, responsible for themselves and for their actions, risking the well-being of their own families. Wanting to manage and protect their property, they may well demand democracy without any definitions with all the attendant mechanisms of control (including through the media) over the now almost uncontrollable officials, including the highest level. In any case, everyone will not be able to leave.