What's not mine is illegal

Three quarters of Russians do not recognize the right to private property

Russians still, for almost 15 years now, cannot come to terms with privatization. This is evidenced by sociological research. The results of privatization in Russia are still highly controversial. At least because, having received a voucher, every adult citizen could participate in it, and only a select few received real benefits. Some call the process of transferring socialist property into private hands “privatization”; others, on the contrary, argue that without the denationalization of national economic facilities, this very economy was doomed to eke out a miserable existence. The topic of privatization has divided society so much that consensus on it cannot be expected either in the near or medium term. Those left with nothing, which is the overwhelming majority, will never accept the point of view of those whom the authorities allowed to obtain assets at the minimum price and turn from, say, ordinary cooperators into billionaires. At the same time, as the head of the Politika Foundation, Vyacheslav Nikonov, says, officials, on whose decisions the fate of this or that property depended, tried to achieve “to become at least millionaires.” “There is no feeling that large capital was acquired in an honest way. This gives shaky grounds for property, especially large property, and creates opportunities for the redistribution of property,” Mr. Nikonov said yesterday during a discussion of a sociological study conducted by employees of the Institute of Socio-Political Research of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

Sociologists, having surveyed 2,800 Russians from all major population groups in 54 cities and towns of all federal districts (the survey was conducted in May), found out the current attitude of Russians to the results of privatization. The picture turned out to be unpleasant. 77% of respondents are sure that the majority of owners of large private property do not own it rightfully. 81% of Russians believe that as a result of privatization, the country's national wealth was plundered. But even this is not so bad. It turns out that, despite all the many years of efforts of the authorities, aimed, in particular, at “equidistant” business (read oligarchs) from power, fighting corruption, etc. etc., 70% of Russians surveyed believe that they live today in conditions of “clan, semi-criminal, oligarchic capitalism.”

It is no coincidence that the overwhelming majority of respondents had a positive attitude towards a partial revision of the results of privatization if this property was obtained through criminal means. But at the same time, as Vice-President of the Russian Academy of Social Sciences Vilen Ivanov, who presented the report, said, many respondents do not seek a massive revision of the results of privatization, including because they do not believe in the legality and fairness of the new redistribution of property. According to him, the survey showed that Russians want businesses to correct the mistakes made during privatization by increasing their social responsibility.

In addition, neither the majority of the population nor experts (the study also interviewed 700 experts from among government officials, journalists, scientists, and law enforcement officers) expect widespread nationalization of large private property. Considering the assessment of the current social system in Russia (“clan, semi-criminal, oligarchic capitalism”), the point of view according to which this cannot happen is not surprising. It does not lie at all in the plane of relationships between different forms of property in a market economy, the main goal of which is - increasing the efficiency and competitiveness of the economy of a particular state. Respondents simply do not see a force that could carry out large-scale nationalization.

Although citizens still want to return many large assets to the state. According to the majority of respondents, the presence of the state should be dominant in the fuel and energy and military-industrial complex, in the extractive industries. “The majority of Russians have a positive attitude towards the idea of ​​nationalizing certain large enterprises and corporations of strategic importance in the Russian economy,” says Vilen Ivanov. According to him, the reform of the electric power industry, which involves the transfer of generating capacity to private hands, was positively assessed by only 1% of respondents. It is possible, however, that the persistently negative attitude of Russians personally towards the head of RAO UES of Russia Anatoly Chubais played an important role here.

The results of the survey showed that about 20 years after the start of market reforms in Russia and almost 15 years after privatization, many Russians have not fully accepted the new social system for them, especially flavored with domestic specifics. However, it would be difficult to expect anything else, given the distortions and mistakes made during the formation of a democratic market society (namely, such a society is the most effective in our time, as evidenced by the experience of developed countries), expressed, in particular, in the catastrophic polarization of the population by income. Moreover, the gap between the poor and the rich is not narrowing, but only increasing, despite the increase in wages and other measures taken by the government to combat poverty.

“Privatization has greatly offended the morality of our people,” says Moscow State University and MGIMO professor Viktor Kuvaldin. And the formula “endure, fall in love,” according to him, does not work here. The scientist proposes to more actively develop small and medium-sized businesses, to involve more and more Russians in them in order to neutralize the consequences of the denationalization of property. “We need to look for a way out in this direction,” he is sure. Another negative result of privatization, in Mr. Kuvaldin's opinion, is that Russia has failed to create a competitive economy. In turn, political scientist Alexey Kiva called on the expert community to reverse the trend and not justify any steps taken by the authorities. “We must understand that the authorities themselves have never assessed the situation realistically, especially in Russia,” he says.

Mikhail VOROBYEV