Following the question “Who are you with, masters of culture?” the time has come to ask a similar question to intellectuals - scientists, specialists, experts. The Institute of Contemporary Development, a research center, was created, the head of the board of trustees of which is Dmitry Medvedev. There are many well-known names on the guest list. What does it mean to invite intellectuals with liberal reputations to the expert team of the new president? What is the goal: to create a more decent face of power for the West, or to continue the stalled reforms? And should intellectuals cooperate with authoritarian power? Economists Andrey Illarionov and Yevgeny Gontmakher argue about this in the editorial office of The New Times
Can and should intellectuals cooperate with the authorities in the current conditions?
Evgeny Gontmakher: A year ago, I would have answered harshly: no. Now I see a very small, maybe even negligible chance - one hundredth or a thousandth that there will be a change for the better. So the question arises: how to use it? Of course, I personally categorically do not want to go to public service. I have been there for quite a few years. By the way, he left there in October 2003, after the arrest of Mikhail Borisovich Khodorkovsky. I calmly applied and that's it. Now the restrictions are much tighter. Now it is wrong for an intellectual to go into power. Too high the likelihood that you will really be used, hiding behind your name. Or you'll have to resign in three days.
Andrei Illarionov: And what has changed over the year? What happened that allowed you to make a positive decision?
Gontmakher: From my point of view, there was a rather strong split in the elites. It seemed to me that a certain crack lay there now, which changed the situation ...
The ghost of hope
Explain what you are hoping for?
Gontmakher: Hope, I admit, is completely illusory. But if there is not at least some progress towards normal life, we are in for a colossal crisis that could result in a national catastrophe - with a tough confrontation, with blood, the “browns” can crawl out of the underground.
And it will be a nightmare.
Hope dies last. I am a social expert. I see 37 million pensioners, no less poor. If I can help them in any way, even if with the help of the government, which does not suit me very much, I am ready. For example, I want to make the 2010 Census mandatory for the entire population. Because the 2002 census, roughly speaking, failed. We don't know anything about our country. If a mandatory census can be achieved, we will at least learn a little more about our society, and then my task will be completed. I want to exploit power for the public interest.
Is there a fundamental difference between participation in power and cooperation with it?
Gontmakher: Work in power is when you are hired. You are paid money.
Collaboration is a little different. This is an informal contract. Such contact means at least equality. I'm laying my cards on the table... I was Mikhail Kasyanov's confidant in these elections. If they tell me: “Now, please, don’t go to Mikhail Mikhailovich, don’t meet with him, don’t exchange opinions,” I won’t agree to such conditions.
Andrei Nikolaevich, you once became an adviser to President Putin. Then there was the second Chechen war, the case of Babitsky. You considered it possible to go to work for the Kremlin. Now, however, do you consider cooperation with the authorities impossible?
Illarionov: I consider it impossible for myself. Work in power or cooperation with power is not a fundamental difference. In any case, there is a contract - written or unwritten, but with conditions that are clear to both parties. You have to look at the terms of the contract. Our government is undemocratic, not free, illegitimate and, moreover, destroys its own citizens. If the government does this on purpose and does not hide what it will do in the future, then it is impossible to cooperate with such a government in any form. The second most important criterion is whether I can change the situation with my participation in power. Let it be one iota, but in the right direction. If I have no chance, then I do not see the point in such work.
Those who decide to cooperate with such a government should be aware that they are strengthening this regime, making it stronger, smarter, more cunning, resourceful, more legitimate in the eyes of society, in the eyes of the outside world and in its own eyes. That is, they not only inflict moral harm on themselves, but also cause material damage and damage to their own country.
The behavior of many people in today's government resembles the behavior of punks. Cooperation with punks, with bandits means their legitimization. If you cooperate with punks, then you should not be offended that you are also referred to this category. And finally, for those collaborating with the punks, with the bandits, it should not be a big surprise if the bandit methods are turned against themselves.
moment of truth
You remained an adviser to Putin after the story with Khodorkovsky. You said: as long as I remain an adviser, I have a platform. You cooperated, as you just said, with the punks for quite a long time.
Illarionov: I honestly admit that this understanding did not come to me right away.
What happened that at some point you said: “That's it, I have to leave”?
Illarionov: Beslan. September 3, 2004.
Burnt children and parents in the Beslan school.
But you didn't leave right away?
Illarionov: It could not have happened at the same moment. When you are in power, when there are different opportunities for influence, then you should try to use the tools that state power provides to do something. But at some point you see that if you could do something before, now you can’t do it. It must be borne in mind that although my position was quite high, but this is the position of an adviser, and not a government official within the vertical. The only very powerful and very important tool is the person the adviser advises. When this person takes advice, this is a powerful weapon, especially in a country like Russia, with its gigantic concentration of political power and other resources in the person of the president. If he does not follow your advice, then no one in this system follows them.
During the time that I was there, the efficiency of my work decreased until it became zero. When he came close to this value, it became pointless to stay there. After September 3, I no longer had any illusions. Therefore, I immediately said that to work as a Sherpa - because I was not only an economic adviser, but also a personal representative of the Russian president 1 — after the events in Beslan, I can't. And he submitted his resignation. This statement was not accepted. Later, on January 3, 2005, a presidential decree was issued releasing me from the post of Sherpa. And when I left the post of adviser, I did it a little differently. After submitting my resignation and waiting a week, I was forced to make a public statement on December 27, 2005.
Gontmakher: I don't use such words as "punks", but the fact that these people live without rules, work without rules, is a fact. Nevertheless, Andrey, even then knowing the nature of this power, nevertheless decided to accept the offer from Putin, and became his adviser. And endured long enough.
So I published an article in Rossiyskaya Gazeta, where I raised conceptual questions on health care reform. I understand that this is all, maybe a breath of wind, which immediately subsides. But I believe that under some pressure, something suddenly starts to slip somewhere. For example, I have repeatedly written and said that national projects should be reorganized into federal targeted programs, so that at least there would be less theft and more efficiency. And Putin recently said that these would be state programs. I do not attribute this to my merits, many have spoken about this. I understand that we will not make a cardinal change. But if something can be done, it must be done.
Conditions of a contract
This is a well-known position: if you can't resist, do what you can... Gontmakher: Another question is that Andrey Nikolayevich works abroad. It's his choice. And probably correct. But put yourself in the place of, say, an employee of the Academy of Sciences of the Russian Federation, of any institution. The authorities apply for an opinion on a draft of a certain law. What to do in this case - take and throw the request into the trash?
Illarionov: First, I work not only at the Cato Institute. I work in Russia too. And in this case, I am responsible not only for myself, but also for a group of people, for the organization. Secondly, everyone makes a decision about how to act in a given situation independently. We are all adults.
Gontmakher: Andrey, it seems to me, said the key words - about individual choice.
Illarionov: And finally, the most important thing: any cooperation, any contact with the authorities must begin with a preliminary condition. A condition that was fulfilled by the leaders of the Soviet Union in incomparably more difficult conditions. When Nikita Khrushchev came to power after Stalin's death, the first step was to release the prisoners of the Gulag. When Gorbachev arrived, though not immediately, he freed Sakharov from exile, and then, after talking with him, released other political prisoners. The first thing that opens up the possibility of at least discussing whether it is possible to cooperate and how to cooperate with this power is the release of political prisoners. When Khodorkovsky, Aleksanyan, the National Bolsheviks and many others are released, only then will there be a moral basis for this discussion.
That is, it is impossible to cooperate with the criminal authorities?
Gontmakher: I am now in approximately the same position in which Andrei Nikolayevich was in 2000. I understand that a lot of time has passed since then - we have become more experienced. I don't know Medvedev. I read his speeches: freedom is better than lack of freedom, we need to have a state of law... Having become a member of this expert institute, perhaps I will be able, I will try to start a dialogue through some forms.
What should Medvedev do to keep you working with him? And why not make you say: "That's it - I'm leaving"?
Gontmakher: Mikhail Sergeevich did not release Sakharov immediately. I want to give Medvedev time, at least three months. I think when he becomes president, when all the levers of power in our tsarist system, at least formally, will be with him, I think that messages, even very small ones, will go every day. If the second case against Khodorkovsky is launched, this is sufficient reason for me to cut off contact.
What about keeping him in the first case?
Gontmakher: Sakharov was first brought a telephone to Gorky's apartment, if you remember. And then, after some time, Mikhail Sergeevich called him ... If excesses like the one with Maxim Reznik continue, if the authorities continue to react idiotically to the "March of Dissent" and other actions to which people have the right, then I, of course, for myself will draw a very definite conclusion.
But do you expect Medvedev to do something?
Gontmakher: I do not expect him to do nothing, but at least minimal messages, they can be microscopic, but at least this gives an opportunity to think that some next steps will be taken. By the way, a lot will depend on who will work in the presidential administration. Agree, this is an important question.
Illarionov: From my point of view, no.
Gontmakher: Events are developing very quickly in the country. Three months will clearly show the vector.
people from the moon
One of the arguments in favor of cooperation with the president-elect is that there is at least some opportunity to influence or at least speak out, otherwise “bad people” can come there. What do you say to that?
Illarionov: My proposal is simple. Test your theories, your views, your worldview on your own actions. First get the law to apply to political prisoners, then accept the terms.
Do you completely reject the argument that if not us, then “bad guys” will come and advise Medvedev incorrectly?
Illarionov: This is a false argument. According to this logic, it turns out that if we have a thousand "flashing lights", then in order for them not to get to "bad people", we need to sort them out according to our own. There are dachas on Rublyovka, and so, so that “bad people” don’t get them, let’s take them for ourselves. This policy was carried out in the 90s: to prevent the assets from getting to the “bad people”, they were distributed to the “right people”.
If tomorrow you receive a call from Medvedev: “I want to meet with you, I need your advice,” what will you answer?
Illarionov: I don't see the possibility that this government would suddenly start doing something else, refuting what it was doing in the previous 8 years. If there is a release of political prisoners, then I do not rule out that I will be ready to discuss actions to restore the legal order on the territory of the Russian Federation.
Gontmakher: Of course, I agree about political prisoners. But I am a realist and I understand step by step tactics. Even those three months that I appointed is a very tough time. Yes, we have the power as it is. But I have a question: where will the new power come from - from the Moon, from Mars? Khrushchev and Gorbachev were born from what we have. The likelihood that there will be changes for the better is very small. But leave this one tenth, hundredth or even thousandth of a probability. What options? Revolution?
Illarionov: The opportunity for a conversation will appear after the new president fulfills the first condition. And before that, cooperation with the authorities of any experts and professionals, their public silence means consent. With illegal order, with illegitimate power...
Andrey Illarionov is a senior fellow at the Center for Global Freedom and Prosperity at the Cato Institute in Washington. Director of the Institute for Economic Analysis (Moscow). Candidate of Economic Sciences. From 2000 to the end of 2005 - Advisor to the President of the Russian Federation.
Evgeny Gontmakher is the head of the Center for Social Policy at the Institute of Economics of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Doctor of Economic Sciences. In 1998–2003 - Head of the Department of Social Development of the Government of the Russian Federation.
