Parties and the government

The formation of two groups in the Russian political elite, which differ mainly by their attitude to the financial and economic crisis, is, from our point of view, the main political event of March-April 2009.

Over the past ten years, the Russian establishment has been split so sharply only once - in connection with the arrest of Mikhail Khodorkovsky and the case of Yukos. Otherwise, the political elite was extremely - and even too - unanimous. Separate “incidents”, such as statements by prominent United Russia Luzhkov and Shaimiev about the need to return to the practice of the election of governors, did not make the weather, because they were quickly modified by the party leadership and the presidential administration.

However, since March 2009, representatives of various clans and financial and industrial groups in the ruling elite of the country began the actual discussion on the most burning issue of the current moment-on the crisis and ways of combating it . Within the framework of this discussion, two main “parties” stood out, which can be conditionally called the “Party of the Long Crisis” and the “Party of the Short Crisis”. The conflict between them is not purely hardware: rather, it is a projection of the confrontation between different sectors of the Russian business community, in particular, between financial and industrial circles. The part of the iceberg that is visible on the surface is a conflict between some groups in the government, the presidential administration and structures that act as mediators between the business community and the authorities (such as the RSPP).

The essence of the conflict is to assess the economic situation in the country and forecasts for the future that determine the proposed packages of anti -crisis measures . Supporters of the “long crisis” ( Alarmists ) insist that the “bottom” of the crisis has not yet been achieved, the situation will deteriorate, so the strategic reserves of the stab fund and other “airbags” must only be spent on maintaining the stability of the financial system, or to invest in Western securities (such as the IMF bonds). Their opponents, on the contrary, are convinced that the peak of the crisis has been passed, the country came out of it with relatively small losses, a slow but steady economic growth awaits us, which makes emergency measures to save the domestic industry and further development of innovative programs described in Strategy 2020.

From the point of view of the economist Nikita Krichevsky, the Party of the Long Crisis includes, first of all, Alexei Kudrin and Arkady Dvorkovich, in the Party of the Short Crisis - Igor Sechin, Igor Shuvalov, Sergey Chemezov, Elvira Nabiullina. At the same time, the media notes the hardware struggle between the groups of Sechin and Shuvalov (who showed, in particular, in the issue of approval by the Board of Directors of Rosneft). Does this mean that the party of the “short crisis” is torn by internal contradictions? Or is the division into two parties incorrectly, and, as some experts suggest, does it make sense to talk about the “third force” grouping around Shuvalov?

There is no unity in financial circles - so, the Minister of Finance of the Russian Federation Alexei Kudrin and the head of the Central Bank, Sergei Ignatiev, fundamentally diverge in their assessments of the crisis and measures to maintain the domestic banking system. There is information about a serious discussion between the Ministry of Finance and the Central Bank on the creation of a state pool to save the so -called “toxic” or “bad” assets.

We can say that representatives of the Long Crisis party are mainly concerned with the salvation of the financial system - banks, securities markets, etc., leaving the Russian real sector to its fate (“There is still nothing good there”). This point of view, for example, is justified by Yegor Gaidar in an interview. Their opponents insist on the need to save the domestic industry (AvtoVAZ, GAZ, Defense Complex enterprises), and state intervention in the situation with an inevitably impending crisis of non -payments.

The situation is complicated by the fact that, according to Nikita Krichevsky, " all representatives of informal parties are equally close to the Russian Duumvirate ." For the confrontation of the supporters of the “long” and “short” crisis, if you wish, you can see the conflict between the apparatuses of the president and the prime minister of the country- the conflict, which last summer was called as the main threat of Russian tandemocracy . This factor deduces the discussion about whether Russia has reached the bottom of the crisis from the field of pure theory, and transfers it to the sphere of no less pure policy.