Translated material
Political economy on Navalny
The intellectual power of the Russian opposition appears in all its glory when it is asked to speculate about the economy. Blogger Alexei Navalny is responsible for this: the fight against corruption is his economic program. Such a agenda is negative from the field of political rhetoric, and not a serious economic policy.
When representatives of the Russian authorities are calling to once again go to a dialogue with the opposition, even the most irreconcilable, the authorities, which such a dialogue is uninteresting, consistently use three arguments, as if obsoleting the value of such a dialogue. At first, something like “we are ready for any constructive dialogue and we perceive criticism, if it is specific, and not the cutual.” There is a fair amount of cunning, because by “constructive criticism” the authorities traditionally mean, if not direct praise, then indications of “individual shortcomings”, and not on systemic miscalculations.
Next follows the second level of protection - “What is the opposition’s positive program? And in general - what did they do to the people? " Here, of course, it turns out that the opposition has no positive program, and for the country it did nothing, which is not surprising, since it does not have the opposition and does not have power levers. And all her most deliberate proposals, when such, the authorities that play simultaneously on the left, right, National Populistic and any other flank of the Russian public political spectrum can easily be easily assigned to themselves.
Finally, follows the third argument “We represent the majority, and who do they represent?”. Here, too, not everything is simple, because it is quite difficult to understand who the authorities are actually represented. And the conditional unsystematic opposition, for example, recently got the opportunity to proudly declare, which is not a majority, but a “creative minority with Bolotnaya and Sakharov”. On what basis does it require, if not ministerial posts, then exactly the registration of their own dwarf organizations and admission to the parliamentary tribune.
However, the question of a positive agenda remains. An attempt to withdraw this question regarding the lack of claims about the opposition’s lack of a positive economic program was already undertaken by the famous blogger and activist Alexei Navalny, whose text on this subject was in “Vedomosti”. That is, in the same publication where Vladimir Putin published his economic program. The choice of the same site with a very likely future president of Russia makes it possible to suggest that the ambitions of Navalny, if not presidential, he certainly wants the power and potential supporters to notice his software text.
Message is simple: the fight against corruption is the economic program of Navalny. Argumentation is also no wonder: structural reforms are impossible, as long as “corruption and lawlessness” in the country, and “political will” will be able to defeat them. According to the author, there is a public consensus on this score, only there is not enough will.
There are a number of questions here.
Even if the fight against corruption and the victory over it (we note that the phrase “victory over corruption” - that is, the final result - neither representatives of the authorities or the opposition is almost not used, the rhetoric is mainly concentrated on the “struggle” - that is, the long -term process) and is an indispensable condition for the development of the economy, the question remains, and what are you - in this case - will you do it later? And what will you do in the process?
Further: “Public Anti -Corruption Consensus” is far from as a clear thing as it seems at first glance. According to the Levada Center survey, two years ago, more than 30 percent of respondents were given (or extorted from them), “over the past year”-15. The figure is probably underestimated, since not everyone will be recognized in the country. In other words: even “household bribery” (in the hospital, the traffic police, when placing a child to school and so on) - a mass phenomenon. Therefore, there are two counterparties and one of them - a citizen that gives a bribe.
The question is in favor of whom? If you estimate speculatively, then in addition to corrupt officials, bribe takers and all sorts of intermediaries, in the second row of “corruption beneficiaries”, just “creative class”, which is closest to the power and money-doors in the process of redistribution, is highly likely. Representatives of the private business working on state orders receive contracts (yes for rollbacks, but they also receive the rate of profit with reduced or completely absent competition), their hired employees - a salary increased compared to the budget sector. Some conditional designers sell suburban villas to the same corrupt officials, their restaurateurs or their subordinates feed and so on.
If the request for “anti -corruption” in the general form is “swamp”, then this is a request for “more better” distribution of resources. That is: in favor of the "creative class" itself.
Conditionally: this is a protest on the principle “why do they have“ Maybachs ”and at home on“ Nikolina Gora ”, and I have“ Renault ”and a mortgage odnushka in Butov?” Our state, free Russia from corruption, in this sense, will inevitably act to the detriment of the income of the "creative". It simply does not know how to redistribute funds in their favor and will distribute them in favor of other categories of citizens: pensioners, military, police, doctors and other state employees.
The state sector today is objectively the main generator and manager of funds in the country. But what to do with him - this Navalny does not say: neither the words about privatization (of course, a politically slippery topic), nor even just an understanding where the proceeds from the fight against corruption will be spent.
The thesis of the conditional “swamp Protestants” “we ourselves earn” in the context of the anti -corruption struggle is generally flawed. Yourself, but if you trace this money to the third or fourth counterparty, there will be almost inevitable corruption-so natural, with horns and hooves. It can even be assumed that Alexei Navalny’s anti -corruption project was donated by a certain statistically significant part of the “corruption” by origin of the funds. Almost like progressively -minded businessmen at the beginning of the twentieth century sponsored revolutionaries.
Finally: what is the infrastructure of the “fight against corruption”? Everything is simple in Navalny: the civil initiative plus the political will of the "honest state". “Political will” is essentially a synonym for “manual control”, a kind of anti -corruption oprichnina. Here, not to mention the potential corruption of the “will”, which has the ability to easily turn into “lawlessness”, it is clear that the proposed struggle of non -playing, and is built on a leadership principle.
With an “honest state” is still more fun: where does it come from if today it is “dishonest”, and in power (at least in her, power, parties) - all the “crooks and thieves”? Apparently, Alexei Navalny imagines some lustrations in the state apparatus, held by a new, honest leader. In this context, the “Navalny program” from the program itself turns into a means of actual political struggle and belongs to the field of political rhetoric.
The slogans “Russia without corruption” or there “do not lie and not steal” sound attractively mainly in the political populist space. Say, is a platform or on the body. In the sense of meaningful, I again want to repeat the question of the same Aleksey Navalny: there is no “fight against corruption” - this is good, but what is you, dear, economic, and - what is there a political program? The hero of the “Inhabited Island” Maxim Camerian to a similar question to match Navalny answered “Justice”. True, he was not aware that inflation exists in the world, and the country is threatened by hunger.