Open questions

The coming season may follow an inertial scenario, and there may be certain changes. It is not yet very clear in what direction these changes will take place, since one of the sources of instability is in elite circles.

Why is the inertial scenario possible? Because our country’s leadership and the team that is in power are generally convinced that, overall, the situation in Russia is developing positively. The main thing is positive - economic growth. And economic growth is already creating resources for solving other problems: the opportunity to increase pensions, spend money on sports schools so that there will be Olympic champions, rearm the army, build roads, airports, invest in education and medicine. Economic growth, even in conditions of a fairly high corruption tax, allows both business and government to implement their projects. Ours is slightly higher than the world average, despite the fact that when calculating economic growth, African countries with a low starting base are also taken into account. Of course, it is higher than the average in Europe, with which we compare ourselves all the time. Although it seems to me that we need to compare ourselves rather with China, Indonesia, and Turkey. Well, since our economic growth is on average two times higher than European growth, it is believed that we do not need to twitch, but just need to wait, and we will slowly catch up with Europe.

Another reason why we are considered positive is precisely how others evaluate us. The rest of the countries go crazy when they look at Putin. Putin is very highly regarded, and the results of his work are very highly valued. Russia's authority is constantly increasing. For example, the trial of Pussy Riot. Any practically rational, adequate person considers the Pussy Riot case and the criticism that this process has caused from other countries as a compliment. Because all reasonable people know the words of Mayakovsky: “We hear the sounds of approval / Not in the sweet murmur of praise, / But in the wild cries of anger” (the lines are attributed to Mayakovsky erroneously. The author of the lines is Nikolai Nekrasov - PublicPost). If we are criticized by geopolitical competitors, then we are doing the right thing. If we are trying in every possible way, so to speak, to hit Patriarch Kirill, it means he’s done well, he’s doing very well. If, because of such a trivial matter as the trial of hooligans, they are organizing such a worldwide bacchanalia, it means that Russia is doing everything right. This is obvious to anyone, regardless of whether he is a supporter or opponent of the government. If Greek Orthodox priests, and indeed our allies or Putin’s voters, scolded us for the Pussy Riot case, then it would make sense for the authorities to think about it. But since his opponents criticize and become angry, one must come to the conclusion that everything is being done correctly. This is obviously another factor that pushes us to continue the current scenario.

What political course are we implementing?
Technocratic. The meaning of this technocratic course is that rational decisions are made, first of all, on economic development, and the population is relatively disconnected from making these decisions. His opinion is taken into account within sociology and in elections. The people vote once: for or against the continuation of the policy. And that's it, the rest of the time it is disabled. This model worked for 10 years. The first two years of Putin's rule were different - a political model. Putin, elected by the majority of the population, broke the oligarchic Yeltsin system, and only then did he move on to technocracy. However, the growth of protest showed the limits of this technocratic model of development. The protest showed that Putin, who continues to do everything normally (there is economic growth, decisions are being made), but citizens are no longer satisfied.

Why?
There are several reasons and they must be taken into account. But how they will be taken into account is not yet clear. Putin, having come to power, relied on society. Society clearly formulated its order: to restore the state. And he implemented the political program formulated by the citizens at that time. Then society formulated another program: we calmly eliminate ourselves, and you develop the economy. This program was also implemented.

It is now clear that we need to again rely on society, which is currently divided into an active minority (this is, first of all, the middle class of million-plus cities and non-production workers) and a silent moral majority (these are the provinces, public sector employees and the material sphere of the economy). And the question arises: will the government abandon this technocratic management model and move on to a political one? This is also an open question. Perhaps not. Many in power believe that there are and will be protests. So what? In France, the protests are an order of magnitude greater, as are in Spain and the UK. Well, they protest, they go to rallies and demonstrations, let them continue to do so. The main thing is that power is not seized with the help of all sorts of color revolutions. But against this, a system of laws has been adopted that could protect the government from a forced change of course.

If power nevertheless transfers to political control, will it be real-political or reputation-political? In other words, will there be work on a real agenda, or will the government simply pretend that it has made concessions while real concessions to large social groups will be minimal?
If, after all, there is a real political course, then what will be the basis? Demands of an active minority or a moral majority? Or a combination of both? Although they look at many issues from diametrically opposed points of view.

A classic example: the Pussy Riot case. The active minority believes that they need to be released, and the moral majority believes that they need to be properly imprisoned. The Khodorkovsky case. The active minority - it needs to be freed, and the moral majority - a few more people need to be added to Khodorkovsky. TV. The minority believes that it is necessary to remove political censorship, and the majority believes that moral censorship should be introduced. And which point of view will win? The question is open. There is quite a heated struggle going on.

The same is true for economic issues. The fact is that the Russian economy over the past five years has been controlled by supporters of market fundamentalism (aggressive and asocial capitalism). They believe that woe is for the vanquished, all billions should be given to the strong, and it is better to disperse dissatisfied trade unions with machine guns.

On the one hand, Putin largely supports this group, but on the other, he constantly distances himself from it. A few years ago he proclaimed the need for an active industrial policy, which, by the way, these market fundamentalists hate. Putin also pursues an active social policy, in particular, he emphasized it during the crisis. This also infuriates market fundamentalists. And so Putin seems to be evolving: the importance of the members of his team - supporters of an active industrial policy - is constantly increasing. But, on the other hand, the appointment of Dmitry Medvedev as Prime Minister indicates the strengthening of supporters of asocial capitalism. It is easy to see that market fundamentalists dominate the government's expert council. They call themselves liberals. But this is a mistake in self-designation, because liberals are for freedom for everyone, and these are only for the rich and powerful. The weak are apparently offered slavery. It is unclear how the struggle between market fundamentalists and supporters of an active industrial policy will develop: in our country they still occupy a fairly serious position, but all over the world they are losing. In China there are no market fundamentalists, in India they are in the minority, in the USA and France they have failed. It is not known how this struggle between supporters of market fundamentalism and supporters of active industrial policy will end.

Moreover, market fundamentalism does not offer solutions to pressing problems. For Russia, the primary task remains the transition from a resource-based economy to an industrial one. Putin proclaimed a new industrialization, but those in power in the economic bloc are those who are unable to implement this industrialization, moreover, they are its opponents.

One more question. The agenda is changing. The public agenda seems to have moved on. The society said: “Thank you, Vladimir Vladimirovich, for restoring the state, thank you for economic growth, but we want other problems to be solved besides these.” The authorities cannot keep up with the evolution of the agenda. Moreover, in connection with this general calmness, the authorities are experiencing a decrease in sensitivity. And because of this, some failures arise, to overcome which you need to admit mistakes and correct them. Will the authorities be able to move from the “we are doing everything right” model to the “we have made some mistakes” model? This question also remains open. That is, the question of the presence of political will.

Nowadays there is a growing demand for the treatment of acute social diseases. A very high level of drug addiction, a very high level of vodka alcoholism among middle-aged people and beer alcoholism among young people. The focus of public attention is gradually moving here. People are becoming less and less tolerant of this. Not because alcoholism has become higher, but because life has become better. Will the authorities be able to show the will to make these changes, and at the same time, in a sense, admit some of their mistakes, for example, the privatization of the vodka industry. Another open question, which also has no answer.