About things you have to do yourself

The InLiberty website has just undergone a major revamp and my column count is well into its fifth decade, so it's time to look at what I've done and think about what I should write and why in the future.

Some of my past publications represent ordinary political and social journalism - attempts to comprehend some common problems that many authors and bloggers express. In principle, I expected that such texts should be understandable to an ordinary, more or less educated person. But a fair portion of the comments were devoted to seemingly rather “narrow” and “special” issues - such as, for example, monetary policy, the state budget, electricity reform, municipal issues, etc. I have come across the opinion that these issues are too “technical” and are not of great interest to the general public.

Let me make a reservation right away: I am quite ready to admit that some of these publications devoted to more specialized topics, despite all my efforts, still turned out to be difficult to understand. Any work has shortcomings and every author always has opportunities for improvement. But that's not what we're talking about now.

It seems to me that the reluctance in itself to delve into specific, and therefore rather narrow and special, topics of our social life is a rather alarming trend.

I was not the first to notice that our educated and socially active public often provoke a strong reaction to stories that, by and large, have little bearing on the underlying problems and organization of everyday life - that is, what, in theory, “civil society” should be primarily concerned with, the absence of which in Russia is usually complained about. Let me give you some examples. Last summer, the Russian Ministry of Culture launched a campaign to reform research institutions, aimed, in particular, at strengthening ministerial control over the topics of scientific research. Along the way, Minister V. Medinsky in one of his speeches said that, according to his information, for five years state funds had been allocated for a certain research on the topic “Philosophy of the Hare.” This story caused heated discussion in the online community and among humanities scholars. As a kind of protest action, the conference “Philosophy of the Hare” was organized, which took place on June 19–21 at the Institute of Russian Literature of the Russian Academy of Sciences in St. Petersburg. One of the goals of the participants and organizers of this conference was to demonstrate the unacceptability of gross administrative interference in the choice of research topics by researchers.

Undoubtedly, government intervention in scientific creativity, as well as the principles of financing scientific research, is an important public topic, and it is good that there are activists who are ready to support its public discussion and corresponding public actions. But one cannot help but admit that this issue affects a relatively small circle of people and, in general, has a rather local character, given the pile of problems with which the system of domestic science is burdened.

For comparison, let’s take another story that developed over approximately the same period of time - the so-called freezing of the funded portion of pensions, which was the subject of my previous column . This story appeared in the public space last fall, when the decision about this “freeze” was, in fact, made by the government. It’s not that this went completely unnoticed, but there was no noticeable discussion in the online environment—everything was essentially limited to publications in the business press. A surge of interest in the topic arose only in June of this year in connection with the statement of the Minister of Finance A. Siluanov that “this money went to Crimea,” but this wave subsided after a short time. As far as I remember, neither last fall nor this summer there was any initiative group that would hold a public conference on this issue. There was no wave of pickets, no rallies with the slogans “Give back our pensions!”, no one collected signatures for petitions against the “freeze”. Moreover, this is a case of blatant and blatant deception on the part of the state. What can we say about such things as, for example, the depreciation of the ruble, which, as I mentioned earlier, is another, slightly more veiled way of taking away citizens’ money in favor of the state.

A huge number of such things simply pass by the attention of the public, causing at best a dull murmur - although in theory it should have become the basis for mass action.

And at the same time, there are many subjects - such as the statements of certain ministers and politicians, the style of their speech or the ideological cliches they use, etc. - that have insignificant significance for people's lives, but, nevertheless, cause a violent and lasting reaction from the public. Against this background, “The Philosophy of the Hare” appears to be a major achievement in the field of social self-organization.

Why is this happening? One could, of course, limit ourselves to routine complaints about the fact that the educated public is “lazy and incurious.” One could refer to the objective difficulties of self-organization of large groups, about which much has been written in the economic literature since the famous book by Mansur Olson “ The Logic of Collective Action ” - they say, when the number of interested parties is large, the contribution of each to the final result is negligible, and therefore an individual has no incentive to do anything in the common interests. Theoretically, this is, of course, true, but practice shows that often a lot can be done through small initiative groups, if people are sufficiently knowledgeable and ready to make personal efforts - after all, successful mass movements have existed in history and exist now.

But it seems to me that these explanations are not enough, and in our case there is another ideological complex at work, which can be characterized as a kind of technocratic thinking or, more precisely, technocratic belief. To illustrate its essence, I will cite the following real-life incident. Once I had the opportunity to teach students a lesson on the basics of economic theory. We discussed the problem of choice. As an example, I proposed to reflect on the typical choice that arises before a regional or municipal representative body when distributing budget funds: money allocated for one purpose cannot be allocated for another. For example, the opening of a new school will mean that ambulance stations will not receive new equipment and/or that there will not be enough money to repair part of the roads, which will make it impossible to reduce the number of accidents, etc. After listening to this, one of the students exclaimed: “Is it really impossible to find qualified experts who would make the right decision?!” It is clear what this student’s mistake was (and, as it seems to me, based on the results of our seminar, he understood it) - there are many good experts in the world, but there are also things in it that in the end you have to do yourself.

In the civil sphere - related to the exercise of public power by citizens - such things include everything related to the final choice based on ultimate goals and values. Experts can say “how it would be possible” to do such and such and “what results could” certain actions lead to. But the expert should not decide what exactly should be done, since this decision is determined by the goals and values ​​of those who have the power to decide and responsibility for decisions - in this case, the goals and values ​​of citizens, expressed directly or through representatives. There is no doubt that responsibility for such things as the distribution of budget funds, the introduction and change of regulation, reform of the pension system, the principles of constructing the monetary system, etc., ultimately lies with the citizens of the municipality, region, country, regardless of what they themselves think about this. If you succumb to the “technocratic temptation” and completely transfer responsibility for all this to politicians and “professionals,” then you can be one hundred percent sure that they will “solve” everything the way they need it, and not the citizens. Let me give you a simple everyday analogy. It is clear that designing and manufacturing, as well as repairing and maintaining a car, is a highly specialized professional activity, which is carried out by special people. But this does not in any way negate the fact that the driver and only he is responsible for where the car goes. Moreover, if he wants to use the car with minimal risk and so that operation does not lead to excessive costs, it is useful for him to know at least in general terms how the car works. Then he will, for example, prevent the engine from overheating and running at too high speeds, he will monitor the oil level and the condition of the tires on the wheels, in the event of an accident he will understand how dangerous spilled gasoline is, etc. - and thereby save a lot of money, and also avoid unpleasant and dangerous situations. It is impossible to learn all the intricacies of a car, but basic knowledge is very helpful in life.

“Technocratic thinking” is appropriate here, but only to a certain extent.

The same applies to information on socio-economic issues. Electricity reform may seem like a very niche (and boring) topic - but then don't be surprised that the government and the power companies it supports are getting deeper into your pocket through prices and tariffs. It may seem that the “trade law” applies only to traders, but for some reason, from year to year, retail outlets where you could buy inexpensive and high-quality goods disappear somewhere, and where you can still buy cheap, it is better not to do this because of the disgusting quality.

Roads are usually called one of two Russian “troubles”, along with fools. But there is a great deceit here: fools are born on their own, but roads are built and repaired by very specific enterprises and are financed by very specific authorities that manage the budget (money taken from us). In other words, roads are an area of ​​activity that citizens have completely placed at the disposal of professionals and experts. So on what basis do these citizens now consider roads to be some kind of impersonal disaster for which no one seems to be responsible?

A layman may not know all the intricacies of banking regulation, but a general understanding of how the banking system works and some understanding of current monetary processes can greatly help in practical life matters (such as managing personal finances and pension savings), and in a situation of sharp political changes in the country, it will allow you to make more intelligent choices regarding the support of certain political forces.

Examples can be multiplied indefinitely, but it seems to me that the main idea should have already become obvious. If we, that is, citizens, want a more reasonable, “people-friendly” policy, be it at the municipal, regional or national level, we will have to somehow “get involved” in topics that were previously customary to brush aside and leave to “professionals.” The division of labor is a good thing, but no matter how far it goes, there is still a lot in all areas of a person’s life for which he, under any circumstances, has to be responsible himself. Experts can do their job, they can give advice and provide information, but the responsibility for the final decision - and the primary responsibility for the life of the country, city, town, and one's own life - lies with the individual and the citizen.

I hope that we, the authors of InLiberty, will be able to make a feasible contribution to the fact that the citizens of our country will gradually begin to take responsibility for its life into their own hands. And a fair portion of their future comments devoted, at first glance. I intend to write on special, and in fact important for many people, topics with an eye to this global task.