Social Contract 3.0

The unwritten social contract of the Putin era - prosperity and great power in exchange for the complete non-interference of citizens in politics - has tilted and crackles frighteningly

The first version of the social contract that kept the autocracy's relationship with the majority in balance—"non-intervention of citizens in politics in exchange for a commission from oil prosperity"—worked flawlessly. The second - "non-intervention of citizens in politics in exchange for recreating the feeling of a great power" - was fed by the juices of the annexation of the Crimea and the enthusiasm of the all-Russian construction of a besieged fortress with elements of Stalinist architecture. But this contract is exhausting itself, because one of its parties asked for more - a combination of greatness and prosperity. In addition, ideas about which element weighs more in the concept of "great power" have changed - a normal economy or pyrotechnic effects with elements of diplomats' hysteria. And part of the population is completely ready to discuss unusual clauses of the contract, such as the quality of public services or corruption.

Citizens have an increasingly high opinion of themselves as part of the social contract: according to the latest data from the Levada Center (April 2017), respondents believe that they fulfill their obligations to the state (pay taxes, comply with laws), - 53% in 2017 -m against 39% in 2001. The state, however, also fulfills its obligations - and such ideas have strengthened after the Crimea, becoming a reflection of "patriotic" euphoria. This means that we are talking more about the symbolic - imperial, military - role of the state, which provides not services in exchange for taxes and law-abiding behavior, but guns and a sense of unity.

Yes, in the semantic content of the concept of "great power", as it turned out, from 1999 to 2016, the understanding of greatness as "military power" increased by 20%, the importance of such parameters as culture, respect from other countries, observance of human rights decreased. At the same time, the first two places are consistently occupied by “high welfare of citizens” and “economic potential”. But this is not enough for people.

citizens refuse to pay for the well-being of the “top” people with their taxes and non-tax payments

Another poll by the Levada Center (March 2017) shows that the concept of the social contract is changing, if it has not already changed: 31% believe that the state gives so little that citizens do not owe it anything: loyalty to the prevailing propaganda discourse will now be sold more expensively . According to respondents, citizens can demand more from the state, and the dynamics here are too noticeable: from 25% in March 2016 to 32% in March 2017.

In doubts about the adequacy of the social contract, dissatisfaction with corruption is sewn up. And this despite the fact that at the household level it has become clearly less, moreover, thanks to the willingness of citizens to abandon corrupt practices and behave in accordance with the canons of a normal taxpayer. But as for the upper echelons of the state hierarchy, the attitude towards them according to the model “at the top-they-steal everything”, which means that nothing can be done, well, God bless them, is experiencing rapid erosion: 65% believe that the level of corruption became absolutely intolerant. Consequently, the respondents had literally the following in mind: “Thanks, of course, to the leadership for Crimea and for the fact that the whole world is now shying away from us in horror, but I would like something else, and not only grossly material, but and ethical - that is, let them at least steal less.

A significant contribution to the erosion of the contract, admittedly, was made by Alexei Navalny's film about Dmitry Medvedev. Not at all because the prime minister is the most sinful character in the elite, he simply turned out to be the weakest and most vulnerable link in the political class, and using his example it was easy to explain exactly how the union of state and capital works. And the mechanics of this exchange of state patronage for financially measurable small “friendly” services seemed to many to be too onerous part of the contract with such a state. Citizens did not subscribe to this - they refuse to pay for the well-being of the "upper" people with their taxes and non-tax payments. The same logic is in the story with the Platon system, the introduction of which caused protests from truckers.

And here it turns out that it is time to reformulate the social contract and bring it up to version 3.0. But rewriting it without a clause about the need for public control over the highest hierarchical echelons will not work. And such control, logically, cancels the “rule” of non-interference of citizens in the affairs of the state.

Photo: Anton Novoderezhkin/TASS, mediaspy.ru/no_korrupcia