Government's Bid to Resolve All Ills Itself Is Doomed to Fail
By Vladimir Gryaznevich
The St.-Petersburg Times, #997, Tuesday, August 24, 2004
A recent public opinion poll conducted by the All-Russian Public Opinion Research Center, or VTsIOM, in connection with the anniversary of the August 1998 financial crisis - otherwise known as the "default" - shows that most citizens think some kind of financial crisis will happen again.
Even after shedding its independent head, Yury Levada, VTsIOM found almost half of those questioned believe that in Russia such a crisis could happen at any moment.
And this is despite the government's comprehensive publicizing of the country's impressive economic achievements, the macroeconomic evidence for which is confirmed by wholly unbiased information.
Since it is unreasonable to begin to suspect almost 50 million adult citizens (the age of those asked were over 18) of paranoia, other explanations must be found for this paradox. It is clear that, since they do not, on the whole, have an intimate knowledge - whether theoretical or factual - of economics, Russians clearly could not have formulated their own opinions on the basis of reasoned estimations. This leaves only one other explanation: intuition.
The people sense that economic stability, which has been publicized by the government as President Vladimir Putin's main achievement, is a myth. It is this that has led to fears of a crisis. Such a feeling has arisen on the strength of various information on processes in the country capable of influencing the socio-economic situation.
In the opinion of one Levada Center employee, Leonid Sedov, the causes of Russians' growing uncertainty in the future were "fears of a banking crisis and a lack of information on the real meaning of governmental initiatives concerning replacement of privileges with monetary compensation and a lowering of a set of measures for the population's social security to a regional level." Other governmental activities, heard of through the media and friends' experiences, most likely also influenced the mood of the people. The number of pessimists who thought that their financial position would worsen in the next six months rose from 16 percent last year to 22 percent, while the number of optimists fell by 16 percent to 14 percent.
Given Russians' general dislike of the oligarchs, it is impossible for them not to be concerned - if only on a subconscious level - that the government is in cahoots with Yukos and its main representative - Mikhail Khodorkovsky, Platon Lebedev and others, who are being accused of embezzling state property during privatization. The people aren't that stupid; only 6 percent of those questioned by the Levada Center blame businessmen for the damage done during privatization, while 62 percent quite reasonably believe that state officials are guilty of accepting bribes for the distribution of government property. Only 24 percent think that both are equally guilty. The majority is inclined to think that the trial of former Yukos directors has little chance of being fair and unbiased.
The intuition of the Russian people does not usually let them down. As an increasingly large number of competent individuals - businessmen, politicians and experts - openly admit, the judicial system in Russian has basically been in ruins for the past few years. One businessman who spoke recently on radio station Ekho Moskvy admitted that he was not sure that having even 100 per cent proof of one's innocence would allow the judicial process to triumph over a company controlled by Chekists. Almost every day, lawyers publish facts of glaring procedural infringements committed during legal trials. The lawyer of jailed arms control researcher Igor Sutyagin's recently commented in detail about the mechanism of falsification in jury work.
It is significant that, judging from the evidence, clear infringements of public prosecution laws are committed even by the judges themselves completely openly.
Clearly, the source of their boldness is to be found in the Kremlin. The recent story of the Moscow authorities' intention to name one of Moscow's streets after Akhmad Kadyrov is, in this respect, highly significant. When officials were made aware that Moscow city law openly forbids this until 10 years after the person's death, they then referred to the personal wish of Putin.
The government clearly assumes that the country can do without an independent legal system. Such a system, however, is itself a system-creating institution of modern society, the main guarantor of the defense of a democratic country's civil rights and, most importantly, the guarantor of the rights of the private owner. Without such a guarantor, a market economy cannot work. Evidence for this is that for the last few years there has been no real outflow of capital from Russia.
The authorities, to all appearances, are relying on meeting social demands with just one form of government support. At a recent conference the government decided to increase the effectiveness of its activity by means of the introduction of parameters that openly show the extent to which the people's needs have been satisfied into reports of different ministries' activities. Nevertheless, when push comes to shove (i.e. the satisfying of the people), it will quickly become clear that in this sphere the government cannot replace business.
It seems the people do not doubt this. According to information from the Levada Center, the absolute majority of Russian citizens negatively evaluate the socio-economic policy currently being implemented. Moreover, the gap between those who feel the government's efforts in improving the economy and increasing citizens' welfare to be successful and those who don't (37 percent versus 59 percent) grew even wider. Last year the relationship was 43 percent versus 53 percent.
It is significant that the opinions of the population about the responsibility of the president for obscure and unpopular decisions have no effect on Putin's ratings. According to information from the Levada Center, responsibility for the proposed replacement of social privileges with monetary compensation is something those questioned blame mainly on Putin (35 percent) and the government (34 percent). It is, however, clear that sooner or later intuition will lead the people to the conclusion that they cannot rely upon a person (and Putin's high rating, as sociologists note, is determined primarily by the hopes of the population) who allows the implementation of such a policy.
Vladimir Gryaznevich is a political analyst with Expert Severo-Zapad magazine. His comment was first broadcast on Ekho Moskvy in St. Petersburg on Friday.
