|
 THE
most important positive political development of 2001 is, without
doubt, the set of decisions taken by the country's leadership
in the wake of Sept. 11. President Vladimir Putin, despite opposition
from the political elite and from his own entourage, came out
in favor of Russia joining the international anti-terrorism coalition.
This decision was the right one, not only for the show of solidarity
with the victims of these ignoble attacks, but also because the
threats with which the United State was confronted are no less
- and possibly even more - daunting in Russia's case.
The main thing is that the direction of foreign policy following
Sept. 11 has considerable strategic potential and could serve
as one of the foundations for Russia to become a European state.
In light of this, the agreements signed in October at meetings
between Putin and the leaders of EU members in Brussels are very
important.
However, the fact is that serious moves toward Europe can only
be achieved if foreign-policy steps are attended by real and profound
changes in domestic policy. So far, no such changes have taken
place. On the contrary, domestically there have been no positive
developments, only negative ones. The main one is the crack down
on independent national television companies such as NTV last
year and, now, TV6. The upshot is news coverage on different channels
is becoming more and more uniform, and this is a huge leap backward
toward the absolute supremacy of a single "correct"
point of view.
And this is but one in a long list of missteps that includes
the liquidation of the Presidential Pardons Commission and the
indictment of Grigory Pasko on charges of treason - something
that should be taken as a clear warning to all democratic politicians
and journalists, and indeed, to all independent-minded people.
The direction of our domestic policy toward "managed democracy"
and an administrative-bureaucratic corporatist system - in which
emasculated democratic institutions and procedures reduced to
an empty formality serve as some kind of fig leaf - remains unchanged.
This system operates for the benefit of bureaucrats and functionaries.
In this country, bureaucrats and the majority of politicians neither
want nor are capable of running the country under democratic conditions,
they merely want to look respectable in the eyes of the international
community. Thus, instead of democracy, they are creating a Pyotemkin
village, whose facade merely looks European.
In reality, power is concentrated in a single center: the Kremlin.
The State Duma has ceased to play any serious role and merely
acts obediently on the instructions of the executive branch. The
government is entirely technocratic and largely represents the
interests of natural monopolies and big business, which are intertwined
with the state.
Our judges are not independent and frequently do not so much
pass sentence so much as render services to the authorities, as
in the case of Pasko, the TV6 case and many, many others at all
levels.
Civil society is developing dynamically, but its participation
in political and public life remains extremely limited. Last year,
there was a very real danger of the authorities establishing control
over civic organizations and that danger persists, especially
for those organizations that monitor the state's compliance with
human-rights and liberties legislation. I am convinced that the
organization of the pompous "Civic Forum" in the Kremlin
Palace of Congresses last year was undertaken with a view toward
taking control of these organizations.
The advantages of "managed democracy" are very seriously
discussed. The so-called political elite foists upon the country
the following choice: either managed democracy or none at all.
However, attempting to manage democracy is tantamount to destroying
it and with its destruction, the only hope for a worthy future
for the country and its citizens will also die. Last year showed
very clearly that the administrative-bureaucratic system wrapped
in sham democracy is extremely ineffective.
Federal reforms and the construction of a "vertical executive
chain of command" have clearly failed. Presidential plenipotentiaries
in the federal districts can by no means be called key political
figures, even in individual regions of their districts. In regional
elections, it has become normal practice to use the dirtiest of
smear campaign tactics. The courts, the prosecutor's office and
law enforcement agencies perform political "orders,"
and the elimination of candidates (on some technicality) on the
eve of elections is widespread. Furthermore, governors and the
presidents of ethnic republics who pledge loyalty to the Kremlin
are not only given carte blanche to continue their arbitrary and
unchecked rule, but also get to run for an unconstitutional third
term in office.
The authorities' propagandists have declared victory in the
"information war" around the situation in Chechnya.
However, the silence does not undo what is happening on the ground.
Every day people are dying in the republic - including Russian
soldiers and innocent civilians - and every day is marked by the
complete absence of the rule of law. The policy toward Chechnya
is at a complete impasse and is both senseless and dangerous.
It has made the situation much more difficult than it was in 1999,
when the federal government had a unique opportunity to win the
support of the majority of the civilian population of Chechnya.
The situation has deteriorated to such an extent that now a huge
amount of preparatory work will be required for talks, which cannot
be avoided, to produce some positive results. Today, Chechnya
is a source of constant pain that has spread across the body politic
and has contributed greatly to the moral degradation of the political
elite.
Is capitalism in Russia becoming more civilized? Gradually,
enterpreneurs, some major industrialists, certain journalists
and the public in general are coming to the realization that the
system of wild capitalism is hostile to an open society, democracy,
and the observance of human rights. It is not only inadmissible
and anathema to modern liberalism, it is also catastrophically
counter-productive to the emergence of a competitive, modern market
economy. The problem, however, is that the state is closely tied
to this system, and is shored up by it, in spite of all the talk
about "equal distancing from the oligarchs."
Economic growth, about which so much has been said for the most
of the past year, has been primarily a product of high world oil
prices. This cannot be considered an achievement of the government,
but rather a stroke of good fortune that cannot be relied upon
to endure.
In fact, there have been very few significant reforms. Yes,
taxes have been reduced and an acceptable budget has been passed,
the parameters of which, to a large extent, coincide with the
alternative budget produced by Yabloko. Within the framework of
Production Sharing Agreements, a contract has been signed with
Exxon oil company to the tune of $12 billion. But this is not
enough.
In general, obstacles are not being overcome and problems are
simply being put off until tomorrow. This could result in Russia
irreversibly falling behind Europe and the developed countries
of the world. The necessary structural reforms, new technologies,
real private property, and support for small and medium-sized
enterpreneurs are not in place. In addition, there are serious
demographic problems, as well as the problem of reforming the
armed forces, on which the security of the country directly depends.
And time is running out. This year will in many respects be decisive,
and success or failure depends on whether measures will be implemented
to make good on the lag. If the problems of structural economic
reform, attracting investment, creation of a modern, independent
judicial system and stamping out corruption are not resolved in
the next year or year-and-a-half, Russia's statehood may be under
threat.
A great deal depends on the actions of the democratic opposition.
Yabloko supports Putin's foreign policy after Sept. 11, but is
completely and irreconcilably opposed to the course aimed at establishing
in the country a full-blown corporatist police state.
A broad coalition is only now beginning to be formed. Last year,
there were two sessions of the Democratic Consultative Meeting,
which brought together political and civic organizations of a
democratic orientation. The formation of a democratic coalition
will be achieved by working out common positions on the most important
issues in the life of the country, coordinating actions for the
defence of human rights, democratic institutions, independent
media, as well as the creation of similar coalitions at the regional
level.
For our party, 2001 was not a bad year, although it was also
not an easy one. Over the past six months, more than 6,000 people
joined the party. We are learning to build a party on new principles.
In leadership elections for the party and for selecting a candidate
for the presidential elections, we also plan to hold primaries
for first time in Russia.
Our goals for the immediate future are to oppose the building
of sham democracy and to promote the necessary reforms for country.
In the economy, this is the continuation of tax reform, the creation
of a functioning banking system and developing legislation to
facilitate investment into the country. In state building, top
of the agenda is to make the Federation Council an elected body.
The relevant bills are already ready or being prepared. We will
also do all within our power to push armed forces reform forward
and to adopt a professional army. This is absolutely essential
and can be achieved in the immediate future.
Grigory Yavlinsky, leader of the Yabloko party, contributed
this comment to The St. Petersburg Times.
| 