|
On Wednesday, the State Duma is scheduled to consider a motion
of no confidence in the government of Mikhail Kasyanov. Raising
such a question is entirely natural, and moreover, is a necessary
step to preserve the political face of our parliamentary system.
The model of Russian capitalism that took shape under former
President Boris Yeltsin and has been consolidated and institutionalized
under President Vladimir Putin is incapable -- due to congenital
defects -- of providing either stable economic growth or the impetus
for Russia to make a breakthough into the post-industrial era.
The motion of no confidence was initiated by Yabloko and the
Communist Party, and it is interesting to note the reactions of
other parties in the Duma to this initiative. The four-headed
"party of power," whose election campaign is built around
criticism of the government -- voiced by the leaders of party,
who happen to double as members of the very same government --
is in a quandary. To support the government now would mean to
abandon its labored election strategy for the upcoming parliamentary
elections. However, to support the no confidence motion without
the Kremlin's sanction would be completely inconceivable.
The Union of Right Forces has a different problem. Competing
with Yabloko for the "democratic" vote, SPS by definition
cannot support the initiative. Thus on the one hand, SPS leaders
argue that the government is not really so bad, as it is "implementing
many of SPS' progressive ideas." But on the other hand, it
is of course a disgrace, although that is to miss the point. The
government is but a cog in the system of executive power -- the
"cleaning lady" in the words of SPS leader Boris Nemtsov.
The presidential administration is the root of all evil -- and
it's the general director, not the cleaning lady whom you should
be censuring, but the timid Yabloko faction cannot bring itself
to do so.
However, this line of argument is not convincing. A motion of
no confidence in the government is the only political -- and not
PR -- instrument provided for in the Constitution, for parliament
to express its disagreement on a matter of principle with the
executive branch, including the president.
The government is formed by the president, and can be sacked
by the president at any moment by a simple stroke of the pen.
Until he does that, the president formally shares responsibility
with the government for its actions. In fact, Yabloko has never
been afraid to criticize the authorities -- and not only over
economic policy, but also over Chechnya and treatment of the mass
media.
But coming back to Nemtsov's comparison of the government with
a cleaning lady. This particular cleaning lady on a daily basis
makes decisions to the tune of billions of rubles -- and sometimes
billions of dollars -- which have a huge impact on the country's
economy. Nonetheless, in one respect Nemtsov is undoubtedly right.
In terms of its accountability to the public, the Kasyanov government,
conveniently taking cover in our constitutional system behind
the term "technical government," is indeed not dissimilar
to a cleaning lady. But where then is the general director, who
can be held to account for the country's capitalization?
In our political system, the president is a celestial being,
responsible for foreign policy, security issues and other such
vaunted policy areas. His forays into economics, which are made
once a year, boil down to exhortations to the government to be
more ambitious and demands that GDP be doubled.
As a result, in matters of economic policy we have an irresponsible
government and an irresponsible president. And I am not talking
about Mikhail Mikhailovich Kasyanov and Vladimir Vladimirovich
Putin, but the official posts, as defined in our Constitution
and by our political traditions.
Our Constitution is copied from that of France's Fifth Republic.
However, in France with its developed system of parties, ready
to replace one another in power after parliamentary elections
and to form a government, the Constitution works very differently.
In France, the leader of the party that wins at the elections
becomes prime minister and enjoys full power over, as well as
taking full responsibility for, matters of economic policy. As
a result, France is a presidential republic in the area of foreign
policy and a parliamentary republic in the area of economic policy.
Russia, on the other hand, is a presidential republic in matters
of foreign policy and security, while it is "nobody's"
republic as far as economic policy is concerned. Therefore, it
is no surprise that, as presidential economic adviser Andrei Illarionov
recently related to us, "jackals are tearing the Russian
economy to pieces." And why shouldn't they, if the country
is nobody's? The motion of no confidence should apply not just
to specific individuals in Kasyanov's Cabinet, but also to the
existing system of irresponsibility and unaccountability.
Can the political elite find a solution? In the absence of a
developed party system, a parliamentary republic is not going
to work on Russian soil. We would be better served by a system
in which the president is also the head of the government and
bears responsibility, inter alia, for the economy; while the parliament
enjoys much broader oversight functions. Then, presidential elections
would have much more substance, as every four years we would not
be voting for the person who knows best how and whom to wipe out
in the outhouse, but for the person who proposes the best program
for the country's economic development.
Andrei Piontkovsky, an independent political analyst, contributed
this comment to The Moscow Times.
See also:
the original at
www.themoscowtimes.com
No-Confidence
Vote
|
