Results of the political year. Part 2

Uploaded by VestnikKavkaza on 04.12.2012

Leonid Radzikhovski, Russian publicist and political scientist
Turbulence is life.
You cannot overcome life and stop it.
The problem of power is in realizing that
life in the context of turbulence is an absolutely normal political process
in the 21st century.
Turbulence is only absent in North Korea,
but 140 million citizens of Russia
and the administration of Russia
do not want to turn into North Korea.
So instability, turbulence, uncertainty is an absolutely natural situation
throughout the whole world.
It is probably unpleasant.
Global warming is unpleasant too, but it is a fact.
That is first.
Secondly, unfortunately, we ignore a very important factor -
I cannot understand why nobody pays attention to it.
The factor is called "legitimation."
Putin is the legitimate President of Russia
and will stay so till 2018.
His ranking can be equal to zero,
like the popularity ranking of Boris Yeltsin.
But ill, old, ruined, hated by the whole country,
drinking, inadequate and so on,
Yeltsin didn't stop being the legitimate president
for a second even;
his power was absolutely legitimate
and nobody attempted to take it.
They tried to undertake impeachment, but failed.
Thus, there is no problem of taking power from Putin.
There is no opportunity for this,
as Russia is a super-legitimate country.
Citizens of Russia pay great attention to legitimacy.
This is understandable:
twice in the 20th century they destroyed legitimate regimes,
and in both cases they got dissatisfaction.
Therefore, nobody dares stand against legitimate power in Russia.
There is no problem of taking power away in nature.
There is a different problem:
how should the power live in the context
of a decrease in its ranking?
It is decreasing and this is unavoidable.
Firstly, the economic crisis remains and will continue.
I agree that it is harder in Europe -
25% of young people are unemployed there.
I would like to see Moscow in this situation.
Thousands and millions of people go on to the streets in Europe.
In our country it is possible too,
but it doesn't mean any threat to the current power.
Millions of demonstrators protested against the former president Bush;
but he was the legitimate President of the USA till the end.
It is a very important moment for the authorities
to realize that life is possible and ruling is possible
under reducing popularity.
It is an important mental moment.
It has to be realized.
This is the first moment.
The second moment is connected with it:
we have a very low charge in society.
The opposition doesn't exist; nobody cares about it.
But support for the power is not active -
I don't consider administrative resources, falsifications,
as it is obvious that millions of people voted for the authorities -
but they voted without the enthusiasm,
love, hope or faith which existed 12 years ago.
12 years is a very long period.
Our people were spoiled as the economy grew rapidly,
living standards grew rapidly.
Nobody can provide the pace of growth in the future.
If Lenin, Napoleon, Alexander the Great, Washington and Gandhi
replaced Putin all together,
they couldn't provide the economic growth which is expected by people.
It is simply impossible.
That is why the popularity of Putin will reduce year by year.
It is not a tragedy or a problem.
The power shouldn't care about this,
it should rule relying not on its popularity,
but on the institutions which should be developed.
The legitimacy of the President is not a function of his popularity,
thank God!
If it were so,
presidents in all countries would change once a week,
and it would be impossible to live.
The main problem of the current power is that
they think too much about clowns, Sobchak and Navalny,
and forget about the real problem.
The real problem is within the power itself -
improvement and development of administrative institutions
which are not developed and the institutions of civil society,
which exists in embryo form.
Alexander Kazakov, a political scientist
During the whole period since the return of Putin,
a large number of people, including experts,
wanted to know why no grand idea has been proposed to society
since the appearance of the internet.
We remember that since 2000 we have been living
in expectation of grand ideas -
they have been changing, we had stabilizations, modernizations,
doubling and tripling of the budget,
but we have always been living in expectation of a grand idea
proposed by the authorities.
This grand idea is not simple talk,
but an effective instrument of control over society:
if a grand idea is presented by
the supreme leader of the country,
everybody at all power levels tries to implement it
with different degrees of success.
It makes power and bureaucracy more mobile and even effective.
Such a grand idea hasn't been proposed.
I don't exclude that it can be presented
in the address to the Federation Council.
In the context of recent events,
I dare predict that it would be a grand idea of an effective state,
but effective in a different way, not similar to the previous one.
One of signs of an effective state is a minimal level of corruption.
The higher the level of corruption is,
the lower the state's effectiveness is.
Moreover, I think it would be not only effective,
but also a people's state.
In this sense, the campaign in the struggle against corruption,
which seems to be serious work,
plays the role of preface to the presentation of the grand idea.
If the struggle against corruption becomes more successful,
it will lead to a renewal of the bureaucratic society;
social lifts will begin to open,
which have been closed in recent years
and caused protests from people.
I have two more remarks.
Regarding the non-systemic opposition, Navalny, Udaltsov, and others,
of course they are not a problem for the authorities,
as the authorities are working within long-term strategies,
and these people do not have sufficient weight
to be included in a long-term strategy.
This is a question of tactics, with one exception.
Any person, like Matias Rust, for example,
moreover, a person who is a project can be a problem for the government,
but only in one sphere.
This sphere is violence.
The readiness of the non-systemic opposition for provocation and violence
or the necessity of the government
to use violence against the opposition
is a problem for the authorities,
and all color revolutions confirm this fact.
The unreadiness of the government for violence
leads to the overthrow of the government,
while readiness leads to its overthrow a little later.
At least in the sphere of violence,
these people are a problem.
Anna Luneva, the deputy general director of the Political Information Center
The opposition remains at the level of an elite company
which gathers from time to time,
discusses that everything is bad and breaks up,
i.e. there are no proposals on settling the problems.
At the moment the opposition has taken the Belarus way,
the way of an elite company,
and the Russian authorities have nothing to fear.
Will the current level of turbulence remain,
will Russia be shaken like Europe and the US
in the context of the world financial crisis?
It doesn't matter.
Until the elite has no communications
with the majority of society,
the Russia which is situated far away from Moscow,
the Russian government can sleep well.