Russia Is Ruled not By Responsible Politicians, But By Irresponsible Bureaucrats

Opinion

RUSSIA IS RULED NOT BY RESPONSIBLE POLITICIANS, BUT BY IRRESPONSIBLE BUREAUCRATS

New Times.ru
September 2006
Source

The drawbacks of democracy stem from the Constitution -- such is the conclusion of Mikhail KRASNOV, the assistant on legal matters of the first President of the Russian Federation Boris Yeltsin. Mikhail Krasnov, D. Sc. (Law), is now the Vice- President of the Regional Public Foundation Informatics for Democracy (INDEM). Lyubov TSUKANOVA, an NT political analyst talked with him recently

Mr. Krasnov, we found out recently in our editorial office that now it is difficult to think of any subjects for cartoons. There is practically no one to mock.

I am not at all surprised. If one looks around, it would seem that everything is O.K. The people’s opinion of the present administration is quite favourable. The president is an energetic person, says the right things, nothing to find fault with. Boris Yeltsin, even when he said the right things, did it in a rather strange way, which prompted a cartoon or parody. He used strange words and expressions which are remembered to this day. Or take Premier Chernomyrdin.

A national idea is unnecessary

A dull period has set in, hasn’t it?

Yes, it’s dull, indeed, but in the bad sense of the word. A dull time can be good, that is, calm and quiet, without shocks and collisions. But now, something is brewing, it’s the calm before the storm, but people cannot figure out what. Words and actions are smooth and correct, there are no visible enemies, everything seems absolutely tranquil. But this stability is not based on deep-going processes. This is the calmness of a long-distance runner who has decided to have a little rest. But he doesn’t know where to run to and what’s going to happen to him: either he’ll land in a bog, or have a heart attack.

Such a time was aptly characterized by the outstanding Russian philosopher of the early 20th century, Prince Sergei Trubetskoi, as “an atmosphere of throbbing absurdity”. Now it looks about the same.

But why? Don’t they know what to do? Or are they unable to do it? Or are they simply unwilling?

The elite and all around it know what to do. But they differ in essence, manner and purpose. Everybody knows something, but if we take that “something” and put everything together, there’ll be a jumble and turmoil. I don’t mean such things as “flourishing”, “welfare”, or “the role of Russia in the world” -- everybody will agree on the basic premises here. Nobody will say that Russia should become a country the size of, say, Luxembourg. All are speaking about the same things, in principle. But at the more concrete level of “what is to be done” there are differences. And the main one is “how it is to be done”, in what order.

That is, there is still no national idea which would unite all?

I have come to the conclusion recently that it was not necessary for everyone to have the same opinion on what to do, and how. It is an illusion to think that an ideal society should be united by a single aim. Although I held the view not long ago that a national idea was a useful thing. Hence, the origin of the now popular words “Unity”, “United Russia”, etc.

Aristotle said long ago that where there was unity, the state crumbled. In actual fact, paradoxical as it may seem, society should come to a consensus on what I’d call an “anti-national idea”. That is, we should agree on what we reject and do not include in the concept of “pluralism”: fascism, national and racial intolerance, religious fanaticism. I’d also include the communist ideas. Unfortunately, we have not held a trial like the Nuremberg Trial, so the communists are now a respectable political force.

And let everything else exist and multiply. The more points of view the better. But in that case, the political system should be different.

Consolidation mania

In what way different?

Why do more and more people “vote with their feet”? I mean that over half of all voters have ceased going to the polling stations. Some twenty percent go and vote by habit, and, perhaps, only 25 to 30 percent vote quite consciously. I presume that an enormous number of people do not want to vote because they don’t find anything to their liking in the existing political forces. Just ask anyone who votes for the communists, and he is sure to say that they are closer to him in principle, but he doesn’t like certain things about them. The same is true of the supporters of Yabloko and SPS. These two are close to each other, but I cannot agree with them on many points. Not to mention United Russia. Many people do not find a precise political niche in these parties and organizations. Take, for instance, a faithful Christian who believes in liberal values. He or she will not agree with SPS, for its complete secularism and technocratic attitude to life are alien to Christians.

Our time now is one of consolidation mania: everything is united and enlarged – regions, parties, everything. I know who is behind it all. This is the philosophy of government officials. The larger the objects of management, the simpler to manage them. What logic prompts their activity? Everything should be under control. And if there are many parties, it becomes more difficult to control them.

This is a dangerous and harmful attitude. One should not strive to have a two-party system.

I understand, its easier and safer to manage fewer organizations. But in that case society will be like a steam boiler. There are many positions which are not represented anywhere, and people suffer from this. They may not be entirely conscious of this, but their discontent keeps growing all the time, and finally there may be an explosion.

We distort absolutely normal concepts, including that of democracy. Lenin said in his time that democracy meant majority voting. This is why some force, a majority, comes to the Duma and says: “We’re in the majority and we will give nothing to others…” I am sure that had SPS taken two-thirds of seats in the Duma, they would have behaved in the same way. This is very sad ...

So you think that convictions and ideas are not the main thing…

Yes, unfortunately. This is a Soviet tradition. Besides, this is also human nature. If I am healthy and strong, why should I fuss with others? After all, more people voted for us…

This is bad, for we already see that any bill gets through the Duma without a hitch, even the president himself sometimes has to interfere. Just recall the bill on citizenship. It was accepted and then it turned out that the new law infringed the rights of our fellow-countrymen living abroad. And now a draconian law on referendums has been passed. In principle, any bill, be it economic, social or political, will be accepted by the Duma majority with enthusiasm. And the main thing is not the quality of these laws, but that the quality of people’s life will deteriorate. Parliamentarianism means combining, like in a melting pot, various interests. When a law takes into account different interests in this way, it prevents the country from swinging abruptly in one or another direction. Whereas at present, the Duma deputies and the administration look at the “field” where the laws are adopted as at their own kitchen garden in which they can plant anything they please. Nobody is thinking of the nation and its future.

If the political system consisted of groups, not necessarily big ones, yet representing clear political positions, and these positions were taken into account in elaborating one or another law or decision of state importance, the foundation for sound stability would be created.

Sanction for the opposition

The interests of the bureaucracy are understandable. But why does society surrender so easily? It held out for several years, resisting unification, and then gave in. In the mid-1990s all were discussing whether we needed so many parties. It was felt that they prevented us from pursuing a purposeful policy and that we were marking time due to that pluralism. But now nobody argues over it. Suddenly all have willingly begun to take the Kremlin line.

How can society declare anything if there is no proper mechanism by which it can do so? How do the authorities learn the opinion of society in a normal democratic system? It is done through elections, through parties, including the opposition parties, which are heeded, through the mass media which are also a weighty factor. And all these are interconnected. Practically no effectively working parts of this mechanism have remained in our society. Although nobody has openly banned the relatively independent mass media (at least those printed), or parties, or alternative elections. But all this now resembles a parody.

The elections have lost all meaning due to the active use of the administrative resources. Why not use them if this goes unpunished? Only weak voices of protest are heard, but on the whole, society swallows everything. No scandals, no resignations -- everything is calm and quiet. Now the meaning of parliamentary elections boils down to the number of seats which one or another group will gain, and consequently, who will be the speaker, his deputies and heads of the committees. Honestly, society does not care what posts the parties will grab, because its life does not depend on it in any way.

There are many parties, but in order to be able to act they have to get the Kremlin’s sanction. Funny, but even the opposition should get its sanction. Yes, you may criticize the powers that be, but within certain limits. Thus, the multiparty system has become a dead mechanism too. There is no opposition. And the one which does exist, is about the same as kings jesters.

Only splinters have remained of the independent mass media and they have no influence on society. Yes, there are your magazine New Times, Novaya Gazeta, Moscow News which are read by those who have a position and views of their own. However, the administration does not react to them at all. Nothing changes. Then the question arises: is ours’ a democracy? No, this is not democracy, because in a democratic society there are direct and reverse connections which form a constantly working mechanism.

What’s the use of being charismatic?

Then what do we have here? Can you name it?

I don’t know. Perhaps, it has a name, but I don’t like when it is described as guided democracy. Democracy is, above all, the mechanism of the responsibility of government. I don’t say simply “the responsibility of government” because it means the inner conscious feeling of responsibility, and it does not exist anywhere in the world. Politicians and officials are alike everywhere, but in the civilized world they have to follow definite rules, observe democratic standards and use certain mechanisms. We have no such mechanism of taking into account the views of the minority, real parliamentary control, etc. But they are dependent on the main mechanism which is political competition.

But competition is a harsh thing. As we see, the small and weak perish in the competition. How do you understand competition in politics?

Just the same as in economics. All people over 25 know what a non-competitive economy is. We used to stand in endless queues for Finnish winter boots or sausages, and what not… It was an economy of constant shortages and of low-quality commodities and services. The picture is similar in politics, which is also a market. We are offered ideas, personalities… you say there are few of them now. They have disappeared because there is no political struggle, and real personalities do not form. Why should someone strive to be charismatic when it is enough to hum and haw and be included in the elite.

On the political market we are told what to do and how.

Political competition could also be one of the main means of fighting corruption. When there is no political force responsible for the bureaucracy and there is only one big boss (there is another law for him: good king, but bad courtiers, thus he is not responsible for his ministers, prosecutor, and others), there is a great breach which allows corruption to exist. Hence, there are no independent courts.

No matter what major problem we take – from the callous attitude of the authorities to people in the provinces to distortions in the economic and political life -- all this is a consequence of the fact that Russia is ruled by irresponsible bureaucrats, but not responsible politicians

A pyramidal Constitution

In order not to violate the rules of competition, there is an anti-monopoly committee in economics. And what could play the role of such an anti-monopoly committee in politics?

The very structure of state institutions and a balance in their powers. I can speak of this quite definitely because I have analyzed ten constitutions of European countries, which have the same form of government as ours. It is called mixed, when there are elements of a parliamentary republic and of a presidential republic. At first glance everything is O.K. in the Constitution of the Russian Federation. There is the division of powers, the independence of their spheres, and a multiparty system. The President has his powers, the cabinet has its powers, and the same is true of parliament and the court. But if one analyzes all this in detail (it is said that the devil is in the details), one comes to the sad conclusion that in actual fact everything depends on how the top man, that is, the president, understands his own tasks. This is not a democracy as it should be, i.e., based on competition between the main political gamblers. The main dish will be cooked in the Kremlin all the same.

Our system will always produce a pyramid, not because it is the people’s wish, but because it has objectively been laid down in the Constitution. The direct line of power is implicit in the Constitution. In Yeltsin’s time that line was not firm and strong, but now it has been strengthened. However, it is an illusion, it seems to people that there is more law and order in the country, but in reality, government officials embezzle much more, and the arbitrary rule still reigns supreme. But thanks to TV, the picture the people get is that there is more law and order. Plus there is a president with a healthy way of life and habits, and all this put together creates the illusion of order and stability.

But this is only an illusion. The point is that the parliamentary elections in no way influence the real policy. We, citizens, have no opportunity to influence the political, economic and social course. It can be said that electing the president is a way of exerting influence. But we elect a president who has no programme, purely for his “beautiful eyes”. As Dostoyevsky wrote, “the soul of the Russian commoner is always striving to get somewhere: we’re sinful people doing wrong, but there is somebody somewhere, who is a saint, and we must worship him.” Even if we realize that he is not a saint, we don’t want to become disappointed and so we mythologize him as a hero. Thus, we have a Byzantine style of the rule.

Hooks for democracy

Why can’t we exert some influence through the parliamentary elections?

Because, in contrast to other democratic states, we, citizens, don’t form our cabinet. Parliament passes laws, but the chief manager who we always deal with is the cabinet, the executive branch. And only the president influences it. In contrast to other, similar constitutions, he puts forward the candidacy of the premier, not from among the parties which won the elections, but anyone he pleases. In our history there has been Chernomyrdin, Kiriyenko, Primakov, Stepashin, Putin… Even if each one of them had had his own convictions and ideas concerning what to do and how, these people had no political programme and represented no political force.

True, the Duma can reject the candidacy, but the president is much stronger in this situation. If the Duma rejects his candidate three times, he is obliged to dissolve the Duma, according to the Constitution. And supposing the Duma has just been elected…All deputies have just taken their seats and are about to start work, and… Again go through elections which are a very tiresome, expensive and energy- and time-consuming procedure. It would be easier to agree with the person proposed by the president. This is the first hook. And the premier realizes quite well whom he is obliged to for his appointment. Definitely, not the Duma.

Well, the Duma may pass a vote of no-confidence. Then again, according to the Constitution, the president can either dismiss the cabinet or dissolve the Duma. Of course, the president would prefer to do the latter.

Still another hook: the president can dismiss the cabinet or the premier alone without giving any reason. In France, which we always compare ourselves with, the president can do this only at the request of the premier himself, or by a “resolution of censure” passed by the parliament. France now has a gaullist, right-wing cabinet, just like the president himself. But there were other times. Under the socialist president Francois Mitterand there was a right-wing cabinet, and under a right-wing president there was a socialist cabinet. The president had to tolerate this situation because he realized that otherwise, i.e., if the cabinet did not reflect the majority in parliament, it would receive a vote of no-confidence. This would result in instability and the end of his political career.

Besides, there is another political culture in Europe.

Yes, and, apart from that, there are traditions, democratic institutions, influential parties and influential mass media there. But the main thing is the Constitution. When I hold forth about parties I am usually told: “Just look at them…” And I answer that they cannot be normal in the present circumstances. Of course, they will not immediately become full-fledged parties as in Britain, France or Germany. And they’ll never be such if the conditions of their existence are not changed. When a party gets a real prize like bang in the cabinet, it brings people into its ranks according to other principles , not for money, behaves differently during the elections and in the Duma, and, in general, tries to keep a good reputation. This is also done through the officials who are responsible to it as the ruling party. And the opposition, too, behaves differently. It does not cavil at trifles, it becomes a responsible force, because it realizes that if it gains victory in the next elections, it will have to form a cabinet.

The guarantor doesn’t play politics

Talk has long been going on about constitutional distortions, but they have never been so serious for the democrats.

Inasmuch as the Constitution of 1993 was worked out in a very dramatic period, one power of the Congress of People’s Deputies was unnoticeably taken and given to the president (since he was the winner in those dramatic events). Although nobody has paid any special attention to it, it is a very important and principal one. I have in mind the power to determine the basic directions of domestic and foreign policy in the president’s message to the Federal Assembly. Even if we look at the matter quite formally, this means that there can be no division of powers at all. There is only one person, one institution of power who determines policies. Then why should there be a parliament and parliamentary elections? If this is combined with the right to have a completely obedient cabinet, then there always will be a presidential, that is, non-political, cabinet. Our president is a non-party person (both Yeltsin and Putin refused to join any party, because they wanted to be over and above all and everything).

In general, this is normal. In the republics of a mixed type the presidents stand above all branches of power. But if you want to be above all, you should not be a political gambler. But according to our Constitution, the two major roles of the head of state are combined. On the one hand, he is the guarantor of everything – stability, the constitutional system, and the statehood which he should get out of its crisis. But such a figure cannot be a political gambler, and if he becomes one, he acquires enormous advantages over all other political forces. The principle of equality is thus violated.

This absurdity inevitably leads to the Byzantine style, beginning with the aesthetics of power and ending with its real meaning.

All this goes to show that the Constitution itself is preventing the formation of political competition.

You have always been an opponent of changing the Constitution.

No. But I say that the Constitution must inevitably be changed. But I understand the arguments of my opponents in the democratic camp who fear that if the Constitution is changed, this will open the gates wide to many unexpected and unforeseen developments… In short, it could be changed in such a way that it would become worse than the Belarusian Constitution. I don’t know how to change the Constitution in unfavourable political conditions. Perhaps, it will be necessary to approach the president -- the present or the next one -- who would like Russia to be a really democratic country. The initiative should come from him.

So, I cannot say that I’m against changing the Constitution. Although there is the widespread view that it shouldn’t be changed.

But only recently there were many supporters of changing the Constitution, and they put forward many arguments…

In my view, politicians simply try to find out which way the wind is blowing. And I can understand them. All present-day political figures have adapted themselves to the new situation quite well. There is a top man and they must have good relations not so much with their voters, but, if not with him personally, then with the officials in his administration who determine what to do and how. They have adapted themselves, but changes in the Constitution would mean new rules of the game, a stressful situation, that somebody might lose his post, and, in general, the political elite would change. Do they need all these troubles? Of course not, it’s much calmer to work in the old way and by the old rules.

The ruling bureaucracy

I didn’t expect you to have such a pessimistic view of the political situation.

Actually, frightening things are happening. Where does the president get the main directions of domestic and foreign policy? I know this personally (because we did all this when we worked as Yeltsin’s assistants) -- from the bureaucrats. Another matter is that we came from the academic quarters and believed that the more experts the better. We invited them, consulted with them, but still remained bureaucrats. Officials gave the president the text of the message which, after signing and delivery, became the chief document determining the direction of domestic and foreign policy. Consequently, officials and bureaucrats not only determine policy, but also rule. And where do the preposterous ideas sometimes come from? The view of an official is bolstered by various opinions, resolutions, etc., and finally becomes a law which affects our life. The latest case in point is the bill on replacing privileges with money. The idea as such is quite sound and logical. Privileges are a vestige of the Soviet times. But why such a clamour over it? First, this is a vivid example of the people’s mistrust of the authorities, they always suspect that the latter are cheating them. And secondly, this money is not worth arguing over. It’s a normal situation when the socially weak and the most honorable receive additional money. But they have become used to privileges. Perhaps, it would have been better to wait a little? The Chinese set a very good example in this respect. Their psychology is not to hurry. But we hurry. Let’s replace the privileges with money as quickly as possible. Because this measure had been included in the programme prepared for President Putin in 2000.

A very domestic policy

Why is it that despite the discontent there are no serious protests?

People do not properly understand the cause-effect relation, it seems to them that political life boils down to conflicts and clashes between political parties, whereas the people’s main task is to deal with government officials, the police, etc. The entire life of the people depends on how the government is structured and works. But people do not understand this. So they don’t bring any pressure to bear on the president. We are searching for the most righteous, the best person. This is precisely why some people favour the idea of prolonging Putin’s presidency for a third term. Because they seem to have found a decent man, and they are afraid of changing to somebody new, they want him to stay longer. They don’t understand that even a superdecent man would be forced to rule through bureaucrats, hence, he would be sure to be misinformed and deceived, being a hostage of the bureaucracy and unable to do anything. Because no political force stands behind him, nobody in our country is politically responsible for anything. Although the president says “I am responsible for everything”, this is not so. Ultimately, the president may be drowned in a tea-cup, as was the case with Boris Yeltsin, but that was not real responsibility.

Do we have responsible political forces in our country now?

What do you mean? Those who feel responsible, or those who bear responsibility? No one bears responsibility. As for the other…I don’t know what our political figures think and feel. Perhaps, they are ready to take responsibility upon themselves. I don’t know and have never been able to check.

Yeltsin did take responsibility and risked his popularity for the sake of the reforms. Whether they were right or wrong is another question. He had no fear. The man was responsible. He kept a civil war from breaking out, he did not let the country fall into anarchy, although many people think there was anarchy in Russia at the time. To my mind, they don’t know what real anarchy is.

As for the present situation, I hope there are such forces, but they are now spending all their political ardour on internal squabbles. This is true of all our parties. Our entire political life has become an intraparty matter. People are gaining nothing of it. The parties are rotting and deteriorating and this is horrible. This explains the people’s attitude to them. And they will continue to rot because they have no goal that they exist for and they have no access to power. What they do have is access to various posts in the Duma. But parties are not formed for this purpose.



Post Edited (01-10-07 23:45)