The left is gaining strength again in Russia. In order to avoid a fatal step backwards, we need to master the art of freedom, a primal and basic Russian value.

Tatyana Gurova, Alexander Privalov, and Valeri Fadeyev

Strong opposition to centrism in Russia has come not from the right, not from the future but, as always, from the left and from our past. Every time Russia elects the parliament or president, the same questions are asked: hasn’t Russia gotten too distracted with this whole capitalism-and-democracy thing? Isn’t it time we took a step backwards? Yet no one ever seems to say for sure why Russia should go back.
In late May of this year, a report on the so-called “oligarch conspiracy” was cast into the public arena. A month later, in July, one of YUKOS’ biggest shareholders, Platon Lebedev, was arrested. Government officials, deputies, and analysts all started to discuss a possible reevaluation of the results of privatization, sometimes going so far as to mention re-nationalization.

Learning liberty

Russia’s new leftists have built and continue to build their platform on the notion that Russia is a leftist country.
We think that if you reduce the contrast between the left and the right to extremes, we really should be talking about Russians’ attitude toward freedom. The Russian version of liberty is a primal value, a priori not subordinate to any duty, right, or institution. Today we need to raise this primal quality a notch, as history has never offered Russia a more surprising opportunity to live in freedom.
What does this mean in practical terms? First of all, we need to acknowledge our history with any hesitation or doubt, meaning the results of privatization. If anyone has taken full advantage of their freedom to create, it’s the Russian oligarchs. Secondly, we need to determine all the current threats to Russia’s free development. Obviously, the possibility that law enforcement agencies could be used today to further political and economic interests poses a great danger to this freedom. This danger must be eliminated.

Simple reasoning

Surprisingly, the right has not used Russia’s obvious economic successes as its main counterargument. The problem is the right is still captive to the myth of Russia’s extreme dependence on oil income and doesn’t see how to change it. However, extreme dependence is a thing of the past, and what dependence remains is actually a means of influencing the rest of the world.
In the last five years since the 1998 crisis, the Russian economy has changed drastically. Russians’ income has basically doubled.
Some say that this income is not evenly distributed and all goes to the rich. This is an exaggeration. Since 1998 distribution of wealth has become more equal, and today medium-sized, and not big, companies are growing the fastest.
The notion that there is a strong connection between Russia’s economic growth and oil prices is also misled. Even according to the IMF’s strict calculations, oil prices contribute 40% to economic growth, while the remaining 60% is the result of domestic market growth. In 1997, on the other hand, all economic growth, the entire 100%, was determined by the prices for raw materials.
The jump in investment this year (investment increased according to some estimates from $60 to $100 billion) is based exclusively on healthy developments. First, Russia in terms of the return rate on investments has become one of the most efficient economies for capital investment, beating out China. Secondly, this growth in investment means that Russian capital is returning home, which is a good indicator of the stability of these positive trends.
By 2003 Russia had become one of the world’s leading energy superpowers. The instability of the Arab countries, dwindling reserves in the West, and Russia’s massive resources have given Russia a central role in the energy market.
And now we’re supposed to destroy all this and start questioning the effectiveness and legitimacy of the very institution of private property that made it all possible? To what end? Some say that we need to do it for the nation, to change Russia’s position in the world. But our global position matches both our abilities and the world economic situation perfectly.

The property crisis, or Why the oligarchs keep silent

Without a doubt, privatization has become the fundamental action that can radically change the direction of Russia’s economic development. In the process of overcoming economic collapse, radical changes in property relations became the focus of discussions. These relations were changed almost instantly from the point of view of history. Could such large-scale changes to the social system happen painlessly without harming someone’s interests while maintaining a completely just order that made everyone happy? Obviously not.
If we want to keep our hopes up that Russia will continue to develop stably, we have to understand how to legitimize the property passed out during privatization. We need to understand how to bring rich and poor together and get rid of irresponsible politicos willing to destroy social stability to satisfy their egotistical interests and tug at the heartstrings of the have-nots. We cannot leave the question of the legitimacy of property unanswered. How can we accomplish this while completely and categorically rejecting leftist provocations and holding freedom as a fundamental value? This is the most important question of the moment.
Recently many have started to talk about business’ responsibility to society, often interpreting this as help from the wealthiest entrepreneurs to the poorer segments of the population. This interpretation looks like an attempt to buy off Russia’s impoverished. We believe that business’ social responsibility is something substantially more complicated and serious. Business is socially responsible if its private interests further the interests of society and if the private interests of some entrepreneurs or groups are not privileged over others. Using this concept of social responsibility, business can grope its way toward legitimizing property.

Laying low

Let’s get back to how the right and center parties in the parliament behaved in the heat of the crisis. Why were they so passive?
First and foremost because sponsor money in the Duma in general and all the parties in it is not the main issue; it’s the only issue. Where there are sponsors there are parties but not the other way around. Moreover, the list of sponsors is very short.
On the other hand, money is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for a party’s survival. If it doesn’t get on TV, no one sees it. If it doesn’t get into the Duma, it loses its attractiveness to sponsors. Who gets on television? The Kremlin-approved. For this reason, decent or, even better, good relations with the Kremlin are not optional. Thus, parties try to keep as quiet as possible.

Survival instinct

Today the obstacles in the way to Russia’s free development have given the “leftist avengers” too much sway. They should be removed.
Perhaps legislative barriers need to be created in response to the attack from law enforcement.
In addition, a fairly low ceiling--considerably lower than the current one should be set for contributions to parties. This ceiling will not inhibit those acting out of genuine political conviction.
The law on lobbying should unambiguously limit which organizations are allowed to engage in lobbying activity, such as associations, alliances, and so on. Someone caught in the Duma lobbying for the interests of a specific corporation should be sent to jail.
A law on entrepreneurial associations could also be a helpful additional measure. These associations might form gradually on their own, but it would be a shame not to give this process a push.
It would also be worthwhile to create a law on state protection of business. This law should clearly state the criminal responsibility of officials of any ranks and from any agency if they damage a business without proper justification.
Taking property from the oligarchs differs from the suggestions we have made in two senses. First, it doesn’t take brains to take away and redistribute property, but to accomplish what we have proposed will require a significant amount of smarts. Second, redistribution won’t change anything. A large portion of the property will be stolen or trampled in the dirt in the process, sure, but that means nothing. Whatever is left will be enough to spark a new war in the not-so-distant future with the same amount of slobbering over newly influential groups. In sheet music, this kind of process is summed up by the phrase “da capo al fine,” or in other words play everything from the very beginning until you see the word “end.”

More in Russian >> www.expert.ru