There are, however, certain features without which a system cannot be democratic. Some of these are of particular importance for Russia because we cannot yet claim they are found in our present way of life. These are: regular, honest elections ensuring a periodical turnover of those in power; stable constitutional order and a balance of powers between the three branches of government; competition between political parties; respect for the basic human rights and freedoms; a just and impartial legal system and a developed civil society. Russia needs to build the institutions of a democratic society.
What is behind the success of countries where democracy is not only stable but most effective, where it provides its citizens with a decent standard of living and stable economic growth? I have in mind the Scandinavian countries, for example, or Finland, the Netherlands and Germany.
These countries have their own characteristics. They do not necessarily have closely similar economic and taxation policies or models of society, but we find in all of them a strong, vibrant civil society and a strong state. Something else they have in common is that, for many decades, they have not borne the burden of militarism and excessive military spending.
We in Russia have not yet found the ‘algorithm’ for stable democracy, but that is not some sort of fate hanging over the country. Even less is it the result of ‘historical inability’ or unreadiness of our people for democracy. ‘Democracy is not for Russians.’ Whether that claim comes from the right or the left, it is still balderdash.
In the course of their long history, the Russian people have incorporated and defended vast territories, given the world outstanding politicians, thinkers, writers, composers and artists. We are a talented people, capable of great feats of endurance and dogged, routine hard work. Russians, both at home and abroad, achieve enormous success when they are able to work in normal conditions. What is needed to bring out the talent and abilities of our people to the full? It seems to me the answer is obvious: we need to improve relationships within society, and we need to improve the political system.
We need strong presidential authority. In Russia, it is crucial that people should trust the president and be able to believe him. Yes, Russia needs a strong leader, but not a Führer, not a Stalin. Calls to ‘Bring back Stalin’ are a dangerous folly and manifest a lack of common sense.
Throughout almost the whole of Russian history, the identity of the man who came to power has been of immense importance. Character, preferences and psychological peculiarities of the tsar, the leader, the general secretary or the president left their mark on literally everything happening in the country, on the lives of millions of people. I have no doubt that in the twenty-first century Russia must overcome excessive dependence on this subjective factor.
Of course, given Russia’s traditions, the mentality of the people, the vastness of the land, and the role and responsibilities of the Russian state in the world, the president cannot be a purely symbolic figure as in most European countries. At the time of Perestroika we were slow in coming to see the need for strong presidential power. We were not given enough time to deal with that problem. Russia does need a strong president, but we cannot have all the levers of political power in the hands of one person. Even the president only has two hands and one head: God makes no exceptions. Of course, there may be certain circumstances in which manual control and emergency measures are called for, but those circumstances should be clearly defined by law.
Russia needs a strong, independent parliament. Today, Russia’s parliament is almost constantly criticized, severely, and in my opinion most often justly. On one occasion, a speaker of the State Duma said: ‘Parliament is no place for discussion.’ It was probably a slip of the tongue but, no less probably, a Freudian slip. The Russian parliament, as presently composed, has passed without debate laws that divide society and compromise the state authorities in the eyes of the thinking public. At some point, these errors will have to be corrected.
For the Federal Assembly to became a genuine institution of government, it is essential for the attitude to parliament of the executive branch, of the president, to be changed. Is it really in the president’s interests for parliament to be rubber-stamping decisions as it does at present? Parliament should have a strong and intelligently thought-through mechanism for parliamentary investigations, hearings on the most important issues facing the country.
Today, both chambers of the Federal Assembly in reality consist of appointees. The political parties do not play the role in the life of the country and in parliament that they should in a democratic country. Creating genuine, strong, responsible political parties with their own ideology is one of the most important challenges facing our society and our ‘political class’ in the coming years.
What will be the basis on which political parties are formed? I imagine they will be based, first, on genuine interest groups within society where interests are varied and may well not coincide. Second, on the basis of political sympathies: social democratic, conservative, liberal and others. The outcome should be the appearance of several strong parties that can credibly aspire to gain a majority in parliament.
I have often pondered Lenin’s words (I return to him again and again, as a politician and thinker deserving of his place in history) to the effect that socialism is the living creativity of the masses. I see that, as proof, that he saw socialism as a system for people, hence democratic. The most important word in that maxim is ‘creativity’.
We cannot, of course, just ignore the problem of governability, which is particularly important in the case of Russia. It is a problem because of the sheer size of the country and because of its multiethnic character, and it can only be resolved on a basis of federalism. To complicate matters, the kind of federalism that works, for example, in the United States or Germany is not sufficient for us, because Russia includes nation-states. Any talk of abolishing them is dangerous and pernicious. The focus should rather be on ensuring that they are as autonomous as possible, while remaining an integral part of Russia.
The problem of governability is closely tied up with another thorny issue: the fight against corruption. After all, if the state cannot deal with this problem in years, indeed, decades, it forfeits the trust of the people, which is an extremely important asset.
That is why you cannot just put up with it, as some suggest, asserting that it will never be eradicated in Russia. They quote Nikolai Karamzin. When asked on his trip to Europe in the eighteenth century what people do in Russia, he replied: ‘Thieve!’ It must be combated, but police measures, prohibitions and prison sentences will not solve the problem. The main weapon against corruption is efficient democratic institutions and a healthy economy that gives people the means to show initiative, to establish their own business, and that curbs the appetites of greedy officials.
I have no doubt that we in Russia will eventually find an optimal combination of economic freedom and state regulation. I remember how dramatically everything changed after the Central Committee plenum on agriculture in 1953, six months after Stalin’s death. Country people, who until then had been little better than slaves, had their hands untied and were allowed to work properly. Everything changed, everything that had been forgotten reappeared!
Or take the Shchekino Method in the 1970s, which produced much higher productivity for the same outlay, and using the same resources and machinery, by giving workers the incentive to reorganize the way they worked. Given incentive, creative approaches soon appeared. That was a first experiment of giving people economic freedom in industry. Even in the Soviet period it was possible to pass the initiative to individuals. That is even more the case now.