By Sergei Mitrokhin, Chairman of the YABLOKO
party for Novaya Gazeta (a complete version)
Despite our attempts to modernise [in Russia], the fact remains
that the fundamental gain of the European civilisation of
Modern times - the rule of law - is still inaccessible for
Russia today.
In modern Russia universal suffrage is guaranteed, however,
the rule of law is absent, because those in power enjoy almost
unlimited rights to form and permanently transform the law
to their own advantage. In these circumstances, elections
are fraudulent, and democracy becomes an illusion.
Disrespect of the law is manifest in the continuous changing
of the rules of the game, but also in the arbitrariness of
these rules. [There have even emerged such saying as] "the
rigidity of Russian laws is compensated by their non-mandatory
fulfilment” or "it is not allowed in general, but if
you really want, you may." Such a phenomenon as a democracy
without the rule of law has already existed in the USSR. There
was even universal suffrage, and it went together with the
communist dictatorship, covering the latter as a fig leaf.
The sale fig leaf is “concealing” the oligarchic system today.
But the mere existence of such a "transferrable"
leaf demonstrates succeeding of power which allows us to determine
one of the hallmarks of Russia’s "special way".
This particular path of development has many traits, but
the most obvious is that it runs past a certain stage of development
which has been done by most of the leading countries of the
modern world – some did this earlier, others later [but all
of them went through this stage].
A Missing Stage
Russia’s "special way" goes past the stage of historical
development, which led to the formation of the great triangle
of Western modernisation: the bourgeoisie – civil society
- the rule of law.
The bourgeoisie more than any other social group has focussed
on the establishment of such fundamental principles of the
modern Western society as equality of all before the law,
individual freedom, freedom of entrepreneurship, etc., that
created the conditions for a huge leap in the development
made by the Western world.
Civil society is linked to the bourgeoisie even on the level
of linguistics. In several European languages "civil"
is a synonym of "bourgeois" (for example, Buergergesellschaft
in German). It was the bourgeoisie which emerged at the the
forefront of the emancipation of the society from under the
oppression of the state. The scope of private interests, realised
by citizens on their own, without assistance and enforcement
from the authorities forms the foundation of the civil society,
which guarantees its autonomy with respect to the state.
AN historic achievement of the bourgeoisie in the context
of state-building is the creation of conditions for the emergence
of democracy as the rule of law, rather than democracy in
itself. At a certain historical stage entrepreneurship is
liberated from the tough restrictions of the old order, dictating
to everyone his or her own place. Among the injustices of
this order, you have for example a privilege for a few, close
to power circles, to fully engage in business.
The group which has managed to emancipate itself is so large
that it makes no sense for it to beg the authorities for handouts,
which if distributed among all the group members become insignificant.
Due to the fact that this group is very large, it requires
equality as a condition for freedom and prosperity rather
than privileges.
The bourgeoisie has undoubtedly made a decisive contribution
to the formation of Western democracies. Barrington Moore
wrote in the last century, "if there is no bourgeoisie,
there is no democracy."
The bourgeoisie has followed different paths of development
in different nation-states. Some acted in a revolutionary
way, other in more peaceful ways. In the 20th century the
states of the “catch-up modernisation” organised this process
from the top growing the bourgeoisie by means of "artificial
insemination". But the output of all these strategies
was the same: a public request for the rule of law in which
the law would be the same for everyone.
In Russia, successful bourgeois transformations have never
been performed - neither by means of "revolution from
below" or a "reform from the top."
This is where the main cause of our backwardness (by which
I mean an inability to build a modern democracy) lies. Russia
has not yet developed a national bourgeoisie, which would
guarantee the autonomy of the society in relation to the state
and introduce with a "mighty hand" such a value
as "equality before the law" into the framework
of the political system.
Profound indifference by the society to the principles and
mechanisms of the rule of law is explained by the fact that
we, with all our missiles and nuclear bombs, have missed the
stage where all this could and should have been generated
- the division of powers, elections as an urgent social need
and society itself as a subject in formation of governments,
and not vice versa - and much more, which serves as foundations
for the developed state of the 21st century.
In the 20th, Russia had two chances to build a "bourgeois"
capitalism society. In 1917 it was missed due to the Bolsheviks,
and in the early 1990s – due to the pseudoliberals who created
an oligarchy instead of a bourgeoisie.
The Price of Communist Modernisation
The Bolsheviks took the course towards destruction of the
bourgeoisie as a class, and chose the proletariat and the
poor peasants, the layers furthest away from the bourgeoisie,
as a social support for their policies.
The social group capable of leading a movement fighting for
the autonomy of the society from the government was slaughtered,
and carte blanche was given to the social layers who had the
lowest immunity to coercion and manipulation by the state.
It is hard to imagine a shorter way towards establishment
of an Asian style of despotic rule with its absolute dominance
of the state bureaucracy over the society virtually turned
into an army of state-owned slaves.
The price paid by Russia for the communist modernisation
included not only many millions of victims, but also gave
rise to colossal gaps in socio-economic development, which
are evident today
In the course of industrialisation the social capital of
a traditional society (the peasant culture) was destroyed
and the social capital of the industrial (civil) society was
deliberately nipped in the bud.
The necrosis of the social tissue of the society manifests
itself in the almost complete absence of its ability to self-organise.
Political and social participation of citizens is close to
nil. Generalised apathy towards elections is a phenomenon
developed in line with zero trade unions, weak NGOs, fictitious
local and residential self-governments, etc.
The rudiments of totalitarianism (first of all Stalinism)
in the public mind presents a serious factor paralysing the
society and functioning for the sake of its conservation in
a weakened state.
Furthermore, a considerably weakened society is a legacy
of the totalitarian past, and may present one of the most
dangerous elements that are very difficult to overcome.
The Triumph of the Oligarchy
The emergence of the oligarchy seems to have been largely
predetermined by the protracted dominance of the communist
regime, which for a record period destroyed the autonomy of
the society thereby preventing the emergence of the national
bourgeoisie.
A weak society can be seen as a relay baton, which the communist
regime handed to the oligarchic regime. Being used to patiently
enduring the arbitrary nature of power, the society reconciled
with the fact that the government began robbing it.
A weak society can periodically become strong, and as a rule,
this happens when the state is weakened. We have witnessed
this in the late 1980s - early 1990s when our society eagerly
rushed towards the ideals of democracy. The energy of this
breakthrough could have been used as a powerful impetus for
movement in this direction, if it had been supported by the
necessary reforms.
A privatisation programme for small businesses aiming at
the creation of mass ownership as a kind of prototype of the
bourgeoisie could have played a key role in preventing such
a scenario. To this end, the programme should have been conducted
gradually and contained mechanisms to prevent rapid concentration
of property in the hands of the few.
It could have been possible by pursuing the policy targeted
at the formation of a middle class to try and realise the
chance of creation of a national bourgeoisie after the collapse
of communism. However, the reformers of 1990s did not set
such targets.
The resources needed for creating an independent middle class,
were used instead to form an entirely different social group
- the oligarchy. It was very simple to do this – by means
of conducting a large-scale (rather than small-scale) privatisation
for a handful of people close to the top, suddenly making
them ultra-rich.
This is one of the reasons why the romance of the Russian
society, with its democratic ideals ended so quickly and the
state went back to its weakened condition, i.e., complete
apathy.
Getting the most important levers for economic power and
direct control over the state, the oligarchy has continued,
although with other methods, the policies of the Communists
aiming at the eradication of all the conditions for the formation
of a class of independent owners in the country. Indeed, the
existence of such a class challenges the existence both of
the Communist bureaucracy and of the oligarchs.
These efforts led to a tangible result: perhaps the most
odious oligarchic regime in human history was created in Russia
in late 1990s.
In 2002, the ten largest private owners controlled over 60
per cent of the capital of the Russian market, more than anywhere
else in the world. The share of small business (as of the
GDP) through the ten years of "market reforms",
was at that time about 10 per cent in Russia compared to 40-50
per cent in other European countries. Today, these ratios
have not changed.
By taking over the baton from the Soviet communism, the Russian
oligarchy was once again "ahead of the rest of the world."
The Oligarchy against the Bourgeoisie
The oligarchy resembles the bourgeoisie only on the surface
as of the trait of earning money through entrepreneurship.
But the main differences between them are more significant
than the similarities. In fact the oligarchy makes money through
benefits (preferential treatment) by the authorities or by
means of being close to the authorities. It doesn't aspire
to equality before the law, but just the opposite - inequality.
The exact meaning of the word [“oligarch”] is "government
by the few." If many people try to acquire these privileges,
it will not work; the privileges will simply not suffice for
all. Therefore, "many" business agents (the bourgeoisie)
need a law, while “a few” business agents (the oligarchy)
need an opportunity to circumvent the law, or, preferably
to shape it in such a way so that to satisfy their own needs.
At the same time ensuring consolidating the rule of a few
requires a situation whereby the authority they control is
free from restrictions imposed by law. After all, limited
opportunities for "the few" leads to increased opportunities
for "the plenty [of agents]" undermining the rule
of the oligarchy.
Therefore, the nature of the oligarchy envisages that not
only it is intertwined with power, but is also interested
in its ability to establish arbitrary rule and deviate from
the law in the moments when it is needed. The oligarchy, on
the one hand, corrupts the state, and on the other creates
a fertile ground for authoritarian rule. In the late 1990s
a new Russian oligarchy appointed the law enforcement, the
security services and the military [siloviki] headed by Vladimir
Putin, and they perfectly fit into the "oligarchic basis"
of the new system turning it into an authoritarian "superstructure".
The period of the "oligarchic anarchy" with its
information wars and other "entertainments" could
not last too long.
In the 2000s a new type of oligarch emerged. This is an official
(often even a security official), whose business is devoid
of the classic signs of entrepreneurship and is reduced to
grabbing income from the activities of business entities under
his control both formally (a state monopoly, a state corporation)
or informally, through creation of preferences for the "classical"
oligarchs. In Putin's system the "old" and the "new"
have arrived at a mutually beneficial coexistence within an
oligarchic symbiosis, which ensures that the law serves their
interests - against the interests of other social groups,
including the middle class.
With respect to the rule of law the bourgeoisie serves as
the opposite of oligarchy. For an entrepreneur who is not
close to the circles of power, any deviation from the rules
of the game leads to loss of income - both his own, and that
of other players.
In contrast to the oligarchy, the bourgeoisie is not interested
in using the power for the suppression of other social groups.
However, we can find a lot of specific facts in history refuting
this thesis (i.e., Marxism is based on such facts), but the
overall trend is like this. After all, the temptation to resort
to arbitrary rule for suppression of other social groups leads
to trampling of the principles of the rule of law, which contradicts
the main interest of the bourgeoisie.
Although this interest is wholly egocentric, nevertheless,
the result of its promotion is important for the society as
a whole, since there can be no equality for only one of the
social groups. Equality can be either for all or for nobody.
For this reason, trade unions and social democratic parties
can really function only within the framework of the bourgeois
democracy. Under the rule of law employees enjoy legal opportunities
to fight against the bourgeoisie for the expansion of their
rights. However, the oligarchy makes such actions very difficult
- oligarchs allow the state to draw upon their resources,
financial or otherwise, to stop all protests. The oligarchic
system has no prospects for formation of either of trade unions
or mass-scale social democracy.
The history of many countries which rejected Marxism shows
that it is unprofitable for the proletariat to be the gravedigger
of the bourgeoisie. Nothing good comes out of this burial,
as the experience of the USSR has shown. However, the proletariat
gains if the bourgeoisie fulfils its historic mission gradually
ceasing to be the proletariat and replenishing the ranks of
the middle class.
As for the bourgeoisie, it can successfully act as a gravedigger
burying the oligarchy. The oligarchy feels this mortal threat
with every fiber of its class instinct.
That is why in modern Russia the role of small and medium
businesses is so negligible and the rights of small and medium-sized
owners are so weakly protected. Entrepreneurs and owners present
no threat in such an amorphous, fragmented and impotent condition,
and do not represent the bourgeoisie in any way (from the
Marxist point of view as well).
Consequently, the society has no vanguard capable of releasing
it from the oppression of the state. In such a condition,
the society is doomed to be weak and easily manipulated.
A Fascist Scenario for Russia
In the absence of such a powerful leader as the bourgeoisie,
the middle class is not able to fight for power and assert
its fundamental rights. This situation leads to increased
social discontent of the middle class, which in its turn is
a fertile ground for radical right-wing political forces.
The redistributive ideology of the leftist movements is not
applicable here. Another issue is the ideology targeted at
restoration of a trampled national dignity backed by a figure
of a strong leader. Fortunately, there is no such figure in
Russia at present, however, it could emerge with time if the
present status quo is maintained. A discontented part of the
middle class will not follow the teenagers who organised pogroms
at the Manege Square in Moscow, however, this resentment is
growing daily. However, this part of the middle class may
wish to follow serious politicians (not caricatural figures
such as Zhirinovsky) who offer a solid political programme.
As soon as they determine who holds the reins of power, they
willl attempt to bribe and we arrive in the same situation
as in the Weimar Republic on the eve of its collapse.
Oligarchy Under the Guise of Democracy
The oligarchy does not have legitimacy in the eyes of its
own people and of the world. It is impossible to find voluntary
fans of acquisition of revenue via violence on behalf of the
state neither in this country nor abroad.
The only way to acquire respectability in the world today
when you lack legitimacy to disguise yourself as the bourgeois
(liberal) democracy.
The 1990 reforms are considered democratic, and their creators
are referred to as "democrats". But a social system
in which the economic elite controls all national resources,
is certainly not compatible with a real democracy. Therefore,
the 1996 presidential election could be termed a direct insult
to democracy.
Certainly, the democrats late 1980s - early 1990 did not
realise that were paving the way for the most odious oligarchic
regime in human history. They thought that they were building
a democracy, whereas, in reality they constructed democratic
decorations for the oligarchs.
If the democrats of 2010s repeat such a "feat",
this will threaten the Russian democracy with a final historic
collapse.
The Alternative System
Instead of modernization of the triad (the bourgeoisie –
the civil society – the rule of law) there formed a triad
of underdevelopment in Russia (the oligarchy - a weak society
- the arbitrariness of the state).
It is obvious that the political product of this triad can
not be democracy; the economic effect is obviously no development
and the social outcome is far from the equality of opportunities.
In order to transform the triad of underdevelopment into
the triad of development, we need a policy targeted at changing
of the social system, which could be directly called "bourgeois
reforms."
Each of these triads is a system. You can not change one
element of it without touching the others. A system can be
countered only by a system. The policy of system alternatives
should focus on the following key areas:
1.Separation of power from business, prohibiting
the owners of business entities to hold public office, including
elective posts, weakening of the oligarchic clans and ousting
them from governing the state and the economy, implementing
comprehensive anti-corruption prevention measures in the state
apparatus, prohibiting budget subsidies for commercial organizations,
liquidation of corporation, organization of anti-corruption
expertise of legislation, introducing penalties for corrupt
partnership into the Criminal Code taking into account all
types of exchange of services between officials and businesses,
etc.
2.Formation of national bourgeoisie by securing
all possible types of assets (land, real estate), for the
middle class, small and medium-sized businesses, redistributing
the control over national resources from the oligarchy to
a mass layer of owners, guaranteeing property rights, including
the smallest types of property and intellectual property;
encouraging transfer of land under individual residential
construction; legalizing shadow individual and small businesses,
liberating the civil society by removing all obstacles to
its development piled up in recent times; purging from public
consciousness the enslaving and weakening complexes of the
totalitarian past, etc.
3. Broadening of the segments where the game is "played
by the rules”, which are never changed for different
players, establishing a moratorium on changing of the laws
that have passed anti-corruption and anti-oligarchic expertise;
accede to international conventions, based on European standards
and having rigid implementation mechanisms in the territories
of parties; returning of international observers to elections
and encouraging the increase of their number; specifying criminal
penalties for election fraud, etc.
All of these measures marked here only by ‘large strokes’
are feasible only when implemented in a system. This does
not mean that they should be simultaneous, but one has to
"cling" after another carrying out specific policies
but aiming at one goal.
These are just basic steps that should be taken towards real
modernization of Russia. And this is the only way to ensure
a solid foundation for building of a modern democracy and
avoiding of danger to make it a fig leaf for the oligarchy,
as happened in 1990s.
See also:
Complete
Russian text at YABLOKO's Russian web-site
The
original publication in Novaya Gazeta
Modernisation
in Russia
|
