Putin Considers That Fradkov Has to Render Him a Service "Sober Driver"

An a round table of the Institute of National Strategy devoted to the future successor of president Putin chairman of Editorial board of "FORUM.msk", director of the Institute of Problems of Globalization Michael Deljagin summed up previous polemic performances of political scientists Stanislav Belkovsky and Gleb Pavlovsky, having noted, that they did not contradict but only supplemented each other describing today's reality and prospects of Russia from the different points of view.

 

So, Belkovsky brightly and convincingly showed political-psychological necessity of the successor, only at the end of the report having paid attention on the fact that there couldn't be even minimally mentally competent people in Putin's "brigade" - simply by virtue of scale and long negative selection.

 

Pavlovsky, objecting Belkovsky formally, in practice developed his final thesis about impossibility of the successor, though mentioning more complimentary for ruling party reasons.

 

As a result both political scientist absolutely imperceptibly for themselves depicted inevitability of coming of system crisis which long time ago was specified by Michael Deljagin, as a result of the appointment of obviously improper successor - certainly, not at once after elections but after a while.

 

Michael Deljagin also in every possible way supported Chairman of Central Electoral Commission Churov (having managed thus never to mention his surname, - it is possible that he simply does not know the name of the next Veshnyakov), who declared about creation in Russia of the corporate state. According to the known Russian economist, there are in Russia nonconventional state corporations under which is necessary to consider not the companies belonging to the state but everybody using state powers and status mainly to receive private profit - both material and symbolic. Apart to the companies formally belonging to the state (for example "Gazprom"), Michael Deljagin included power oligarchy and corrupted "civil" bureaucracy into the group.

 

He emphasized that for last seven years Russia completed transition from "wild capitalism" of the beginnings of 90th to "military-police feudalism" with elements of slave-owing mode (in the form of stimulation of inflow of migrants deprived of civil rights). Property has principal value only at capitalism; control is the main thing at feudalism. Therefore it is unimportant, who owns some business - the state, Gutseriev or Abramovich - it is important, who actually supervises it. On the basis of control real contour of power has been developed - dense, changeable and strategically unstable but meanwhile existing in every separate moment.

 

Well-known Russian economist noted also practical identity of scientific understanding of the terms "corporativism" and "fascism" but was interrupted by protests of the Kremlin political technologists, resolutely specified weakness of PUtin's a mode in comparison with Italy of Mussolini, not mentioning Hitler's Germany as well as full absence f political reprisals in Russian and deep, universal development of the unique genuine democracy.

 

Deljagin was delighted that nobody would be forces to shout "Heil the Central Electoral Commission" and noted that political parties would support appointment as the next president in the form of elections of any person - simply because not enthusiastic thoughtway was being treated as extremism and a penal crime and soon insufficiently enthusiastic thoughtway wwould also be a crime. For parties it means immediate cancelling of registration, therefore all that they could in occasion of the president is to applause to every his decision.

 

Summing up, he noted that for Russia the best successor would be the one who was not it, who listened not to a voice of the master but to the voice of history and country. Michael Deljagin emphasized that it's very easy to live in our country because everything was already told by Pushkin and it's necessary to read it simply and quoted some lines as exemplary motivation of the future president, but made at once a reservation that it's impossible on practice and noted that Putin's positions deprived of formal completeness of authority would gradually weaken after appointment of his successor and that he could be theoretically rejected by ruling bureaucracy.

 

As ideal from the point of view of Putin of the future post for him Michael Deljagin named a post of Chairman of the Constitutional Court which was a symbol of legality and consequently was practically impregnable but could cancel any decision, at that his opinion couldn't be challenged and came into effect at once.

 

However, most of all we were interested in his performance by two separately stated thesis: that the best successor from the point of view of Putin's interests would be Fradkov and that the successor should render to Putin a service "sober driver" having returned the machine of the government in its entirely and good condition in 6-18 months after his appointment.

 

On a question of the correspondent of "FORUM.msk" about Fradkov's qualities that make him the most comprehensible candidate for Putin, Michael Deljagin answered:

- Fradkov was at Putin "technical president", not being beyond the scope of his informal competence. At the same time he was capable to balance strictly antagonistic bureaucratic clans, at that he could do it in the interests of absent sovereign. Because of a number of reasons which don't depend on him and are principally irremovable he has no possibility to claim for personal leadership but at the same time he is quite famous, reputable and possesses serious administrative abilities allowing him at least provide stability and, probably, even development.

At that he is acceptable for the majority of clans belonging both to liberal fundamentalists and power oligarchs.

- Will Fradkov be capable to avoid sleepwalking of Russia into system crisis?

 

- It's not possible to give guarantees but he is the only person in a present management who can theoretically make it, - leaning, certainly, on Naryshkin, - the only person who remains for Russia a hope for peace life. No more than a hope but in fact the others do not give even it.

- Is it possible to create a party on which Fradkov could lean?

 

- Already in the nearest future there will inevitably appear in Russia a party of common sense, of essentially new type, some kind of "party of XXII century", spoken by grandiloquent language, - which will politically express that synthesis of social, liberal and patriotic values which has spontaneously developed in the Russian society. It will automatically give it authority.

 

It cannot be appointed or created from above and especially by Fradkov - taking into consideration his rationality, caution and apparatus genesis. We shall not forget also that any other person can be the president as well as, actually, any clon.

 

But appearance of such party is inevitable - most likely, on formally empty "glade" though regeneration of one of the existing parties is also possible. In fact we remember how "Rodina" was destroyed by administration of the president just because it had dangerously close approached to such regeneration.

 

And this future party of common sense either will harmoniously complete reasonable president if the ruling bureaucracy will suffice forces to give him a part of authority, or will create itself for Russia responsible president. I am an optimist in this question, it's only a matter of time and price.

- But such party won't be allowed to be registered! It will be nipped in the bud as it was with "Rodina"...

 

- Well, in fact registration is not the main thing. Well, if they register National-Bolshevik Party? - but the party exists and it's influential enough. Is "Other Russia" registered? - but there is a movement and it is influential, it could be seen from reaction of the state.

 

On the other hand, there are more than ten formally registered parties existing only in imagination of the Ministry of Justice and others close to authority.

If bureaucracy will refuse to see reality, the reality won't escape because of it - but bureaucracy itself could escape.

Out target is - to create such reality and to make it so that our bureaucracy won't get into oblivition our state.

- And we have it?

 

- Putin's historical merit is that he restored - or, perhaps, finished restoration of the Russian statehood after disintegration which had begun in 1987. With all its minuses and having aggravated many of them, certainly, but he didn't finish. So, before his successor there will be the main, strategic question: what to do now with this statehood?

 

 Today it is used for performance of categorically not peculiar to it function: providing of ultrahigh consumption, material and symbolic of "the relatives and acquaintances of Rabbit". In other words - of that "brigade" which came in the stead to eltsin's "family". But it doesn't fit for it: to use it for private consumption is - the same as to try to use hammer to screw a bolt from the wall.

 

Future party of common sense and future, though, probably not so soon, reasonable president should solve a problem of return of the natural function to the Russian statehood: modernizations of the country. And it at once will improve our statehood.

 

- Are you going to go on elections to the State Duma?

- What for if the voices are already calculated? It is necessary to respect someone else work, it could happen that you will put the bulletin wrongly and people will have additional work. Well, it's necessary to have a rest on Sunday and not visit obscene farces.

- Are you going to take part in the elections?

- Why do you ask me - ask on the Staraya Square, they make their decisions whom to allow and whom not to take part in the elections. I think, I won't be permitted, there are signals. But it is necessary to understand that these elections are - no more than appearance of a platform for propagation of ideas of modernization of Russia and its progress. Therefore they should be used, no matter from within election campaign or outside - the difference is not principal. Outside is even more effective - there are less restrictions.