Out of Step With the Time
rosbaltnews.com
Rosbalt, 26/04/2004, 10:04
Speaking on the dialogue between government and business at a briefing April 14 at Rosbalt's Moscow office, political scientist Sergey Markov offered an explanation of why that dialogue is in crisis. The statement by Markov, who is director of the Institute for Political Research, follows. It includes the author's personal view of how the dialogue may develop.
Once Vladimir Putin had dealt with other state matters, the question of the relationship between government and business emerged as a major political question. There is no shortage of evidence of this, including the extraordinarily important political event, 'the Khodorkovsky affair.' The question demands resolution.
I take it as axiomatic that a crisis exists in the relationship between government and business and that the crisis is very serious. The crisis, in my view, arises from the failure of business to keep up as the bureaucracy and much of the citizenry of Russia have advanced to a new stage; business has not advanced from its old stage. If business fails to find a way out of this crisis, it faces the possibility of serious collapse. Business now finds itself in the position of toady, of slave, to an increasingly powerful officialdom, while a majority of current businessmen are simply vanishing as businessmen. Either they are in jail, have emigrated or they face ruin. We are talking here of a vast number of those in the country with money and property and who consider themselves businessmen.
When I speak of the old stage, I have in mind the Yeltsin period of recent Russian history, taken in the very broadest sense. Business remains in that phase for three reasons. First, it was formed in that period, received its authority and property by rules created then, and it knows how to play and win by those rules but finds it difficult to play by the new rules. Second, having lived its short span almost entirely in that reality, business simply cannot imagine itself in another reality. Third, business not only cannot but, subconsciously, resists out of habit moving on.
However, as I have said, unless business moves on to the new stage of development, it faces total defeat as a social class. In this sense, business moving on to the new stage is a question of its very survival as an element of society.
Russian business is unlike Western business in several ways. First: In Russia, wealth was not created but acquired through privatization. Moreover, privatization is perceived as illegitimate, although it was done for good reason, in my view. There were only two possible ways of proceeding: Property could have been sold, in which case the buyers would all have been Western businessmen and thus, essentially, Russian sovereignty would have been lost. Or property could have been given away. The latter approach was chosen. Quite justly. Since no one in Russia had money, property had to be given away.
Second difference. American, Japanese and German oligarchs got rich in tandem with their countries. But when our businessmen became rich, the country was descending into poverty.
Third. Russian businessmen became rich rather fast and, as a result, never quite came to terms with their mission. Aside from a yen for personal wealth, business acquired no other feelings.
And, finally, the last difference. An absence of patriotism. Russian business came to relate to Russia as to a temporarily occupied country that had to be fleeced to the maximum. The slogan became: 'Let a billion be lost, if only I make my million!' 'Let everything fall to ruin in that country,' many others said. Business began to look on the people of the nation as theirs to be used, pawns. One still hears the expression, 'that country,' applied to Russia by Russian businessmen.
One does have to say that business today is showing the first signs of patriotism. A noticeably more healthy attitude has begun to make its appearance. Moreover, as time passes, the proportion of businesses that have been built up from zero and were not simply given gratis during privatization rises. This is yet another positive trend.
Nevertheless, on the basis of all these factors, the property of big business is perceived by Russian society not as outright private property but as property held conditionally. American, German and Japanese businessmen may do what they choose with their property, but our businessmen may not-in the view of a majority of Russians.
Under Yeltsin there was never the kind of authority that could, in the name of tens of millions of people, set conditions for business. Under Putin such officials have emerged. They have already put forward their conditions, but for the time being they have not been quite clearly articulated. What I am saying is that there is an unspoken, not yet legally formulated contract between government, business and society. On the basis of this fundamental social contract, the socio-economic situation in the country has been transformed. Why was Soviet industry privatized, and why did people go along with it? They did so because they were told that private property would be more beneficial and more in step with the time, that it would assure economic growth and a rise in the level of life. Property in our country exists with this understanding as its basis. With this contract in mind, the government has every right to ask, in the name of tens of millions of people: 'Has there been economic growth? No? Then return the property because you have not managed it properly.'
That is, essentially, the question that is now on the table. The bill has been presented. It was not presented earlier only because there was no concrete person to pay it. Thus, I find it strange when I hear businessmen offering to sign some kind of social contract. Such is not necessary. The social contract already exists. All that is required now is for business to acknowledge its existence and to agree to the propriety of the bill presented by government in the name of society.
At this moment, business has partly acknowledged the error of its ways, and negotiations have begun. Business is already asking government what it must do. So far, it is true, government has not been silent in reply but has been bellowing unintelligibly, and business has been guessing what government might want and what it should do. Indeed, what is this social responsibility, business asks, that they keep talking about?
The task before us is to make clear the outlines of the existing social contract, to put it into the words of understandable postulates. This is a task for the organizations of business, like the Russian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Business Russia and United Entrepreneurs Russia as well as for government, political parties and specialist organizations.
In my opinion, government expects more than obedience from business; it expects initiatives directed at national development and help in formulating a strategy for national development. Government wants its businessmen to be allies, not meekly obedient slaves. There are more than enough people ready to crawl before officialdom. What government needs are people capable of working together. What is wanted of business today is chiefly this: readiness to put forward its own vision of a national strategy of development that accords with what everyone understands as the principle tasks before the country: economic growth, a higher standard of living, respect for the people and patriotism.
One must say that business has so far, directly and openly, refused the challenge. Business has never attempted to formulate answers to the key problems facing the nation and its government. Consider, for example, the problem of Chechnya, about which business has proposed absolutely nothing. Or take the supremely important problem of the resurrection of state authority, which Vladimir Putin had to resolve in his first term. Business again was silent and did not put its shoulder to the wheel.
Adequate conditions are today in place for business to begin to take an active role in the life of our country. Our entrepreneurs are splendidly educated. They may, indeed, be better educated than their counterparts in Europe or the United States. Our business class is very energetic, competitive and capable-as has been demonstrated countless times--of handling the most challenging kinds of situations. Moreover, our business people are close to the rest of society. There is no aristocracy here. Everybody studied in the same, simple Soviet schools, lived in student dormitories and earned money unloading freight trains in the evenings.
If business makes the transition to the new stage of which I have been speaking, its further development will be through the social organizations of the business community. Despite the current weakness of such groups, they are the highway for business development in our country.
Right now business should clearly formulate and put forward its positions and proposals on several problems. First, on the question of administrative reform. Second, on the matter of protecting national sovereignty in the conditions of globalization. Third, on the matter of guaranteeing democracy and the creation of a civil society. If business does not begin to take a hand in solving these problems, it will-in two or three years-find itself confronted by government and its own moment of truth.
By Sergey Markov, Institute for Political Research Translated by Howard Goldfinger |
