|
|
|||
|
Survey with PEP Fellow Andrei Davidovich CCI Fellow, Andrei Davidovich from Kolomna (Moscow region), responded to a survey conducted by Sharon Tennison with a four-page letter. His opinions echo those of other PEP Fellows. CCI: What is your opinion about appointing governors rather than electing them during this crisis period? What is your opinion of the governors? Davidovich: In general, I regard this initiative of the President positively. The point is that at present, governor elections in the regions is virtually tight-filled purse competition between the people striving for the governor's post. Most often it is criminal capital. I think you can guess how the Governor elected for gangster money will govern Unfortunately, this is the present of Russia. Unfortunately, modern political methods and fundraising used in election campaigns are so effective that several months is enough to make "the Savior of the region" of a dull non-entity or even of a person with criminal reputation. These elected "saviors" turn to be obedient puppets in the hands of the people(oligarchs) sponsoring their elections. Unfortunately, this method of fooling Russians during governor elections is well debugged and it rarely fails. As a result, honest person without capital support is almost devoid of chances to be a Governor, no matter how professional he/she could be. The approach offered by Putin allows to avoid the influence of "big" or criminal money on the candidate nomination. If the President believes a person is capable and worthy of taking up the post, he will propose him/her for approval to regional Legislative Assembly. This is just the elected body that can block the candidature of a person who, due to this or that reason, does suit the region as its Governor. And if it so, the President will have to propose another candidature. Isn't it a democratic action? A Legislative Assembly is to be elected through direct voting of the population. Thus, the Assembly consists of the people representatives and, as a result, they have the right to decide whether one can, or cannot, be the Governor. Incidentally, in the USA the President is also elected indirectly through Electoral College, but nobody accuses America because its people do not elect the President by themselves. Q: Do you think that Putin will allow governor elections when the political situation is changed and not so dangerous? A: I am inclined to think that he will, that Putin or his successor will resume everything in its normal course, when political situation is not so explosive. Q: Do you agree that this is soft-Stalinism? Do you expect Putin to become an authoritarian or worse a dictator? A: As regards soft-Stalinism I do not agree, I believe it is incorrect to use the word "Stalinism" in this context. The word "authoritarianism" is more correct here. And I am for such authoritarianism, as it results in state system consolidation, in nomocracy, in increasing citizen safety. As is well known, authoritarian and centralized power, as a style and system of government, is good when a governed system (a State, a company) is in crisis or if it is confronted with a serious external threat. Now both occur in Russia. That is why, I believe intensification of authoritarian notes in the Putin's president style is defensible. I do not think Putin is the supporter of authoritarianism (though, for all that he is neither a democrat nor a liberal), but if to suppose him as autocrat, he is rather clever and moderate autocrat, who feels the verge where reasonable authoritarianism might transform into totalitarianism. I do not expect Putin to be a dictator. I think he does not have personal basis and characteristics for that. Besides, I believe the absolute power concentrated in his arms will oppress him. The power oppresses him even now, it is especially visible in his latest speeches But he does not have any choice; he has to consolidate power because the Homeland is in danger. And if Americans think people do not support Putin and his decisions, they are mistaken badly. In the face of the national threat, most Russians approve what is suggested by Putin. And even the Americans need to reckon with this. Q: How concerned are you about Putin's control of national TV channels? Does it interfere with your news gathering? Do you approve the former media under Yeltsin? What has been the net result as far as you and your families are concerned? A: As far as the supposed lack of mass media freedom in Russia is concerned - I think in the West they exaggerate this problem, as Russians say they make an elephant out of a fly (i.e. make a mountain out of a molehill). If the Western experts in "mass media freedom" were more attentive while watching national regional channels, they would notice that criticism at the actions of Putin and his office is constantly heard starting, for example, with the hysterical notes in "Moment of Truth" by A.Karaulov, and ending up with refined, but spiteful wording in "Freedom of Speech" by Savik Shuster . If American politicians believe television does not present the opinion of right democrats and liberals sufficiently, I would advise them to look through once again the results of party elections held for the determination of the State Duma composition. Both the Right and the liberals (in true sense of these words, but not as they are interpreted by Mr Zhirinovsky) were supported, as known, by the minimal part of Russians. Hence, do you think it is possible to expect mass media will spend a greater part of their broadcast time on the opinion of the ones whose political position is not supported by most people? Let's turn back to the history of the Russian television. It has never been free. If mass media is the sequel of politics, and the politics is the child of the economics, then, therefore, he who pays the piper calls the tune. For instance, "free" NTV in Gusinsky period was not really a free, democratic channel presenting different points of view. It just represented Mr Gusinsky's standpoint as regards the events, as for the journalists who did not agree with it, they were just discharged. If it is a true liberty of speech, then it is the liberty of oligarchs' speech. I do not want such free speech. As regards temporary ban on broadcasting of terrorism acts by central mass media during assassination, I do not think it is quite correct. The nation should know that it has faced a disaster. People have the right to know, but at the same time mass media must not provide terrorists with information as it happened during the Nord-Ost hostage-taking, to a smaller extent, in Beslan. Unfortunately, ethics of journalism in Russia is just a fine notion and theory. In fact, most journalists do not abide by it in chase of hot news. That is why I do not believe that journalists will voluntarily select the information thoroughly in order not to provide terrorists with current data. In this respect they should be strictly limited with law. Q: What, in your opinion, are Putin's motives with the above? Do you see him as power hungry? Making inadequate decisions? A: You may suppose I am a complete romantic and naive person, but I sincerely believe that Putin is a patriot of Russia - of the country that elected him President for the second period, that he really wishes for its welfare. When Putin was virtually appointed President in 2000, we were lucky the President turned to be a clever, strong and adequately fair man. Imagine what could have happened if Yeltsin had appointed President to anyone else One should be knowledgeable of the country and of the historical epoch Putin has been governing in. He understands a lot, but he cannot do much, indeed. Some ethical obligations may still bound him with the "family", he reckons with corrupted officials, because if he does not, the bureaucratic machine will crush him, he has to be the "leading official" of this country He also has to reckon with the peculiarities of our national mentality and character - namely, with Russian tendency toward sloppiness, unreliability, inability to work hard, with drunkenness. Yes, this is part of Russia, as well And in addition, terrorism has emerged Our President has no choice, he must to consolidate the State and try to lead it out to stability and economic well-being, - or to allow internal contradictions and external factors tear the country to shreds. Russian people want the former from their President. I do not always agree with Putin's actions. Sometimes, he goes too far, but he is only a human being - the human being, who found himself at an unexpected colossal altitude in our difficult and surprising country - that was in a very difficult situation. So, he can only rely on two forces: on himself and on common people. That is why, I think that everything he has been doing is logic and correct. Q: What aspects of democracy are important to you? A: Russian people have never been spoilt with democratic freedom, neither in the feudal epoch and the Tsar times, nor in the Soviet and post-Soviet period. Strangely enough, but the peculiarity of Russians' mentality, which Western people cannot understand, is conscious desire not to accept or treat most democratic freedoms passively. For example, most Russians, except for young generations, misapprehend freedom in choosing of activity, namely they believe that the government exposed them, stopped being concerned that they should work As for mass media freedom, quite often common people interpret freedom as displaying of porno, violence, cruelty, and other dangerous ideas in press and on TV. I am absolutely sure that Russians still are not fully ripe to understand true value and real essence of democratic liberty. It becomes especially apparent when a greater part of Russians is thirsting for "strong hands" and they are voluntary ready to give up some democratic freedoms for the sale of stability and safety. It might take very long while a new generation properly valuing democracy will grow up in Russia. Q: What freedoms (in descending order of importance) are most important to you? A: I believe that the most important aspects of democracy are as follows:
At present, I also appreciate the aspects of safety, the guarantees of individual and collective security from the State. I want to be sure that my child who has went to school in the morning, will come back home safe and alive. Q: Do you think Putin should negotiate with the Basayev? A: I consider Basaev is not worthy of being called human being. He is a living creature that took hostages in maternity hospital a few years ago and used babies as a screen/cover, and in September he sent this group of similar creatures to kill children in Beslan. Basaev arouses the feeling of ferocious hatred in all Russians, and these are not mere words, it is so indeed. We will never understand our President if he negotiate with Basaev, who must be stopped with a bullet only. And I think this bullet has been already made for him. I believe that it is high time for America to withdraw from double standards, i.e. when these people who send planes to blow up buildings in New York are regarded as terrorists, but the ones who took hostages in the theatre in Moscow and kill children in Beslan are considered as armed separatists. If America goes on using double standards in future as regards "its" and "others'" terrorists, it will lose the respect of both Russians and all other people in the world. I would advise American political elite to moderate their universal ambitions and to have more self-criticism. Q: Do you consider Basayev's groups as "separatists" or "terrorists associated with other Islamic groups?" A: In fact, Basaev represents neither Chechen separatists nor the Chechen people. Basaeve is a war moneymaker, which uses the terrorist war as a source of his profits and of political capital. It is quite possible that a few years ago Basaev was sincere while wanting freedom for Chechnya and he was trying to achieve the freedom by any means. But, now Basaev is an unscrupulous terrorist living at the expense of Chechen thievish fund and of Arabic sponsors of global Islamic terrorism. Mixed national composition of Basaev's gang with citizens from Arabic countries (they traditionally supply terrorists) in its ranks - is one more proof to the above-said. If Basaev represented Chechen people, there would be only Chechens in his gang ranks Q: What is your assessment of Russia's economics and politics of the last four years (2000 to 2004)? A: In general I evaluate economic and political development of Russia positively. It goes without saying that the results might be more impressive, especially as regards the development of the national economy, but, even the things that have been already done are positively accepted by most Russians. The existing enterprises have begun to work, new companies are appearing in all industries, the number of work places is increasing, salaries and standard of living are going up. These are not mere words. Most people in Russia would say that they live better now. We guess that strengthening of economy and consolidation of power in Russia do not make the Western world happy, because it is easy to deal with weak, "pocket" Russia, which looks into the IMF eyes waiting for more credit tranches. But, times have changed; Russia is neither the West nor Asia. It seems we have our own special path in this world, and we are not going to copy Western democracy with its problems. I do believe that Russia will find its own way of democratic development. I do believe that Russia is in no danger of a new epoch called "Putinism" or authoritarianism. Most Russians share this viewpoint. Whether America and the West believe this or not,is not important. We have our own future to work out. On September 25, Andrei Davidovich was elected by his peers to be the first Chairman of the Board of the new Nationwide Association of Entrepreneurs for Honest Business. Return to the Current Articles page
|
President's Report
Reports from Russia