The Beslan tragedy not only killed hundreds of hostages but also demonstrated the complete impotence of the power. Govern-ment officials with maniacal persistence understated the number of hostages and the headquarters of the operation failed to bar strangers from approaching the school building to say nothing about more important things. That is why many killed in Beslan actually fell victim to the government a sort of. But the power, trying to avoid responsibility, again and again fingers to the notorious Chechen warlord, Shamil Basayev. However, already in April 2002 news that he was killed leaked to press from the then Chief of the General Staff, Anatoly Kvashnin. “Shamil Basayev has been annihilated but his dead body has not been found yet,” the general said. Kvashnin has not mentioned Basayev ever since: it is so appropriate to have a virtual enemy! Basayev was responsible for the Nord-Ost hostage crisis in a Moscow theater and for the attempt on the life of the president of Ingushetia. Some people supposedly saw him among fighters who attacked Ingushetia on June 22, 2004. In September, this “demon of war” claimed credit for the Beslan slaughter of innocent children in a message carried by a website long used by Chechen terrorists. As if in a trance everybody puts absolute trust in these reports although the latest authentic videotape of Basayev dates back to the spring of 2002. Meanwhile, terrorism today is impossible without playing to the audience, without due PR techniques.
The federal power, weak and sluggish, makes the population wince at its clumsy actions more and more often. Its failure in Beslan prompted Vladimir Putin to daring and determined steps aimed to strengthen the state. The president staked his all when he declared a reform that frankly speaking was ripe long ago (see the articles “The Most Natural Monopoly” and “Great mystery of the authority” in ## 5 and 6 of our journal).
However, it looks like Putin’s entourage again plays according to their own rules creating almost all risks for the president. The first one is associated with the deficiency of impartial and reliable information about the developments in our vast country. We lack deep analysis or real modeling of political processes. Instead, we see the desire to just “monitor” Russia’s life. Here lies the source of hasty decisions. That is why the government is creating a stockpile of vacant governor chairs. If plans of these “people’s servants” start to realize next year it will be possible to “downgrade” any busted minister or other top official to a governor. After that the power will apparently be completely independent of the citizens.
People have been deprived of their right to elect heads of region as well as of their right to be elected. Previously any muscovite or St. Petersburg dweller could run for mayor. From now on the two Russian capitals will be headed by people elected by local legislatures upon nomination form the president. Other Russian regions are facing a similar situation. It is really moving how unanimously people have extended their support to these initiatives fraught with serious consequences. The point is that not the fate of this or that regional leader is on the stake. We are denying the established system of real democracy. It would be only natural that governors would like to nominate city mayors and heads of local administration to be approved by local legislatures. This casts doubts on the very future of local self-government that had been designed to open a new era in the development of Russian democracy under Putin.
Indeed, during the tenure of Russia’s first president the Kremlin used to appoint governors. But this practice was rejected as absolutely erroneous. Today commentators close to “the court” spare no efforts to revive it albeit their arguments cannot stand up to criticism and have nothing to do with the fight against terrorism. In addition, they say President Yeltsin is responsible for the unpreparedness of secret services before today’s challenges because he did away with the absolute power of the KGB. Moreover, a federal TV channel recently blamed... solar activity for all Russia’s troubles addressing to people fond of astrology.
One could explain the revocation of the direct elections of the regional heads by political instability. But stability and society consolidation have been on the rise during the entire tenure of Vladimir Putin. Obviously terrorists are not looking for political power in this country. Commentators say a new system of governors’ election by local legislatures upon nomination form the president will bar impostors from taking power. However, for long we have not seen a stranger among regional leaders. Neither big business not regional elite nor the Kremlin could have supported such a person. Moreover, it is impossible to win elections without some kind of their support whatever judicial procedures and public indignation could be used.
Direct elections are far from being perfect but their revocation is much worse just because autocracy is obviously inferior to democracy, which faces bitter criticism today. Depriving a person of his role in the social life makes unrealistic any effective civil society. But you cannot justify the state’s distrust in its citizens by their confidence in the state. The twice popularly elected president faces a double risk: a possible lack of support from the civil society is added to the risky business of a direct dialogue with the regions.
We should not mention in this article big money that will flow from candidates in gubernatorial races into the pockets of federal bureaucrats and regional legislators. The appearance of new kinds of consulting services points to that eloquently. We should also avoid the discussion of how the new system of taking a regional top office corresponds to the needs of the new wave of privatization that is being prepared “atop” under the veil of talks about terrorism and GDP doubling. Let us look at the reverse side of the problem. At present, many federal officials working in the regions are appointed without consent from governors. The latter deprived of real powers have become hostages of the situation. After the new system of regional leaders’ selection takes effect the president alone will be responsible for everything in this country (taking into consideration the pro-Kremlin parliament).
 |
It is impossible to deny that being the head of state and a citizen Putin is doing all his best to improve Russians’ life and enhance their safety. His professional career is extremely important since today it is a perfect time to have a former security officer as our president (see the article “The Perfect Time for Secret Services” in No 4). What do we have though? From 2000 to 2004, the financing of the border guard service increased two-fold, the financing of the Interior Ministry increased two and a half-fold, and the financing of the Federal Security Service increased three-fold. How do we use these funds if both average citizens and elite commandos, courageous and daring, continue to die of terrorists’ bullets?
The present-day events unintentionally stir up memories about Marcus Aurelius, Roman emperor and Stoic philosopher who lived in the second century. He exercised his duties unselfishly and efficiently: for twenty years running he galloped across the outskirts of the empire oppressing revolts and rebuffing invaders. Meanwhile his subordinate senators enjoyed their life in Rome wheeling and dealing easily.
Putin’s will and inexhaustible energy often come in conflict with the total impotence of the officials to realize his plans. The core of his reliable staff is too narrow. Over and over again, the power demonstrates its inability to assess a situation in all its variety and diversity. Very often everything is done for the sake of an immediate effect. This is one more risk for the President.
The country has consolidated but the trust in the state is based on specific deeds, not on slogans or quotations, which have already stuck in the mind of ordinary people. People expect well-balanced and efficient decisions from the political elite and sober steps from federal center and regional governments. However, today even the widely advertised administrative reform can come to naught because of numerous mistakes.
With this negligence and arrogance the new way of forming the regional leadership and elections to the lower house of the parliament strictly on party lists perfectly suit the stubborn will of the Russian bureaucrats to become absolutely self-sufficient. The society should be mobilized for a determined transfer from appeals to observe the law to the life according to the law where all the citizens and primarily bureaucrats would exercise their duties properly and honor the legal norms. This will exterminate poverty and erect safe barriers against terrorism. On these conditions the civil society will undoubtedly back the president.
Alas! The power prefers its usual play. In the days when dozens of the Beslan victims remain not identified some stupid PR-men invented a show to distract the social attention. The presidential guard regiment will perform in the Alexandrovsky garden before the Kremlin. Handsome men in the sham uniform of the century before last — shakos, epaulets, etc. — are to give the idle audience lots of fun with marching evolutions and beautiful horses prancing past them. Isn’t it a new bright example of the power playing according to its own rules and deliberately ignoring all the sufferings of its nation?
Contradictory phenomena of our life obtain more and more features of a crisis of the system. Moreover, it is an additional risk for the president. Under the Orthodox mentality over centuries the Russian society has been entrusting its destiny to the parson and the Czar: the former will pray, the latter will protect. However, the delight gives way to skepticism when popular hopes never come true. In the IT century this process goes faster.
It looks like the power wants to break all the records in the speed of getting people disappointed. This is what is really worth thinking about.
By Alexander NOVIKOV
