#9 - JRL 7306
TITLE: PRESS CONFERENCE WITH MIKHAIL DELYAGIN, HEAD
OF THE INSTITUTE FOR PROBLEMS OF GLOBALIZATION [PRESS DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE,
12:05, AUGUST 26, 2003]
SOURCE: FEDERAL NEWS SERVICE (http://www.fednews.ru/)
Moderator: A very well warm welcome to our dear Mikhail Gennadyevich Delyagin. He is back with us.
Delyagin: Came in from the cold.
Moderator: Yes, he is back and he promises to see us often. Today he will tell us about global competition and new requirements for Russia.
Delyagin: This is the start of a new political season. In spite of my innate skepticism, I think it may mark the start of modernization of Russia. Maybe not, but the hope is still strong in spite of the power of the pro-establishment party. This prompts the natural question, what are the new challenges facing Russia? Of course, globalization is a term that has been with us for the last ten years. To put it in a stark form, global competition now is much tougher than in the days of confrontation between capitalism and socialism. Secondly, this competition involves massive efforts to mold consciousness.
And in order to be competitive Russia must meet the challenges of global competition. I would like to devote my time and effort to looking for concrete measures that would enable Russia and Russian corporations to better measure up to the requirements put to them by global competition.
But first one has to formulate these requirements in the most general form, which I will proceed to do now. You have been given the report most of which was written in October 2002. The date there was February 2002, but this is not really true. It was finalized at the end of the summer and on the basis of a description of new realities in global competition one can single out the group of requirements set to society as a whole, to the elite of society and to the state as the hands and brains of this society.
Let me start with a very unpleasant sentence that is not typical of Russia that the study of the competitive societies that have managed to make a leap in other situations, including unfavorable situations, shows that society must be united by an ideology. I am aware that this may be against the grain in the late 1980s and 1990s when deideologization of society was believed to be the key to universal happiness. But we see that competition is a very cruel thing and society can only succeed collectively.
Individual members of society should be morally prepared to sacrifice -- above all representatives of the elite -- to sacrifice petty short-term benefits to the success of society as a whole, to their very long term and not always clearly defined success. People are only ready to make such sacrifice if they have a common ideology. Besides, society must be united, relatively united. One can try to unite society on an ethnic basis, but most societies are polyethnic. One can unite society on a religious basis, but most societies are multi-confessional, not to speak of atheism. One can unite societies on a class basis, but all societies consist of different classes.
Only an ideology that is based on the prevailing way of life, a way of life most acceptable to everyone -- such an ideology does not alienate anyone, it unites everyone who is ready to unite. It only alienates those who themselves don't want to be part of that society. I am aware that the phrase "way of life" sounds awful. It immediately conjures up "the Soviet way of life" with all its negative aspects. But let me remind you that the same word combination exists in America. And the phrase "American way of life" is much more rooted in public consciousness in the US than the phrase "Soviet way of life" was rooted in the social consciousness in the Soviet Union.
One could speak about ineffectiveness of Soviet ideology. That instrument did not equip society for global competition. If your axe is blunt, this is no reason for trying to split wood with your hands. Ideology must blend the ideals of efficiency and justice. Typically, these ideals are contradictory. But a society that is not ordered in a just way cannot be effective in principle because it is divided against itself, it is under permanent stress and therefore it cannot be effective in the global competition. It is another question that the definitions of what is and what is not fair can vary. But this concept must exist and it must be shared by the majority of people.
Finally, it should be a blend of patriotic and liberal values. Patriotism is the commitment to defending the common interests of society in the global competition and liberalism is the commitment to defending the interests of the individual. Practice shows that a society that neglects the individual are capable only of making a short spurt and thereafter they slow down. So, in a society of collectivism and solidarity an effective ideology in the context of global competition must encourage initiative and welcome individual success. Obviously, these are harsh requirements to comply with, but I deliberately set the sights high. Even if we comply with these requirements and a little more than we do today we will already make a step toward greater effectiveness and competitiveness.
Naturally, an effective ideology must be one of "enlightened egoism" rather on the lines of Turgenev's character Bazarov. We should understand that our society has priority over other societies, that competition is struggle and we seek above all to implement our own interests and only afterwards think about protecting the interests of our potential rivals.
And I would like to say one more shocking thing. Economists are very fold of talking about resources, management, the structure of governance. All this is no doubt relevant. But it is relevant in the medium term. But in the long term a society that is determined to fight and to win finds resources even if it has few resources, and it finds a way to make up for the shortage of such resources. In the long term the main resource of competition is determination and faith in success, like in sport.
Another group that must be taken into account in discussing competitiveness is the elite of society, people who make decisions and people who provide role models. So, for example, variety actors are also members of the elite although it may not be a very pleasant thing for politicians, scientists, economists and so on. The elite of society of course should be aware of its responsibility to society. But the elite of society must also feel that it serves society, that it is part of society. This sounds banal and trivial, but it assumes a dreadful meaning when you start to translate it into concrete actions. For example, members of the elite must think of themselves as being no different from the man in the street. They should not look down on these people. While recognizing that they are not so well organized and are lacking in intellectual potential, they should not treat them as a "herd."
For instance, I read liberal literature which cites sociological surveys that say that more than 70 percent of Russians want a redivision of property. Well, the normal reaction of a responsible person is that these 70 percent need to be educated to somehow change the situation. But the reaction of much of our liberal press is, they are "the herd", we will ignore them. Not in exactly these words, but this is the essence of their reaction. Now, this is an irresponsible reaction.
To pursue the interests of its society the elite must identify its long-term interests with the interests of that society. To put it in simple terms, the assets of the elite must be within the jurisdiction of society. That is, the significant part of their savings should be in the currency of that society. Otherwise we will end up in the position of Comrade Milosevic whose family apparently had huge assets in European currency and therefore he could not actively defend himself when attacked. A very unpleasant situation. The elite must seek recognition by its own people and not by foreign elites which at the end of the day are rivals.
In 1992 one still highly regarded person told me something striking: "You know, old man, if a social revolution takes place in the country as a result of our transformations we will be honorable political refugees in any fashionable country. But if I am not invited to the next conference, that would be a disaster, old man." Now, this is the reaction of a totally irresponsible elite. I am citing these examples to show that the simple requirement that the interests of the elite should identify with the interests of society if society is weak, underdeveloped and not very civilized, it requires major and concrete sacrifices from the elite, every minute. And the rewards for the sacrifice may or may not come.
And finally, the state. Obviously, it should be efficient, responsible and so on, but also very important, it should support real and not formal democracy. What is the difference? Formal democracy is a set of democratic institutions. When you are told, guys, we have a formally independent judiciary, we have a parliament, we have democratic elections and 3.5 foreign observers have said they have not noticed any irregularities, so, we have democracy. But that is formal democracy.
Real democracy is a system of measures whereby the system of government takes into account at least the main part of the interests and opinions that exist in society. I am not saying that government should be subservient to these interests and opinions. But these interests must be taken into account. And if they are cast aside or set aside this should be done consciously. And this is what I think is lacking here. And this the difference between a "controlled democracy" from democracy proper.
It is very important, and our state has recognized it in word that it should ensure the development of all the spheres of social life that cannot develop by themselves. Obviously, private business will never go into infrastructure and, with rare exceptions, it never goes into infrastructure because of the specific nature of infrastructure. So, the choice is stark: either infrastructure is neglected, or infrastructure is developed by the state with all its inefficiency, bureaucracy, corruption and ineptitude. But this is what the state is for. First, to develop those spheres that cannot develop by themselves and second, to minimize the number of such spheres. So that these spheres get up to their feet and no longer need tutelage on the part of the state.
This is a major challenge which requires, unfortunately, concrete interference with the economy and this is something that our state is afraid to do. And of course, the state should monitor the behavior of the social elite and of society itself. This is an unpleasant duty, to some extent it can be described as policing, but unfortunately it is a necessary measure. Because if 70 percent of the population want a redivision of property or -- redivision of property is not something to be afraid of by itself. We witness an ongoing process of redivision of property. We see that for the past three years businessmen have been killed at the same rate as in 1993, 1994 and 1995. But a redivision of property can be a destructive process. If 70 percent of the population are in favor of things that pose a danger to society, something has to be done. These people must be educated on the one hand. But on the other hand the government policy must change. One can only educate through deeds, but not through words.
Summing up I can say that Russia today does not conform to any of these elementary requirements. And that presents Russia with a very bleak future. It does not mean that we should give up, it means that we should try to change the future and to this end we should try to change Russia itself. One should be aware of this challenge, one should be aware that the country, the society in which we live is uncompetitive and it can only survive until oil prices drop. If we want to survive a drop in oil prices, if we don't want this period of stagnation to end up in the same way as the previous one, we should seek change. Thank you. I would stop there and I would be glad to answer your questions.
Q: You referred to "the way of life". I still don't quite understand what you mean by "the way of life." Could you elaborate?
Delyagin: The way of life is the behavior habitual to the majority of people and the system of values, world view, habits and customs that grow out of this.
Q: Could you then be more specific? For example, the way of life of the government bureaucrat and the way of life of the businessman are two different ways of life, aren't they?
Delyagin: Of course these are different ways of life. But when different social groups adhere to similar values -- I think it is all about a common system of values. They have a common system of values. And then, even though they live different lives, they aspire to approximately similar things. And that system of values can only be simple. For example, family, universal justice and universal success.
But then there is a large stratum of the population who say or imply by their behavior that this is their system of values: I build my fortune walking over the bodies of other people -- then these are qualitatively different systems of values and this is a way of life unacceptable to society.
Moderator: And do the Ten Commandments come into it?
Delyagin: Yes, I suppose so. Naturally, business and politics are fairly cruel and sometimes one has to break them. It is important that when you have to break them people should understand inwardly that they are committing a forced crime. This is very important. In what way do some representatives of the old security and army structures differ from some representatives of the new security and army structures? They had experienced themselves violence or fear of violence and they know what it is. And if they have a chance to avoid using crude measures with regard to someone they have tried to avoid them. And then there are people with no inhibitions, and that is a great and serious difference. Naturally, in the course of competition you have to do things that Jesus Christ would never have forgiven us. But a lot of books have been written describing what would have happened if Jesus Christ had become a head of state. These books differ only in the time that they allow until general slaughter begins, it ranges from two months to ten years. Nobody thought such a state could survive for more than ten years. But naturally, morality should be the foundation and a substantial element of a way of life.
Q: You have worked in government for a long time, yes? Do they share the concerns that you have shared with us just now? Or have you quit because they don't?
Delyagin: No, that is not why I quit. Of course there is a concern.
Q: But are any concrete steps being taken? Or perhaps, you have come here as an envoy?
Delyagin: No, I have not come here as an emissary, I have come by myself. I quit for a very simple reason. I set certain tasks for myself and I have fulfilled some of them but not all of them. I have become convinced that I have accomplished everything I could accomplish. And to continue to be in government would have been a little bit like honorable retirement for me. At 35 you do not deserve retirement. Even the commanders of nuclear submarines retire at 45 and not 35. And this work is not so hazardous.
Q: Whom do you see as your allies in implementing this aspect of the program, for it is a long term program?
Delyagin: You see, I haven't shut the door behind me, I haven't quit formally, not completely. I haven't had time to look around me. I haven't yet started speaking Russian. You see that I stumbled when I speak. Give me a couple of weeks, give me three weeks to look around me.
Q: And then you will have allies?
Delyagin: Yes, of course. One of them is sitting here, Comrade Kagarlitsky, director of the Globalization Studies Institute.
Q: Moscow Times. Have you decided what party you will join in running for parliament in December?
Delyagin: You know, it's a good idea, I like it. This is the constructive Western approach. But I am not going to run just yet. It may well be, naturally, I am doing such work, and perhaps it will be crowned with success, but it is a less than fifty-fifty chance.
Moderator: Is the question premature?
Delyagin: It is premature in some ways, but in some ways it is belated, because the lists of candidates, I think, were put together in May. You should never have inflated hopes on that score. On the other hand, we have seen over the past four years what the State Duma is. I know that one can argue that being a State Duma deputy is better than working at the Globalization Institute and I would be glad to look at these arguments if somebody presents them to me.
Q: And another question. You say on the first page that the elite must keep a significant part of its personal assets within national jurisdiction. Are you referring amongst others to Mr. Abramovich?
Delyagin: I say, a significant part, I do not say that all their assets or 75 percent should be within the national jurisdiction. But what I do say that they should keep here a part of the assets whose loss would be very painful. I do not know what part of Mr. Abramovich's assets is formed by the Chelsea team or his real estate abroad. I suspect that it is not a very significant part.
Let me give you an example. when we had the Great October Socialist Revolution, let us use the term that had been current for decades, or you can speak about the government coup if you feel like it. Why did capital lose out in the struggle for power? Because capitalism in Russia was to a large extent represented by foreign capital.
The commanding heights in the economy, the critically important part of the mining industry and engineering industry -- all these key sectors belonged to foreign corporations. And when thunder struck, the foreign factory owner chose not to lie down with a machinegun at the gate of his factory. He simply wrote off a corresponding sum as "losses" and happily returned home. He chose not to defend his property. This elite must struggle for the stability of the country. It is not right when a country is in crisis and the elite calmly writes off the losses as something dispensable and leaves for warmer climes. No country needs such an elite. Such an elite is inherently irresponsible because its interests are outside the country.
Moderator: From your point of view, why are Gref's reforms marking time? Is it due to ideology, the elite or the state? What is the main reason? Or is it a little bit of everything?
Delyagin: Gref reforms are a very mixed bag. I wouldn't be speaking about Gref reforms. The main principles, the core was formed in 1994 and I would describe them as reforms if not of Gaidar, at least reforms of Yasin. Gref simply happens to be the last person to read the corresponding documents and to organize a rewriting of these documents adjusting them to the current historical period.
There are many positive ideas among these reforms, for example, the administrative reform. But some reforms simply do not meet the requirements of society, which is why they are marking time. Some reforms are going ahead full speed, and it fills me with horror. The reform of the energy sector. In a week's time we will hold a Round Table here if Natalya Alexandrovna does not object. And the former energy minister... deputy energy minister will present the case in favor of the reform of the electricity sector and we will see how he will succeed.
But on the whole, Russian consciousness associates the word "reform" with destruction. It sounds like a threat, something like "I'll smash your face in." When somebody says "we are going to reform this sector of industry," people shudder and reach to feel for their purses. And note that the state has become aware of it and increasingly replaces the word "reform" with the words "transformation, modernization, innovation." They have even dug up the word "improvement", which is part of the "developed socialism" lexicon.
Q: What do you propose to do, first of all, in order that the elite should be Russian and not foreign? And secondly, so that the elite should keep a lot of their assets inside the country. What are your concrete plans?
Delyagin: So far, I can only conduct education work. Let us conduct education work. so far the Central Bank is helping because keeping the ruble fixed the ruble is not something pleasant in economic terms but it contributes to a de-dollarizing, which induces people -- including the elite -- increasingly to transfer their savings from foreign exchange into rubles. But it is that case when it is quite an artificial and quite a temporary phenomenon.
So, it is for the moment simple to carry out education work.
Q: Do you have any suppositions or assumptions, say, about some kind of legislation?
Delyagin: And how do you see that? Is it to pass a law to the effect that a wealthy man must possess rubles in cash? I fear that this is not something that can be accomplished by some formal methods. Well, let us say, that it is decent for the Europeans to keep a significant part of their money in the euros even at the time when the euro was falling. And the same thing with the Americans regarding the dollar. As to the Chinese, it is true that they will find it easier, their yuan is stable but still. It seems to be a matter of some internal self-awareness, but the nature of awareness is not cured by laws, which is regrettable.
Q: ... (inaudible)...
Delyagin: My God, I did not even recognize you.
Q: You have also changed a little bit. I would like to ask you about the ideology. In your opinion, what would be the basis on which the modern Russian society could be united and who must see to this: the authorities, the political parties, or maybe the nongovernmental organizations?
Delyagin: I think that this must be done by the political parties. They feel it most clearly and they articulate the needs of the society. They are an instrument to articulate the requirements of society, to identify and give expression to the needs of society. And as to the non-governmental organizations as elements of the civil society, one has to take into account the fact that such organizations maybe different. And when we see the "onslaught" of the Americans on American public organizations, I think it is just another expression of "Bushism" as the Americans say.
Q: And what is the foundation of the ideology?
Delyagin: You know, at the non-articulatory level I have the feeling that people are already getting to understand this thing. It is because patriotism is very popular and over different pretexts, which sometimes causes a frenzy of surprise or laughter. This is to say that it manifests itself in different forms but on the whole it is a positive phenomenon.
And at the same time it is the awareness of the rights of the personality. And indeed, there are more contradictions besetting our political system than we have them in our societal life. It is because the most incorrigible proponent of the power of the state, asked if an unbalanced policeman has the right to beat me up, will answer of course "no". That means that the man defends the rights of the personality.
On the other hand, the most unabashed liberal is already beginning to admit that, yes, to have the society competitive on the whole the personality may sometimes, and it is quite possible, to have the ability to sacrifice some of its own interests, and this is already headway toward patriotism.
I have the sensation that our society is already groping close to get at this liberal-patriotic synthesis, strange as this word combination sounds. It is a different thing that it is a specific order from society given to the parties to formulate.
However ridiculous it sounds, the YABLOKO party must be closest of all to this synthesis. It is because that is the party which on the one hand is absolute social-democratic by its aspirations, meaning a party that expresses the sad dream of the intellectuals about justice. And at the same time they clearly speak about the rights of the personality. This is a kind of duality that makes it possible to assume that maybe they will be able to accomplish something in that area.
But at the same time, given that now everybody says about the same words around here, it is simply a must to wait to hear who will be the first to say something. And who will utter it better than others.
The only thing is that the state, the bureaucracy cannot produce an ideology because it does not exist for this purpose. It can adopt the ideology that has already been "delivered" by society and articulated by somebody already, and then to "Xerox" it. Thank you.
Q: You said that if society favors redividing property, then it is necessary to educate the society or to change the policy. So, in what way should the authorities change the policy? And do you not believe that what is now being undertaken in regard to Yukos is an attempt to somehow change the policy or what is your assessment?
Delyagin: No, I don't think so. But let us formulate it like this: I know that this is not so. This is not an attempt to improve the policy. Even if we taken the mood of 70 percent of people who wish to have the property redivided, who wish to take the property away not from one Abramovich and give it to another who is different from the first only in one respect, namely that he is more hungry, worse governable, but rather to say an Abramovich, a Kosygin or some official of the state. Our state today cannot even manage the property that it has. So, we will be able to talk about it when the state learns to manage that property that it has.
Today, when people want justice and say that the control of the state should be restored, in the irrational practice that would amount to saying that the property of a certain "non-state" Abramovich will be handed over to an Abramovich representing the state. But there will be no improvement in effectiveness, the effectiveness will decline, which will be regrettable.
And the attack on Khodorkovsky is quite symbolic because despite everything, despite all the inaccurate political "motions" that he made -- imprecise and overly civilized -- he made himself "an imitation of a target". Well, the man might have thought that he could behave in Russia as if he were in a country where there is simply democracy, not some ungovernable democracy. And he was hit to a large extent, as it seems to me, not because he is bad but because he tried to become better. Not because something had happened there in 1994. It is because after that he had come to terms. We have a huge number of businessmen who have failed to come to terms. And since they failed to come to terms, they "have been hooked". But this one tried to get off the hook and he was punished for doing that.
He made a transparent property structure. He said yes, we own so much. He admitted it. And so it is no longer possible to write a news item on him in kompromat.ru or something else like saying that he has some offshore outfit on Cayman Islands. He said that the offshore has been made legal and that the money corresponds to the law of the Russian Federation. Period. He tried to get off the hook. And as I see it, he was probably punished to a large extent precisely for this. This is to say that it was an action that was not aimed at enhancing economic efficacy but, on the contrary at undercutting that efficacy.
And the society, thank God, understood this, even including the liberals. The majority are by far not always right, the majority may be misled, the majority might wish to take the country apart and actually do it. But this is no invitation to stimulate errors committed by the majority.
There used to be a Georgian philosopher by the name of Merab Mirdashvili --
Voice: Mamardashvili.
Delyagin: Mamardashvili -- I am very sorry but I really don't remember his name -- who said that if the Georgian people was for Gamsakhurdia, he was against the Georgian people. And he died because of that. If people make a mistake, the responsible elite must be capable of going against people and their short-lived sentiments, pursuing long-term interests. Sometimes, people in despair, wrath or bad mood can destroy for what a dear price was paid and what they may regret for the rest of their lives.
Q: How should the policy be changed? What sentiments should be taken into account by the authorities?
Delyagin: In my view there are three main problems to focus on. First, the protection of property because it remains unprotected. We have been building a market economy for 15 years but we have paid little attention to the protection of property. Bankruptcy has become a little bit less crime-ridden than before but the problem is not solved yet.
Second, combating the lawlessness of monopolies. I stress, combating not monopolies as such because the existence of large corporations is a condition for a competitive economy, but combating various abuses by the monopolies. This is something we have not been doing. Some dare speak about natural monopolies, Chubais, Miller and railways, but sometimes even a network of newspaper kiosks may become a monopoly. No one monitors abuses in this field. However, they seriously impede and undermine the development of society.
And third, making the state more efficient. Thank God, things have gotten off the ground. They call it administrative reform, but the government cannot reform itself. This is not possible technically or politically because there are issues that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the president. When the government is in charge of reforming itself, the effectiveness of such work will be very low.
We have 63 federal ministries and agencies. If we take a brief look at their functions, 25 or 28 would be quite enough. But this is an approach t the level of the president, not at the level of the government. We must not criticize the government for insufficient performance because the government has to operate under the circumstances when its performance cannot be sufficient.
These are three big tasks. They have not been solved for many years not because there is an enemy or someone is stupid. They have not been solved for political reasons. We have created a political system in the country that does not allow these problems to be solved. There is hope that when oil prices fall on the world markets, this will create prerequisites for the modernization of this political system. But for it to be able to be modernized, it needs to be reminded all the time of the problems it has failed to solve. That's exactly what I'll be doing.
Q: In principle, the future of the country depends on the behavior of the elite. The experience of major countries such as Britain, America and France shows that it is necessary to create breeding farms for the elite. Each of these countries has its own close and very prestigious education institutions that train the elite. This system may have its serious drawbacks, but I think these advantages are obvious. Don't you think that Russia lacks educational institutions where we could train our future elite and that we should think about creating such breeding farms?
Delyagin: I will convey your words to Yaroslav Kuzminov. I think he will be hurt tremendously. Of course, one has to be taught state administration and politics. I simply think that our society is not mature enough to teach such specialized types of activity. I think that once in a while someone will be popping up for maybe 10 years or so and saying, here is where the future elite of Russia is trained. But this will be a waste of breath. I simply think that the time has not come yet. Our society is still growing and our political system is still being created. We have no stable elite. It is only emerging. The post-Putin elite will emerge out of these elections and it will cleanse itself for the next four years. Only then may some political class appear. But I think it would be too early to talk about this now.
Moderator: But the Higher School of Economics is not such a place, is it? Kuzminov is its president.
Delyagin: I think he will deny it. But my subjective opinion is that it's not. Not because he is bad but simply because the time has not come it. For example, MGIMO and various party structures trained members of the elite in Soviet times. And still a lot of people rose up the ladder on their own and then simply upgraded their skills.
But I think that with time we will create a training system for the elite. At first it will be working as a system of advanced studies. I think this situation will exist for a very long time because although our system of education remains to be based on different castes, society will find its leaders in the broadest sections of the population. Churchill said this. And look at who became the strongest political leader in Britain after Churchill. It was Margaret Thatcher, the daughter of a grocery store owner, who worked as a junior manager in a chemical corporation and then went all the way up.
So, this system works in a normal stable situation. But when there is instability or uncertainty, the state begins to look for a leader among the broadest sections of the population.
Moderator: And who can retrain specialists? Should this be done by Russians or foreigners?
Delyagin: Russians, of course. The consciousness of the elite must be shaped up by the country which this elite will serve. And in the case of Russia it must be Russia, not the Unites States because we have already gone through reforms that were carried out by people with consciousness formed by the US and other Western countries. It's not that they were bad. They were simply inadequate. These were the kinds of reforms that could have succeeded in the United States or a small country for which these recipes were written. But it turned out that they were absolutely unfit for Russia and they produced results other than those that were expected. If our elite is created in England, that's where it will end up eventually.
Moderator: However, members of our elite send their children to Britain, the US and other countries.
Delyagin: That is changing. I have talked with different people and I know that some very unpleasant things are happening in prestigious private schools in England. Sometimes parents have to pull their children out of there and bring them back here, just to save them. I have heard that from different people, and I tend to people them. Very unpleasant things happen there because it's a different culture.
Moderator: Is that why our elite is also learning?
Delyagin: Yes, our elite is also learning.
Moderator: Is it learning from its own mistakes?
Delyagin: Hypothetically, a homosexual may be a mayor of Berlin, but I don't think that he may be a mayor of Moscow in the next 25 years. I don't know whether it's good or bad, but it's a fact. Our society is slightly different.
Q: Everybody is discussing the draft budget for 2004. In your view, is this a budget for development? Is this a budget what will be eaten away? How would you assess it?
Delyagin: It's hard for me to say because I haven't read it yet. But my feeling is that it's a budget of stability. There is a flow of petrodollars and we are simply stretching our hands to catch it. That's the essence of the budget process. They have simply redistributed this money and that's it.
But I am not criticizing the budget. I am criticizing the economic policy. I think we will talk about this more after we have studied it thoroughly. The only thing I can tell you now, good or bad, it will go through the Duma with difficulty. In fact, it's not so important whether it's good or bad. There will be a congress on September 23 -- I don't know what they call themselves now. They used to be called Unity and then they changed t her name many times. Then the called themselves United Fatherland and then changed it into United Russia.
Our glorious party of power is celebrating a fiesta. And the impression is that there will be fewer vacancies than there are candidates. A large number of Duma deputies have realized that there is nothing in store for them because they were elected by party lists that had been made haphazardly and yet they will not retain their seats. It is a very challenging task to keep people, who know that they will inevitably have to leave, under control. Such people are absolutely uncontrollable.
We will have to study the budget first before we can say whether it's good or bad. But even if it's a perfect budget, they may vote against it just in order to make people remember them, in order to get something from the state, from the Finance Ministry, etc. This is a very big problem for the government. But I hope it will solve this problem. It is a problem but it is not connected with the budget. It is connected with the deputies.
Q: Many say that your like-minded colleague, Mr. Gerashchenko, yesterday signed --
Delyagin: It's a big honor for me.
Moderator: What do you mean?
Delyagin: That Mr. Gerashchenko and I think along the same lines.
Q: I meant in economic terms.
Delyagin: I have never heard anything like this before but it's a big honor for me and it's very pleasant to hear that. See, you leave public service and learn a lot of good things about yourself.
Q: He said yesterday his name will appear on the lists of a new party that will compete with the communists. you must have heard about this.
Moderator: It's not a party, it's an association that was created on Sunday.
Q: Yes, it's an association.
Moderator: Is it the one with Glazyev?
Q: Do you have anything to say about this?
Delyagin: Yevgeny Primakov really adorned the previous State Duma. I hope Gerashchenko will adorn the next one but he will have to fight very hard for that.
Moderator: Do you have any more questions?
Q: You said you did everything you could do in the government. What exactly did you do? How do you assess the activity...
Delyagin: You mean...
Q: How do you assess the activity of the government?
Delyagin: So, how do I assess the activity of the government? You will excuse me but let us first draw a distinction between litter inside the house and the garbage outside. Let us not confuse the two.
Of the processes that have been completed and let us say that I participated, naturally in an informal way in activities that made it possible to substantially hold up the reform of the energy sector. Without any boasting, I am inclined to believe that I have played a significant role in them. There have already appeared some inventions, which I wish to dispel, that naturally, in the process I in no way made use of my formal status. In other words, it is clear that to carry out activities of this kind with a very slight reliance on my colleagues and leaders means setting them up in the most shameless, outrageous manner. But there was nothing of this.
It was an absolutely informal activity, it was effective activity, and I take pride in it. It is because the reform of the energy sector is something absolutely destructive and we shall discuss this here next time. It so happened in my life once that took part in the disintegration of the Soviet Union. So, I would not wish any more to be party to catastrophes of this kind. Thank you....
Q: Could you share your assessment of the prospect of the work of the Shuvalov team? And on a broader plane, how do you assess now the relationship between the Kremlin and the government?
Delyagin: I seem to know about the Shuvalov team only as much as the Kommersant-Daily reports. They are probably working and so we have to wait for the results. In principle, there are things to keep them busy. It is another thing whom they will invite to take part because the most heterogeneous participants have been invited to attend. And if you seat around the same table, say, Yasin and Glazyev, you will get an incredibly fascinating and incredibly substantive discussion but quite a limited set of consolidated measures.
So, I think that they have good prospects lying ahead, they have difficulties to cope with and whether or not they will cope with the difficulties and prospects is not known. At any rate I sincerely wish them success.
As regards the administration's relations with the government, I have not seen any tensions existing there.
Moderator: And I think we might end on this positive note.
Delyagin: From the government, the administration look so pleasant, and good and nice, totally unlike the image created by newspapers.
Moderator: I thank you all for your attention and of course Mikhail Gennadyevich for having come to speak to us once again.
Top • NextAug. 29, 2003: #7306 • JRL Home
- Back to the Top -