Why do we need policy? They must see the future as it will suit most of us, and to lead people to him.
photo: Alex geldings
That’s all. It would seem so simple. But the cards fall to the map of the future of politicians not always. Her actively playing the on the way to power, and then the winning hand is the entire deck, and that is power. And the main thing is not the future, but the power in the present and its preservation in the future, but it is not the same thing.
And the future — after all, it so comes, and if it turns out not the way in which of his promised policies, then — or the choice of a new policy or old explain what prevented him to reach the goal and how it’s going or to change the target, or to walk to the old, albeit belatedly.
We now have in the fashion greatness of the Soviet Union. Let’s leave aside the argument that when fashion past, so something is amiss in the present. Remember: then a vision of the future on the scale of the paintings left behind “the Cherry orchard” by Chekhov. It seemed a Paradise on earth called communism: from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs. However, as the historians say, since the days of Nikita Khrushchev, none of the politicians in power in the reality of the future is no longer believed, and therefore, more and more there was not a great utopia in the form of the national idea (which is already a ticking time bomb), and inflation models of the future — in the form of the stages of building a surrogate of the developed socialism. Crack design went, becoming wider and wider, because the present continues to be sacrificed to an illusory future.
The merit of Mikhail Gorbachev that he acknowledged (or was forced to admit) the need for replacement purpose. Not separately taken your unreal heaven, and human values. This is not replacing a “Capital” in the Bible, it’s the return of the country into the mainstream of historical development.
But enough of historical narratives. What now? There is a serious crisis of choice of the future. On the one hand, Russian politicians rarely risk directly refer to the future; on the other values, as has been said, are drawn in the past.
Yes, the story is continuous, Yes, in the history of the Soviet Union there are many heroic pages that cannot be forgotten. But the collapse of the Soviet Union is not the mistakes of individuals is, if anything, the collapse of the first in the history of our country project to create a certain model for the rest of the world. Once it was “the third Rome and the fourth will not happen!”, in the image and likeness of the old was built New Jerusalem, which was to become the site of the second coming. Then, much later, were building the Communist future of all mankind.
What do these projects? The claim to exclusivity. Not just its own historical path of each nation and state has their own, and outright messianism, than can not boast of every nation. Perhaps it is absorbed so deeply that he became part of the national character. But in the national character, as, however, and in any character at all, there is something that helps to answer the challenges of the time, but there is something that interferes. Unrealistic claims distract from the task at hand.
There is another side. History teaches us that the ideological claim to global leadership rarely remains only in the realm of ideas. In this context, the Soviet Union and his idea was a challenge to the rest of the world, and its collapse is natural.
After the Soviet Union Russia has done a dramatic geopolitical way. Was first made a long-awaited and logical big step towards the West. Long-awaited because it was part of the changes, the sign under which he lived, the late Soviet Union. Naturally — because the country woke up from claims to exclusivity. But relatively quickly it became clear that a counter-movement from the West raises questions. Yes, the West has actively supported Russia’s economy with loans and credit, but seeking instead of economic openness and reform, which showed that in the world a competitive market and Russia’s place in the international division of labour has been narrowed to a supplier of raw materials and energy. Yes, Russia has supplemented the “big seven” to “eight”, but had not regained any lost, seemingly forever, superpower status.
Russia retreated from the place in the foreground of the world economy (which, however, has never shone) and the world of politics, where key decisions. First of all, otherwise do not happen in politics, in the interests of those who make these decisions. Vladimir Putin never put up with that. Events came to a new edition of the cold war and the unprecedented war of sanctions. This is our present.
And now I propose to return to the beginning of this article. But two steps.
Step one. Vladimir Putin with a break of four years, when he temporarily drove away from the Kremlin, on Krasnopresnenskaya embankment, then to come back, for the past 13 years and runs our country. Today before him a choice: either continue to tighten policy of confrontation with the West with a natural concomitant crackdown in domestic politics, or to take a course on the normalization of relations and internal upgrades. What will he choose?
The first option meets the image of a strong President. It will have the support of the majority of the population in the country. And it doesn’t last-by-value argument is an important factor in the preservation of all the levers of power by Vladimir Putin: still, enemy at the gates!
The second option requires a decisive turn in policy. Primarily external. With hard turning, which will require greater flexibility, but it is not the strong point of Russian diplomacy. Of modernization in the country, it is long overdue, obviously. But there are pitfalls. The collapse of the USSR, which Vladimir Putin believes the main geopolitical catastrophe of the twentieth century, began with the search for modernization. Its origins in the “thaw” of the late 1950s — early 1960s, which became the birthplace of the sixties generation, who prepared perestroika of Gorbachev, and in the Kosygin reform of the lessons of the failure of which grew “saulabi” Yegor Gaidar. In other words, the second option opens the way for change, which can climb up to the summit of power.
Putin’s choice largely depends on how long he intends to remain in power.
Real political competition, the need for which is spoken by all from the Kremlin to the suburbs, we do not have, it, alas, replaces “midsize” any rising tide of opposition, but if political competition in fact existed, it is, oddly enough, Putin’s choice in favor of the second option would be more likely. And again. In the Soviet Union, no organized political competition was not. But Gorbachev has managed to become a competitor to the previous course had raised him to the Communist party.
Now the second step. What future do we choose? I have already written that most openly supports the current confrontational style of Russian foreign policy. But truth is not determined by majority vote. The man in the street lives one of the political day and enthusiastically ready to respond to the manifestation of the power of the state in foreign policy and even the beginning of the war, what can not be said about his attitude to the protracted war with the victims of hardship — example of a complete history.
Let’s make it concrete images of the future from which to choose. Confrontation is an increasing rupture of relations with developed countries. The flip side is the growing gap between Russia first, in an increasingly accelerating scientific and technological development and, consequently, in the socio-economic and political state of Affairs. It’s a risk for a very long time to remain on the sidelines of world progress. While maintaining geopolitical ambitions and military power is fraught with “progress” from “cold” to an increasingly “hot” war.
Turn to normalize relations with developed countries, but its difficulty does not make it impossible, opens a small, but a chance to remain among those countries that will determine the future. And not only technological. It is a very different future for us and for our children.
A chance for a future worth geopolitical ambitions, based on a weak economy, the share of which in the world is not up to 3% and further reduced actively.
It is to a decent future should lead to a responsible politician.
Sanctions . Chronicle of events