Liberal economists' vision of Russia's future sparks public debate.

MOSCOW, February 6 (By Itar-Tass World Service writer Lyudmila
Alexandrova) -- The Institute of Modern Development (commonly known under
its Russian acronym INSOR and also as President Medvedev's think tank) has
delivered a report in which liberally-minded economists presented their
vision of what Russia may or should look like in the future. By doing so
it sparked a salvo of comments from politicians and experts - ranging from
cool skepticism to strong condemnation.

The president/prime minister tandem is now faced with the need to
choose between two ways of development, many experts believe.
The 66-page document, entitled Russia of the 21st Century - a Glimpse
of Cherished Tomorrow - proposes a variety of radical changes to the
political system, without which, the authors declare with certainty, the
country's economic modernization will be never succeed.
"No modernization in the economic sphere will be possible without
modernization of political institutions," they argue.
For this reason, says the INSOR think tank, Russia should restore the
five-year presidential term, cancel censorship and permit a genuine
multi-party system. Its army (500,000-600,000) will be manned on the
voluntary principle. Today's Interior Ministry will be replaced with a
Federal Service of Criminal Police and Municipal Police. Instead of the
federal security service FSB there will emerge a Federal
Counter-Intelligence Service and a Federal Service for the Protection of
the Constitution. In world politics Russia is a member of the WTO and
Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development and enters into
negotiations on its admission to NATO and the European Union.
The authors of the report also proposed their scenario the country may
follow to develop its social system. On one hand, it is a very liberal
one, but on the other it implies the restoration of institutions that once
existed in Russia, such as the electivity of governors and senators and
reduction of the qualification hurdle for political parties from today's
seven percent to five.
This image of ideal Russia looks very pro-Western. The country has
about twenty different parties, but there is a nucleus - a right-center
party and a left-center one.
"Registration procedures, electioneering and the support for and
sponsoring of political parties by businesses is little different from
what there exists in the European countries," the report says. The powers
of the president remain strong, but the tenure of office is reduced from
seven years to five.
Ways of upgrading the political system constitutes the bulk of the
report, but the authors are far from dedicating themselves entirely to
this theme. They also discuss research-intense industries and intensive
innovations. Modernization, they say, must be "profound, systemic and
resolute."
The experts say in the report that Russia is steering into stagnation
again, but that stagnation will be the last one, after which the country
is to make a great modernization leap.
"Russia's survival is at stake," the report says. "At least, its
survival as an advanced nation."
This document, forwarded to the president, carries two signatures -
those of INSOR chief Igor Yurgens, who is believed to be a representative
of the liberal wing in the presidential entourage, and economist Yevgeny
Gontmakher. The latter has acknowledged that the proposed changes largely
spell a return to the elements of the political system of the 1990s.
The Institute of Modern Development was set up in 2008 on the basis of
what used to be the Center of Information Society Development. Igor
Yurgens chairs its board.
Dmitry Medvedev is the head of the institute's council of trustees.
INSOR drafts practical recommendations addressed to the president and
government and issues analytical materials for the general public to read
and discuss. Russia's leading experts in the sphere of economics and
politics are its contributors.
The political parties' opinions of the INSOR report are conflicting.
United Russia is firmly against this sort of reforms. On the contrary,
the Fair Russia party and the Liberal Democrats came out in its support.
State Duma members from the United Russia faction have been saying
that the report's ideas may prove a brake on the economy and even push it
back into the 1990s. In particular, United Russia members are firmly
against the idea of restoring direct elections of governors, of reducing
the term of office of the president and State Duma members to five years
and four years respectively, and of doing away with the Interior Ministry,
the GIBDD traffic police and the federal security service FSB.
In contrast to United Russia legislators from the Fair Russia party
have said that the report's ideas basically coincide with those in their
own program, except for Russia's admission to NATO. They like the idea of
a mixed election system and of a lower qualification hurdle.
Experts' opinions vary.
"This report is a description of sweet dreams a majority of the
population definitely shares," the daily Trud quotes the director of the
Public Projects Institute, Valery Fadeyev as saying. "Everybody wants
freedom and wealth."
Fadeyev is certain that the ideas stated in the report have very few
chances of ever being translated into life. His worst doubts, though, are
about the changes to the political system the report describes.
"As a matter of fact, the authors are calling us back into the 1990s.
This is unrealistic. They system is moving on and a pullback is
impossible," he believes.
"The report will prove a theme for heated debate among intellectuals,"
Fadeyev predicts. The think tanks are prepared for this.
"It may prove just a pressure relief valve," says Alexei Malashenko, a
member of the science council at the Carnegie Endowment center.
To Russia's former economics minister in 1992-1993, Andrei Nechayev,
the current president of the Russian Financial Corporation bank, this
report looks "fantastic, a breakthrough and a piece of litmus paper."
Nechayev told the Ekho Moskvy radio station the authors raised the bar
to be negotiated very high to have suggested a genuinely fundamental,
cardinal political reform as a condition for economic modernization.
"I have the impression the top tier of the ruling elite has developed
the awareness that something has got to be changed," he said.
Political scientist Stanislav Belkovsky is quoted by the daily
Kommersant as saying the INSOR's report looks a perfect sample of
"political daydreaming and wishful thinking." As for Western observers,
says Belkovsky, "the report may give them food for several months of
debates over how liberal Medvedev is and to what degree Putin is a
hindrance to him."
"In fact, the question today is about systemic revision of the
political regime," says the chief of the analysis department at the Center
of Political Technologies, Tatyana Stanovaya. The INSOR report, she
recalls on the Politcom.ru website, lists proposals for counter-reforms,
in contrast to the political decisions Putin has made over the eight years
of his two presidencies.
"The tandem is faced with a rather stark choice between two ways of
development. One is that of inertia and retardation. It implies the
preservation of the system that there is and which, on one hand, allows
the semi-authoritarian system to retain power, but which also rules out
competition among development projects and hinders an effective economic
modernization strategy, or makes it impossible to implement. The other is
liberal, based on reform of the political system for the sake of economic
development."
For the authorities, says Stanovaya, there has emerged the problem of
building a hierarchy of priorities. Political stability and mono-centrism,
or initiative and competition. Development "by decree from above", or from
the grass-roots level. Reliance on the national leader, or on institutions
and rules.
"Debates on this theme are very politicized. It is not just an
intellectual game for the powers that be. It is the question of rotation
inside the elite."
"We see the report as the beginning of a very wide discussion with
think tanks, parties and movements that disagree with us," said Yurgens.

-0-str


Delete & Prev | Delete & Next