Oligarchs beat Nazis in Ukraine elections

According to exit polls, here are the (provisional) results of the elections in Banderastan:

Poroshenko: 23%
Iatseniuk: 21%
Self-Help: 13%
Opposition Block: 7%
Liashko: 6%
Tiagnibok: 5%
Timoshenko: 5%

Assuming this is more or less correct, this means that the various oligarch controlled parties (in blue above) have won a strong victory against the various Nazi parties (in red): 44% vs 16%.  Even if we add the Self-Help party to the Nazis, we still get 44% vs 29%.

I think we will have to wait for Wednesday for official and final results.

Kind regards, have a great week.

The Saker

Democracy and the quality of government

by Vladimir Putin

Society cannot have sustainable development without a viable state, and, conversely, genuine democracy is an indispensable condition for building a state that serves the interests of society.

Genuine democracy cannot be produced overnight. You cannot just copy it by reproducing somebody else’s model. Society has to be ready for democratic mechanisms. Most of the people should consider themselves citizens, meaning they should be willing, on a regular basis, to give their attention, their time and their energy to participate in administrative work. In other words, democracy only works when people are willing to invest something in it.

In the early 1990s, our society was inspired by the collapse of the autocratic Soviet one-party system, which was happening before people’s eyes. People were inspired by the transition to democracy, which seemed so near, especially since examples of civilized, mature democracy were so near – in the US and Western Europe. Yet the introduction of democratic forms of governance almost immediately resulted in stopping the necessary economic reforms, and a little later those forms themselves were taken over by local and Moscow-based oligarchic elites, who shamelessly used the state for their private interests and pocketed the wealth that belonged to the people.

I know from experience that even in those days there were many honest and intelligent people in the government. They genuinely cared about the common good. Thanks to them, the state did not perish. Daily problems would be more or less resolved, and some urgent reforms were conducted, even if inconsistently and slowly. But on the whole the system proved to be stronger than they.

As a result, what we got in the 1990s with the supposed coming of democracy was not a modern state. What we got was turf wars between various clans and lots of semi-feudal fiefdoms. Instead of a fundamentally new level of living, we faced tremendous social losses. Instead of a fair and free society, we had the lawlessness of self-appointed “elites,” who openly disregarded the interests of common people. All that has poisoned Russia’s transition to democracy and a market economy, making many Russian people wary of these very concepts – and unwilling to participate in public affairs.

Russian philosopher and jurist Pavel Novgorodtsev gave the following warning back in the early years of the 20th century: “People often think that the proclamation of various freedoms and universal suffrage in itself has some magic power that can set people on a new path. But what it leads to in reality is often oligarchy or anarchy, not democracy.”

In the 1990s, we encountered both anarchy and oligarchy. That period saw the extreme shortage of responsible statesmanship. It would be naïve to think it was all because of greedy oligarchs or dishonest officials. In the early 1990s, our society consisted of people who were free from Communism but had not yet learned to take their lives into their own hands. They still expected the state to take care of them. They often lived in their illusions and did not know how to resist when being manipulated. Because of that, for some time both economic and political affairs were dominated by the improper principle where the more daring people get the lion’s share of the pie.

But our society has passed through a difficult maturation process. This enabled us all to pull our country out of the mire, revive the state and restore the peoples' sovereignty, the foundation of genuine democracy.

I would like to stress that we achieved all this through democratic, constitutional means. The policies we pursued in the 2000s consistently reflected the will of the people. Elections confirmed this time and again. In fact, this was also confirmed by opinion polls between elections.

If we take a look at the list of rights that our people deem essential, the rights they treasure the most are by far the right to work (the possibility to earn a living), the right to free healthcare, the right to education for children. To restore and secure these fundamental rights was the task that the Russian state has been working on. Dmitry Medvedev and myself, as presidents, have been working on that.

Today, our society is very different from what it was in the early 2000s. Many people have become more wealthy, better educated and more demanding. The fact that people expect more from authorities today, and that middle-class people have gone beyond the small universe of building their own prosperity, is a result of our efforts. We have been working towards that goal.

Political competition is the heartbeat of democracy, its driving force. If such competition reflects the real interests of various social groups, it makes the state much, much stronger – in developing the economy, in mobilizing resources for social projects and in securing protection and justice for people.

Today, the quality of our state does not match civil society’s readiness to participate in it. Our civil society has become much more mature, active and responsible. We need to renew the mechanisms of our democracy. They should have the capacity to match increased public activism.

­On developing democracy

­A whole package of proposals for developing our political and party system was submitted to the State Duma recently. They will simplify the procedure for registering a political party; they will waive the requirement to collect signatures in order to participate in State Duma or regional legislative assemble elections; they will reduce the number of signatures one must collect in order to register as a presidential candidate.

The registration procedure, regulations for political parties, electoral techniques – all these things are important, of course. The political climate, just like the investment climate, requires constant improvement. But we should also pay special attention to the way our political mechanism account for the interests of various social groups.

I strongly believe that we do not need the circus of various candidates competing with each other to give more and more unrealistic promises. We don’t need a situation where all that is left of democracy is the façade, where democracy is understood as a one-time entertaining political show and candidates’ casting, where substance is forgotten for the sake of shocking statements and mutual accusations, where real politics is reduced to shady deals and decisions made behind the scenes but never discussed with voters. We should avoid this blind alley. We should resist the temptation to “simplify” politics, to create a false democracy merely to please somebody. Of course, there is always some room for special techniques in politics. This cannot be avoided. But spin doctors and image makers should not control politicians. In fact, I think that our people will not buy that any longer.

We need to tune the mechanisms of our political system in such a way that it will account for, and reflect, the interests of major social groups and publicly reconcile those interests. In addition to providing a legitimate government, our political system should guarantee that people see it as fair – even when they are in the minority.

We need a mechanism that allows people to nominate responsible candidates – professionals who care about national development and who can achieve definite results – for positions at various levels of government. We need a clear, quick and transparent mechanism for preparing, making and implementing both long-term and short-term decisions.

We need to create a political system where it is possible – and necessary – to be honest with people. Whoever offers a solution or a program should be responsible for implementing it. Those who elect decision-makers should realize for whom and what they are voting. This will produce trust, constructive dialogue and mutual trust between society and the government.

­

New mechanisms of involvement

­We need to be able to react to society's needs, which are growing more and more complicated and gaining totally new traits amid the 'data age' we live in.

An enormous and ever-growing number of Russians are getting used to obtaining information instantly, at the push of a button. The free and, more importantly, uncensored accessibility of information on the situation in the country naturally determines the people's demand to be involved in politics and administration permanently, not on an election-to-election basis.

Therefore, today's democracy – as the power of people – cannot be confined solely to going to the polling station, and end there. Democracy, in my view, lies in the fundamental right of a nation to choose its authorities, as well as in being able to constantly influence both the authorities and their decision-making process. Thus, democracy should have mechanisms for direct and constant action and efficient channels for dialogue, public control, communication and feedback.

What is feedback, in practical terms? The ever-increasing quantity of political information should evolve into a quality of political involvement and civil self-government and control. Above all, this means wide discussion of bills, decisions, and programs taken on every level of state power, and the evaluation of existing laws and their efficient application.

Citizens and professional and public unions must be able to 'beta-test' all state documents. Even now, constructive criticisms from professional communities such as businesspeople, teachers or scientists help us avoid poor decisions and find better ones.

For example, last year during the evaluation of the 'regulating impact', carried out jointly with the business community, nearly every other regulatory project was turned down as 'worsening the conditions for Russia's economic development." It is a good thing that such a filter is now in action, and we should make sure it fully encompasses all the spheres that are important for the business community.

The language of legislation must be improved. It should be made at least understandable by those the regulations are aimed at, if not harmonious (in the ancient world, laws would often be written in verse to facilitate memorization). It is important to create user-friendly, interactive interfaces for public authorities' web portals, so that their plans and programs can be fully available, they can be publicly discussed, and their implementation monitored. I would like to ask professional philological communities and web designers to help the state with that. Such a contribution will be greatly appreciated by history.

Next, we must understand that one of the key trends in today's world is the further complication of society, with the needs of various professional and social groups becoming more and more specific. The state has to rise to this challenge to meet the complex social reality. An important measure here is the development of self-regulatory organizations, whose powers and capabilities must grow. On the other hand, those organizations themselves should use the powers they have more actively. I mean, in particular, the right to develop and submit for approval technical norms and national standards in corresponding sectors and professions.

We must avoid the bureaucratization of self-regulatory organizations and prevent them from erecting self-regulatory barriers (mostly in areas where inadmissible risks are absent or where security is already guaranteed through other state-enforced methods of regulation). This demands the total informational openness of SROs and regular public reports to society and market players. I expect self-regulation to become a cornerstone of Russia's strong civil society.

We already publicize proposed laws on the Internet, where everyone can make suggestions or propose amendments. Each is considered, and the best and most relevant ones are included in the final version. This mechanism of collective search for optimal solutions, or crowdsourcing as specialists call it, must become the norm on all levels.

All these steps, however, only help to exercise a passive right, meaning a citizen's right to respond to various ideas and projects proposed by the authorities, who are the only source of legislative initiative in this case. But we need to provide for the active right, which is to give people the chance to shape the legislative agenda by proposing their own bills and expressing their own priorities.

In this regard, I suggest introducing a rule for a mandatory revision in Parliament of those initiatives that collect one hundred thousand or more signatures on the Internet. A similar rule works in the UK, for instance. Certainly the anonymous Internet cannot serve this purpose, even though in a number of instances it helps discover the moods of society. A procedure should be developed for the official registration of those who want to participate in this system.

An Internet democracy should be integrated into the overall development of institutions of the referendum democracy, and it should be particularly extensively applied at the municipal and regional levels. In each municipality, heads and deputies of municipal assemblies shouldn't be the only officials appointed by direct election. Public evaluation should also be given to other officials taking key positions. For instance, district residents should be given an opportunity to express their opinion on the performance of the head of the district police station after his first year of work; whether they want to see this man continue doing his job in their district. The same way, the question should be raised about the head of the local housing and utilities service; and about the justice of the peace, unless he is elected by citizens.

Citizens at the city and municipal levels should be given the opportunity to vote and to bring up their topical problems at local referendums or Internet polls, and pinpoint their issues and ways of resolving them.

Changing the work of public councils in executive authority bodies is an important task. Presently, their operation is rather formal, or demonstrational, plainly speaking. We must give up the departmental approach in establishing these kinds of councils; for instance, their membership should be approved by the Public Chamber of Russia, and for regional bodies, by the corresponding public chambers. Public councils should stop being a convenience for department heads. We should make sure they include truly independent experts and representatives of the NGOs concerned. We should establish a set of standard regulations and programs that cannot be adopted without prior public discussion at the public council. Public councils may be authorized to participate, equally with the corresponding authorities, in the operation of competition and certification commissions, as well as commissions on settling conflicts of interest.

Several words on the prospects of the Electronic Government project. Presently, our citizens have access to all information on political debates in the Parliament, on world markets, and on the marriages and divorces of Hollywood celebrities. What they can't do in the Internet, however, is get data on their utility bills, review their medical files, or find out the name of their district police officer.

The official website on state procurement tenders has already become a powerful counter-corruption mechanism. Many of the state services are now available online, which is good. But most people need information that's relevant for them: on their homes, nearby areas, neighboring parks, schools, or their municipalities.

Particular attention should be paid to the foundation of electronic authorities, namely, websites of municipalities and regions.

I suggest that during this year, the Public Chamber and the Presidential Council on Civil Society and Human Rights develop, discuss publicly, and introduce draft lists of information for customers to be made available obligatorily on the websites of educational and medical institutions.

The Electronic Government project should be aimed more precisely at the needs and requirements of the people. Information on the operation of state and municipal authorities should be disclosed as fully as possible. By means of informational technologies, the state mechanism should be made comprehensive and accessible to the public.

­Local Self-Governance: A School of Democracy

­Alexander Solzhenitsyn wrote on the significance of self-governance: “It is the only format where people would be able to unerringly select nominees they know well, both as professionals and as personalities. False reputations would not stand a chance here, nor would sly rhetoric or partisan recommendations… There can be no decent and sustainable life without a well organized local self-government, and the notion of civil liberty itself would become meaningless.”

This quote conveys a most accurate observation: nationwide democracy stems from democratic localities. Local self-governance educates citizens in responsibility. It is also a kind of a vocational school for aspiring politicians, as it encourages the key skills essential in politics, such as the ability to find common ground and broker a deal with various social and professional groups, to be coherent in communicating your ideas to the public, and to represent and advocate the rights and interests of one’s constituents. I believe that local self-government is exactly where politicians and public executives should get their schooling.

As far as specific measures for enhancing the efficiency of local self-governance are concerned, first of all, local authorities should remain local: that is, municipalities should avoid excessive expansion and ensure that they are easily accessible. Secondly, municipalities should become entirely self-sufficient and autonomous, in financial terms. They should have substantial funding sources to provide for performing their functions and dealing with the day-to-day issues of their constituencies. They need to end their addiction to handouts from higher authorities, which undermines their self-reliance, restrains initiative and encourages a free-rider attitude. In essence, such dependency defeats the very purpose of municipal governance.

In this respect, I suggest that municipalities be entitled to manage all the taxes collected from small businesses, which are currently subject to preferential taxation. Certainly, we will need to find the right balance between the competencies of municipalities and those of regions. Should municipal authorities be provided with greater financial resources, the scope of their responsibilities vis-à-vis their local residents may also be expanded.

Greater economic independence is particularly crucial for large and medium-sized cities. This is where most of the nation’s economic potential and its most enterprising citizens are located. Cities are the powerhouses for economic growth, as well as centers of civic activity. In transferring a great deal of competencies and financial resources from the federal center to the regions, it is important to make sure that this will not result in municipalities being exposed to arbitrary control by senior regional officials.

It is no less important to promote partnership relations between regional governors and mayors, and between regional and municipal legislatures. It is no secret that their relations are often dispute-ridden, and such tensions might escalate once the direct election of governors is introduced. This is especially bound to happen in a situation where a regional government is dominated by one party, and a city administration by another.

We must do away with the practice whereby regional authorities impose certain performance benchmarks for local administrations and make financial support conditional on the latter’s compliance. Municipal administrations should be primarily accountable to their constituents.

Small towns, which are home to a significant share of our population, represent a separate and often a very troubled issue. Such localities often lack sustainable sources of income and are forced to live off subsidies from the regional budget. At the same time, a small township may provide an excellent venue for practicing municipal democracy. People in such localities know each other very well, and all local institutions operate in full public view rather than behind closed doors. I believe we should ensure that such municipalities are provided with lost-standing and stable sources of subsistence, which implies that regional subsidy rates should be stable and known in advance. We must guarantee small townships against a situation where a mayor is predominantly occupied with soliciting money from the regional budget, while the task of assessing the mayor’s performance rests with higher authorities rather than the constituency. Provided that we accomplish this task, we would be able to anticipate the emergence of a new generation of politicians and efficient administrators.

­Russian Federalism

­One of our pivotal tasks in the early 2000s was countering blatant separatism as well as its latent, subtle varieties, along with breaking up the convergence between certain regional authorities and organized crime or nationalist groups. By and large, this mission has been accomplished.

Today, at a new stage of development, we are reintroducing the direct election of governors. At the same time, the President of Russia will retain certain instruments of oversight and management, including the right to dismiss governors. This will enable us to strike the right balance between decentralization and centralism.

The federal center should be capable of both assigning and redistributing competencies. And not only competencies, but also funding sources for municipal and regional budgets. However, we must ensure that the country will not become uncontrollable in the process. Government authority is not to be squandered. It would be unacceptable to mindlessly reshuffle resources and competencies among the various levels of power. Neither centralism nor decentralization should be followed blindly as a fetish.

The distribution of governing competencies among the various levels of power must be based on clear criteria: any specific function shall be assigned to the level of power that is most capable of performing it with the best efficiency and to the greatest benefit of Russia’s citizens, business activity and overall development.

It is also obvious that the trend of consolidating regions within the Federation has not exhausted its potential by a long shot. However, any progress in this area must be expedient and well-advised, with public opinion playing a major role in deliberations.

We should also bear in mind that Russia’s various territories are diverse in terms of social and economic development. They also belong to various cultural environments, which cannot be compared to one another in terms of being “better” or “worse.” People’s lifestyles are determined by their specific traditions, customs and models of behavior. Therefore, we have certain assets of unquestionable value, namely the powerful consolidating factors such as the Russian language, the Russian culture, the Russian Orthodox Church as well as Russia’s other customary religions. And of course, there is the longstanding experience of positive and creative coexistence within a single Russian state, which dates back centuries. This experience proves most evidently that Russia needs a strong, capable and authoritative federal center, which plays a key stabilizing role in the framework of inter-regional, inter-ethnic and inter-religious relations among the various communities that make up our country. With that in mind, it is our historic task to promote Russian federalism to its full potential and provide an enabling environment for the robust development of each region.

­Building a competitive nation

­In today’s globalized world, it’s all about different countries competing for ideas, talent and capital, which in the long run means competing for the future of their nations in the new, global environment that has emerged.

We need to make a shift in the mindset of public service to build a prime competitive environment for living, creating and doing business in Russia. All government agencies and institutions must be geared to this purpose. We must keep in mind that the Russian people, and entrepreneurs in particular, are aware of how things are done in other countries and have the right to go for the best option.

It’s crucial to focus on the following key priorities.

First, we must break the tie-up between power and property and set a clear line of demarcation defining the limits of government involvement in the economy. I mentioned this in my article on the economy.

Second, we should introduce, on a nationwide basis, the best viable practices of the leading nations concerning how their state institutions function. The decision on the adoption of specific patterns should be made with regard to proven effectiveness – they should make applications for government services more comfortable, convenient, and time and cost-efficient. In this regard, we should bring our service standards in line with international benchmarks.

Third, we will promote competition among state managers – governors, mayors and officials – at all levels and whenever it is appropriate. The government should supervise, identify and introduce the best practices of state governance. The best solutions will be widely put in practice at the national level, and – for the notice of voters – at the regional and municipal levels, too.

Fourth, we should switch to next-generation state services – those tailored not to the executor but to the consumer – be it a private firm bringing its goods through customs, a person getting an official paper or a car driver filing an accident report.

Government department and agency web sites should make it clear for people what kind of services such bodies provide, how citizens can access them and what responsibilities each official holds.

Fifth, we have just passed a new law giving us the tools to assess officials’ performance and liability for failure to meet high standards in providing state services to entrepreneurs and other groups. If someone does not abide by the standards, they should be fined. I suggest taking this a step further by toughening the law in terms of punishment – a gross violation or repeated digression from standards should mean disqualification, and the person in question should not only be fired, but also barred from holding a state or municipal office for several years.

Sixth, the challenges of state governance need to be dealt with by public employees with the appropriate qualifications and expertise. We must introduce a new wage system that will be flexible enough to adapt to shifts in the labor market and to changes relevant to specific professions. This is paramount to enhancing the cadres of public officials, attracting new responsible and effective managers.

Seventh, the institution of ombudsmen will be further expanded by making it more professional and to cover more specific areas. I believe that the position of a business ombudsman should be set up in every Russian region.

­We must root out corruption

­Red tape and bureaucracy have never been a source of national pride in Russia. Historians will remember a conversation between Tsar Nicholas I and his chief of secret police Alexander Benckendorf, when the former announced he wanted to stamp out graft, and got the following question in return, “Do you think there will be anyone left around you?”

All talk of corruption in Russia is trivial. In our history, there’ve been attempts to curb corruption through repression. Of course, the fight against bribery relies on repressive measures. But the problem is much more profound – it comes from the lack of transparency and accountability of government agencies to society, which I mentioned earlier, and the poor motivation of public servants. These are the areas that present enormous challenges.

In the turbulent 1990s teenagers dreamed of becoming oligarchs, but now they opt for state official, according to opinion polls. Many view public service as a source of fast and easy cash. If such motivation persists, if people join public service not to serve but to live off it, then any purges would be useless – exposed thieves would be replaced by others.

To get the upper hand in the fight against systemic corruption, we need to divide not just power and property but executive power and the system of checks over it. Political responsibility for the drive against corruption should be shared by the authorities and the opposition.

It would be proper to make legislative changes to how candidates for chairman and auditors of the Audit Chamber are nominated, as well as to the way some members of the Public Chamber are appointed. Candidates must be nominated not by the president, as it is now, but by the Council of the State Duma, with approval of all factions.

I believe it’s high time for members of the State Duma to make the practice of parliamentary investigations an effective procedure.

The fight against corruption must become a national course, not a matter for political speculation, an object of populist statements, political exploitation, a goal of short-term campaigns. Primitive decisions, like a call for mass repressions, are not a solution. Those who cry of rampant corruption and demand retribution fail to comprehend that in a corrupt environment, repression could also become subject to corruption. And the scale would be horrific.

We offer real, systemic solutions that will ensure a far more effective rehabilitation of state institutions and the use of new principles in our staff policy – in the selection and rotation of officials and their compensation. Eventually, our goal is to make reputational, financial and material losses so great that corruption would no longer pay.

I believe we should identify corruption-prone positions both within the executive power and the management of state corporations. An official in charge of such a position should be eligible for a high salary but should agree to absolute transparency. They should declare their expenses and big family purchases, current place of residence, how they pay for vacations, etc. We should consider introducing some of the anti-corruption measures adopted in Europe – they have great expertise in that area.

We can now give a definite reply to Benckendorf’s question – we know who’ll stick around. There are many of them – both within and beyond public service.

There are many professionals who’ve been toiling all their life just for the salary in federal and municipal agencies. They are offended when journalists label every official a corrupt one. Just think of the many people – honest and effective – who are discouraged from public service by such rhetoric.

I believe both society and the mass media should give justice to the group of employees who are honest in performing their work. Public opinion should focus on the cases where there is sufficient evidence of corruption schemes. This will ensure that such court cases are not stuck mid-way.

A real action plan against serious corruption will help us to tackle the petty corruption that people face when dealing with police, courts, housing and utility services, medicine and education.

We will act consistently, reasonably and with determination. We will remove the fundamental causes for corruption and punish particular officials. We will boost motivation for those who want to serve Russia in good faith. We have always had plenty of such people, and they will be given a chance.

We have defeated oligarchy, and we will defeat corruption.

­Reforming the court system

­The main issue lies with the conviction-prone, punitive character of our court system.

We must tackle it by adopting the following steps.

First, we will make justice available to people by introducing administrative proceedings not only for businesses but also to hear disputes between people and officials. According to the spirit and meaning of administrative proceedings, an ordinary person is more vulnerable than the official they are in dispute with, and the burden of proof lies with the administrative agency, not the individual. This is why the practice of administrative proceedings has originally been oriented to protecting the rights of individuals.

Second, social movements will gain the right to file lawsuits to defend the interests of their participants. In this case, an individual can resolve a dispute with a governor, for example, on behalf of a large social organization, not on his own. We will extend the areas where joint lawsuits could be filed by individuals.

Third, arbitration courts now have an open database of all court decisions. We need to set up a similar database for general session courts. We will think about making online broadcasts of court hearings and publications of verbatim records. It help us to assess the performance of every judge and track contradictions in decisions taken on similar cases but involving different parties, and to identify decisions which have not been guided by plain logic. Furthermore, elements of the precedent law will help to ensure the constant evolution of the court system.

Fourth, we need to revive legal journalism to debate the legal issues facing society more widely, to improve the level of legal awareness.

* * *

In conclusion, I would like to underline that our proposals are practical. It’s these solutions that make the power of the people – democracy – a genuine one. It’s these solutions that make public service function in the interests of people. And together, they ensure that Russia and its people enjoy sustainable and successful growth.

source for the English translation: http://rt.com/politics/official-word/putin-article-evolving-democracy-551/

original Russian text: http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/1866753

­Russia: The national question

by Vladimir Putin

For Russia – with its wide range of languages, traditions, ethnicities, and cultures – the national question is, without exaggeration, of fundamental importance. Any responsible politician or public figure must recognize that one of the main conditions of our country’s very existence is civil and interethnic harmony.

We see what is happening in the world, the serious risks that are accumulating. Escalating interethnic and interreligious tensions are today’s reality. Nationalism and religious intolerance are becoming an ideological base for some of the most radical groups and movements – destroying or eroding states, and dividing societies.

The colossal immigration flows – and we have every reason to assume that they will continue to grow – are already being referred to as the new “Great Human Migration”, capable of shifting the familiar structure and image of entire continents. Millions of people, in search for a better life, are leaving regions stricken by hunger and chronic conflict, poverty and social unrest.

Some of the world’s most developed and prosperous countries, which had previously boasted about their tolerance, have come face-to-face with the “intensification of the national question”. And today, one after another, they have had to admit their failure to integrate outside cultural elements into society and ensure a peaceful, harmonious interaction between various cultures, religions, and ethnic groups.

The “melting pot” of assimilation is stalling and smoking, unable to “digest” the growing migration flow. In politics, a reflection of this fact has been “multiculturalism”, which rejects the notion of integration through assimilation. It elevates the “right of minorities to be different” to the absolute and, at the same time, fails to balances this right with civil, behavioral, and cultural obligations with regard to the indigenous population and society as a whole.

In many countries, closed national and religious communities are forming, which not only refuse to assimilate, but will not even adapt. There are neighborhoods and entire cities where generations of immigrants are living on welfare and do not speak the language of the host country. The response to this situation has been a rise of xenophobia among indigenous populations in an attempt to protect their interests, jobs, and social benefits from the “foreign competitors”. People are shocked by the aggressive pressure on their traditions and way of life, and are seriously threatened by the possibility of losing their national identity.

Some respectable European politicians are starting to talk about the failure of the “multiculturalism project”. In order to hold on to their positions, they exploit the “ethnic card” – siding with those whom they had earlier considered marginal and radical. Extremist forces, in turn, are rapidly gaining momentum, making claims to state power. In essence, talk of forced assimilation is being proposed against a background of “aloofness” and sharp tightening of migration regimes. People of different cultures must either “dissolve in the majority” or remain an isolated national minority – albeit with various rights and guarantees. In practice, it means being cut off from the possibility of a successful career. I’ll be frank – it is hard to expect a citizen who has been subjected to such conditions to be loyal to his country.

Behind the “failure of the multicultural project” stands the crisis of the very model of a “nation-state” – a state historically built exclusively on the basis of ethnic identity. And that is a serious challenge which will be faced in Europe and many other regions of the world. 

­Russia as a ‘historic state’

­Despite all the superficial similarities, our situation is fundamentally different. Our national and immigration problems are directly linked to the collapse of the Soviet Union and, in essence, Greater Russia, whose historic foundations were built back in the 18th century. To the subsequent inevitable degradation of state, social, and economic institutions. To the enormous gap in development on the post-Soviet territory. 

Having declared sovereignty 20 years ago, the then-deputies of the RSFSR, amid a fight against the “union center”, launched the creation of “nation-states” – even within the Russian Federation itself. The “union center”, in turn, while trying to put pressure on its opponents, engaged in a behind-the-scenes game with Russian autonomies, promising to raise their “national and statehood identity.” Today, the participants in these processes are pointing the finger at one another. But one thing is clear – their actions led inevitably to disintegration and separatism. They did not have the courage, or the responsibility, or the political will to successfully and insistently defend the territorial integrity of the Motherland. 

That which the initiators of the “sovereignty-related undertakings” had, perhaps, failed to realize, was very clearly and rapidly understood by everyone else – including those living outside of our state. And the consequences were immediate.

After the country’s collapse, we found ourselves on the verge of, and in certain regions, beyond the brink of a civil war, one that was ethnically motivated. With great efforts and great sacrifice, we were able to subdue these flashpoints. But that, of course, does not mean that the problem has been resolved.

However, even at a time when the state, as an institution, was critically weakened, Russia did not disappear. What happened was exactly the process described by Vasily Klyuchevsky, writing about the first Russian revolution: “When the political ties of public order fractured, the country was rescued by the moral will of the people.”

Incidentally, our November 4th holiday – National Unity Day – which some superficially call “the day of victory over the Poles,” is in reality “the day of victory over oneself,” over internal animosity and strife, when classes and nationalities acknowledge themselves as being one community – one nation. We have the right to consider this holiday the birthday of our civil nation.

The historic Russia is neither an ethnic state nor an American “melting pot”, where everyone is, one way or another, an immigrant. Russia emerged and for centuries developed as a multi-ethnic state – a state with an ongoing process of mutual adjustment, mutual understanding, and unification of people through families, friendship and work, with hundreds of ethnicities living together on the same land. The development of these vast territories, which has filled the whole of Russian history, was a collective effort of many nations. Suffice it to say that ethnic Ukrainians live on the territory, stretching from the Carpathians to Kamchatka – just as do ethnic Tatars, Jews, Belarusians…

One of Russia’s earliest philosophical and religious works, The Sermon on Law and Grace, rejects the very theory of a Chosen People and preaches the idea of equality before God. Meanwhile, the Primary Chronicle illustrates the multiethnic nature of the Old Russian state as follows: “Everyone speaks Slavic in the Rus: Polans, Drevlians, Novgorodians, Polochany, Dregovichs, Northerners, Buzhans…But other peoples: Chud, Meria, Ves, Muroma, Cheremis, Mordvins, Perm, Pechera, Yam, Lithuania, Kors, Narova, Livs – these have their own languages…”

It is this special quality of Russian statehood that was outlined in Ivan Ilyin’s works: “Not to eliminate, not to suppress, not to enslave other people’s blood, not to stifle the life of different tribes and religions – but to give everyone breath and the great Russia…to honor all, to reconcile all, to allow everyone to pray in their own way, to work in their own way, and to engage the best in public and cultural development.”

The core, the binding fabric of this unique civilization – is the Russian people, Russian culture. And it is this core that various instigators and our opponents will make every effort to tear out of Russia – with false assertions about Russians’ right to self-determination, “racial purity”, the need to “finish the job of 1991 and complete the destruction of the empire, sitting on the necks of the Russian people” – in order to ultimately force people to destroy their Motherland with their own hands.

I am deeply convinced that attempts to promote the idea of creating a Russian “national” mono-ethnic state contradict our thousand-year-old history. Moreover, it is the shortest path towards the destruction of the Russian nation and Russian statehood – as well as any viable sovereign statehood in our land.

When they start screaming: “Stop feeding the Caucasus,” just wait, as tomorrow a new call will inevitably follow: “Stop feeding Siberia, the Far East, the Ural, Volga, Moscow region…” This is the recipe followed by those who brought the Soviet Union to collapse. As for the infamous idea of national self-determination, which has been speculated on repeatedly by various politicians – from Vladimir Lenin to Woodrow Wilson – while fighting for power and political dividends, the Russian people have long self-determined themselves. Self-determination of the Russian people – a poly-ethnic civilization, held together by a Russian cultural core. This determination has been confirmed many times over by the Russian people – and not in plebiscites or referendums, but with blood. Throughout the entire 1,000 years of history. 

­A shared cultural code

­The Russian experience of national development is unique. We are a multi-ethnic society, but we are one people. This makes our country complex and multidimensional, providing colossal opportunities for development in many areas. However, if a multi-ethnic society is struck by the bacilli of nationalism, it loses its strength and stability. And we must understand the types of far-reaching effects that can come as a result of condoning attempts to incite ethnic strife and hatred toward people with different cultures and different beliefs.

Civil peace and inter-ethnic accord is not a once-established and forever-set-in-stone picture. On the contrary, it is an unending dynamic, a dialogue. It is meticulous work of the state and society, requiring very delicate decisions, balanced and wise policies, capable of ensuring “unity in diversity”. It is necessary to not only adhere to mutual obligations, but also to search for common values. We cannot force people to be together. And we cannot force people to live together because it is convenient, based on weighing the costs and benefits. These “calculations” work until a crisis strikes. And when it does, they start working in reverse. 

The confidence that we can ensure a harmonious development of a multicultural community is based on our culture, history and type of identity.

We recall that many citizens of the Soviet Union who found themselves abroad now call themselves Russian. And they consider themselves as being such regardless of ethnicity. It is also interesting that ethnic Russians have never, not in any emigration, formed stable national diasporas, despite having a significant quantitative and qualitative presence, because our identity has a different cultural code.

Russian people are nation-forming – on the basis of Russia’s existence. The great mission of Russians is to unite and bind our civilization. Language, culture and “universal kind-heartedness,” according to Fyodor Dostoevsky, are what bring together Russian Armenians, Russian Azerbaijanis, Russians Germans, Russian Tatars… Bring them together to form a type of state-civilization that does not have “ethnic persons” and where differentiation between “us and them” is determined by a common culture and shared values. 

This civilizational identity is based on the preservation of a Russian cultural dominance, which flows not only from ethnic Russians, but all carriers of this identity regardless of nationality. This is the cultural code that has, in recent years, been subject to some serious trials, which people have tried and continue to try to break. And it has, nevertheless, prevailed. At the same time, it needs to be nourished, strengthened, and protected.

This is where education can play a great role. Our choice of educational program, the diversity of our education – are our undeniable achievements. But diversity must be based on unshakable values, fundamental knowledge and worldview. The civil goal of education, of the education system, is to give every person sufficient knowledge of the humanities to form the basis of collective self-identity. And this should mainly include an increased role being played in the education process by such subjects as the Russian language, Russian literature, and national history – of course, in the context of the entire wealth of national traditions and cultures.

A movement for the study of the Western cultural canon emerged in some of the leading American universities in the 1920s. Every self-respecting student was supposed to read 100 books from a specially-designed list. Some US universities continue to hold on to this tradition. Our nation has always been a nation of readers. Let’s survey our prominent cultural leaders and compile a list of 100 books that must be read by every Russian high school graduate – and not simply regurgitated in school, but read in their own time. And let’s make the writing of a composition based on those texts a part of the final exam. Or let’s at least give young people an opportunity to display their knowledge and worldview in competitions and contests. 

Similar demands need to be made by the state policy in the field of culture. This applies to such tools as television, cinema, the Internet, and popular culture in general, which shape public opinion and set behavioral examples and norms.

Recall how, with the help of Hollywood, the US shaped the consciousness of several generations – and did so while introducing not the worst-possible values, in terms of national interests and public morality. There is something to learn here.

I’ll stress that no one is encroaching on artistic freedom – I am not talking about censorship or “official ideology,” but about the fact that the state must and has the right to direct its efforts and resources toward the resolution of recognized social and public problems. This includes the establishment of a worldview that binds the nation.

Our nation, where in the consciousness of many there is still an ongoing civil war, where the past is highly politicized and “torn” into ideological quotes (often interpreted by various people as precisely the opposite of what they should mean), requires subtle cultural therapy. A cultural policy that, on various levels – from school subsidies to historic documentation – would form an understanding of the unity of the historic process that would allow representatives of every ethnicity – as well as descendants of a “red commissioner” or a “white officer” – to find their place, to feel equal heirs of the “one for all” controversial, tragic, but great history of Russia.

We need a national policy strategy based on civil patriotism. Any person living in our country should not forget their faith and ethnicity. But before anything else, he must be a citizen of Russia and be proud. No one has the right to put ethnic and religious considerations above the state laws. However, the state laws need to take into account ethnic and religious considerations.

I believe that, within the federal government, there needs to be a special structure responsible for issues concerning national development, inter-ethnic harmony, and inter-ethnic reciprocity. Today, these problems are handled by the Ministry of Regional Development and, with the myriad of current tasks, are often relegated to second or even third place – and this situation needs to be corrected.

It doesn’t have to be a standard agency. Rather, it could be a collegial body that works directly with the country’s president, the head of the government, and has a certain amount of authority. National policy cannot be developed and implemented exclusively in the cabinets of officials. National and community organizations must be directly involved in its discussion and formation.

And, of course, we are counting on an active involvement in this dialogue of Russia’s traditional religions. The foundations of the Christian Orthodox Church, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism – with all of their differences and peculiarities – include basic, shared moral, ethical, and spiritual values: compassion, reciprocity, truth, justice, respect for elders, family and work values. These value systems cannot be replaced by anything: and we need to reinforce them.

I am confident that the state, society, should welcome and support the work of Russia’s traditional religions in the system of education and information, in the social sphere, and in the Armed Forces. At the same time, the secular nature of our state must, of course, be preserved.

­National policy and the role of strong institutions

­Systemic problems in society are often expressed in the form of inter-ethnic tensions. We should always keep in mind that there is a direct correlation between unresolved socio-economic problems, flaws in the law enforcement system, government inefficiency, corruption, and ethnically-motivated conflicts. If we look at the history of all the recent inter-ethnic incidents, we will notice this “trigger” in practically all of the cases: Kondopoga, Manezh Square, Sagra. 

Everywhere we are seeing a keen response to the absence of justice, the lack of responsibility and inaction of certain state representatives, impunity for criminals and disbelief in equality before the law, the conviction that everything can be bought and there is no truth.

When we start talking about infringement of the rights of Russians in Russia, and especially on Russia’s historic territories, this indicates that the government structures are failing to perform their direct obligations – to protect the rights, life and safety of citizens. And because the majority of these citizens are Russian, it becomes possible to focus on the subject of “national oppression of Russians” and cover this justified public outcry in the most primitive and vulgar form of inter-ethnic violence, while at the same time, on every possible occasion, wailing about “Russian fascism”.

We need to be aware of the risks and threats that the situations on the verge of ethnic conflicts entail. Law enforcement and government agencies, whose negligence caused ethnic tensions, must be punished, no matter how high the rank or standing of the people involved.

The range of suitable approaches is not that big. Do not assume anything, do not jump to conclusions. We need to carry out a careful investigation of what is at the core of the problem, what are the accompanying circumstances, and settle the conflict in each individual case of hate crime. Unless there are some specific circumstances, all such cases must be processed publicly because lack of transparency encourages the spread of rumors that often aggravate the situation. In this respect, high professional standards and a responsible attitude on the part of the mass media are of paramount importance.

There is no room for dialogue amidst riots and violence. No one should be tempted to pressure the authorities into specific decisions by means of civil disorders. Our law enforcement agencies have proven that they are capable of easily and efficiently suppressing any attempts at doing that.

Another important point is that we have to develop our multi-party democratic system. We are now working on measures aimed at simplifying and liberalizing the procedures of registration and work for political parties. We are working on the initiative to return the elections of regional governors. All of these things are necessary and correct steps. But there is one thing we cannot allow and that is the creation of regional parties, even in national republics. That is a direct path toward separatism. This requirement should certainly apply to the election of regional heads – those who try to rely on nationalist, separatist and similar forces and groups must be immediately, within the framework of democratic judicial procedures, excluded from the electoral process. 

­Migration and our Integration Project

­Today, people are concerned with – or to put it straight – annoyed by the many troubles caused by mass migration, be it from other countries or different parts of Russia. Now, with the Eurasian Union project underway, people are worried that it could increase the flow of migrants and, correspondingly, aggravate existing problems. I believe we must make our position on the issue clear.

Firstly, it’s obvious that we need to revamp the government’s migration policy. And that’s something we are going to deal with.

No country in the world has been able to eliminate illegal migration completely, but it should – and can – be curbed. This is why we need to expand the relevant powers of the police and migration agencies.

However, simply tightening the screws on migrants won’t solve the problem. In many countries, such crackdowns only spur the flow of illegal migration. The principal measure of migration policy is not its toughness, but its effectiveness.

In this regard, we must clearly define our policy concerning legal migration, both temporary and permanent. This implies that the authorities should give priority and grant favored status to those migrants who are highly-qualified, competent, competitive, and are able to adapt both to the local culture and new standards of behavior. Such positive selection procedures and competition for the quality of migrant workers are common to all countries.

Of course, migrants that meet these requirements are easier and better integrated into the recipient society.

Secondly, migration within the country is very high. A lot of people leave their homes to study, live and work in other parts of Russia, in big cities. These are citizens of Russia enjoying full civil rights.

However, if you come to a region with different cultural and historical traditions, you must show respect for the local customs, for the customs of Russians or any other nation living within the country. Any other behavior – inappropriate, aggressive, outrageous or disdainful – must be tackled by a legal but tough response, first and foremost, by the local authorities who today very often neglect the situation. We need to revise the Administrative and Criminal Codes to toughen punishment for such behavior and introduce criminal responsibility for violations of migration regulations and registration rules. Sometimes it’s enough to warn a person. But if the warning is backed up by a specific regulation it will be more effective and properly interpreted – not as a private opinion of some police officer or official, but as a requirement set forth by the law equal to all people.

Of course, there should be civilized norms even for internal migration. It’s vital for the harmonious development of social infrastructure, medicine, education and the labor market. Many regions and cities which have attracted a lot of migrants are suffering from an overload in these areas. This makes the situation complicated both for the locals and the newcomers. This is why we must toughen both our registration rules and the penalties for their violation. But in doing so, we should not undermine people’s constitutional right to choose their place of residence.

Thirdly, we must bolster our judicial branch and make our law enforcement agencies work effectively. This is of paramount importance not just in tackling the issue of foreign migrants, but, in our case, in dealing with internal migration from the republics of North Caucasus. Without these pillars, we will never be able to reconcile the interests of different societies objectively (both the in-group and the out-group) and foster a perception of migration as something safe and fair.

Also, inefficiency and corruption in both the police and the courts will always result in the twin problems of growing discontent and radicalization of the host society, as well as encouraging mob behavior and a shadow black economy in the migrant community.

We must prevent the formation of isolated ethnic enclaves which, instead of being subject to federal law, are often ruled by their own set of codes. It’s the rights of the migrants themselves that will be abused in this case, both by their own underworld bosses and by corrupt officials.

It is corruption that gives rise to crimes committed by certain ethnic groups. In legal terms, crime groups built on ethnic or tribal principles are no different from regular mobs or gangs. However, our current situation is such that these ethnic criminal groups have become more than just an organized crime problem, they have become an issue of national security. And this is something we need to address.

The fourth problem is that of civilized integration and socialization of the migrants. This requires again addressing our education process. And by this I mean not so much adjusting our education system to help us solve migration policy issues (this being far from the most important task for our schools) as boosting overall education standards in the country.

Increasing the attractiveness and value of proper education is a powerful driving force that can encourage migrants to integrate effectively into the recipient society, while low-quality education cements a tendency for isolation and distancing of the migrant communities that can become a long-term tradition, spanning several generations.

It is important to us to provide appropriate conditions for migrants to adapt in society. It is elementary that people who want to live and work in Russia should be willing to learn the Russian language and assimilate into Russia's culture. Exams in Russian, Russian history, Russian literature and the basics of Russian law should be made compulsory for the granting or extension of migrant status. Like other civilized nations, Russia is ready to put forward learning programs for migrants. In a number of cases, we will need auxiliary professional training programs paid for by the migrants' employers.

My fifth suggestion is to curb chaotic migration from post-Soviet states by means of regional integration.

It has been noted before that the main factor driving mass migration in our region are the hugely unequal levels of development of post-Soviet countries. Understandably, a sensible way to curb migration, if not eliminate it completely, would be to eliminate social inequality. A large number of leftist humanitarian activists in the West have spoken in favor of this method. Regrettably, on a global scale, this ethically irreproachable idea looks like a utopia.

Nothing is stopping us from implementing this idea in our own region, however. One of the main purposes of Eurasian integration is to create decent living conditions in post-Soviet states for millions of their people to prosper.

We understand that it is poor economic situations which force migrants to leave their homes and work in uncivilized conditions to support themselves and their families.

From this standpoint, the goals we have set for Russia (a new economy with an effective employment system, revival of professional communities, proportional development of productive forces and social infrastructure across the whole country), and the goals of Eurasian integration are key to bringing migration flows under control. On the one hand, migrants will move where they will cause minimal social tensions. On the other hand, we should provide for a comfortable and decent life in their home cities and settlements. What we should do is to give people the chance to work and live normally at home, in their Motherland – a chance that most of them are currently deprived of. There are no simple solutions for national and ethnic policies. Their components are scattered across all areas of life, and of the state and society – the economy, the social sphere, education, politics and international affairs. We should build a model of state and civilized society that would be equally attractive and comfortable for everyone who calls Russia their Motherland.

We see what is to be done next. We understand that we have a historical experience that no one else has. We can rely on our mentality, our culture, our identity – it’s a unique and powerful foundation.

We will be strengthening the “historic state” that we inherited from our ancestors – a state and a civilization that can solve the task of harmonizing different ethnic and religious groups successfully.

We have been living together for centuries. Together, we won the most terrible war. And we will continue to live together. To those seeking to divide us, I say: “Don’t waste your time.”

source: http://rt.com/politics/official-word/migration-national-question-putin-439/

original Russian text: http://www.ng.ru/politics/2012-01-23/1_national.html

Russia muscles up – the challenges we must rise to face

by Vladimir Putin

On March 4, the people of Russia will be going to the polls to elect a president of the country. Extensive discussions are currently underway across society.

I consider it necessary to state my position on a number of issues which seem to be important in this broader debate: the risks and challenges Russia will, inevitably, encounter. The position we must take in global politics and the world economy. Will we follow the course of events or take a role in setting the rules of the game? What resources will help us to strengthen our positions and, I stress, ensure stable development? The kind of development that is a world away from stagnation. Because, in the modern world, stability is an asset that can only be secured and earned through persistent effort, by being open to change and being ready to carry through developed, well thought-out, considered reforms.

A recurring problem in Russian history has been the elites’ desire to achieve sudden change, a revolution rather than sustained development. Meanwhile, both Russian and global experience demonstrates how harmful these sudden historical jolts can be: jumping the gun, destroying – not creating.

This is balanced by a different trend, a diametrically opposed challenge –in the form of a certain inclination to inertia, dependency, the elites’ uncompetitiveness and high levels of corruption. And in every case these “rebels” turn into the “smug upper classes” before our very eyes, resisting any change and fervently protecting their status and privileges. Or we witness the reverse process – as the established elites become rebels.

Consequently, politics and policies are short-termist and limited by issues involving the current preservation or re-division of authority and property.

This situation has historically resulted from weak public control over policymakers in Russia, its underdeveloped civil society. Things are gradually improving there, but only very slowly as yet.

There can be no real democracy until politics is embraced by the majority of the population, until it reflects the interests of this majority. True, it is possible to win over a considerable part of society for a short time with catchy slogans and visions of a brighter future; but if people later simply cannot picture themselves in this future – they will turn away from politics and social challenges for a long time to come. This has happened time and again in our history.

Today people talk about different ways to reinvigorate the political process. But what is up for discussion? How state power should be structured? Handing it to the “better people”? But what next? What then?

I am worried that there is virtually no broader discussion of what should be done beyond the elections, after the elections. To my mind, this is not in the national interests; it is not in the interests of the quality of society’s development, the standard of education and levels of responsibility.

I think Russians should be able to discuss not only the advantages and disadvantages of individual politicians, which is clearly in itself no bad thing, but also the actual content of the policies and programmes which various political leaders intend to implement. The challenges and goals which must be at the forefront of these programmes. How we can improve our life and make our social system more just. What avenues of social and economic development we should favour.

We need a broad dialogue – about the future, about priorities, long-term choices, national development and national prospects. This article is an invitation to join just such a dialogue.

Where we are and where we’re headed

In terms of the basic parameters of social and economic development today’s Russia has emerged from the deep recession which followed the collapse of totalitarian socialism and the ensuing downfall of the Soviet Union. Despite the 2008-2009 crisis, as a result of which we “lost” a whole two years, we have attained and surpassed the living standard indices reported in the best years of the USSR. For example, life expectancy in Russia now is higher than in the Soviet Union in 1990-1991.

Our economy is growing – and this is above all about people, their work, their incomes, their new opportunities. Compared with the 1990s, poverty is down by more than 150%. “Areas of stagnant poverty”, when active and employable people could not find jobs or were not paid for months, are essentially a thing of the past. Independent studies show that four out of five Russians have incomes higher than in 1989 – the “peak” of development of the USSR – which was followed by the decline and imbalance of the country’s entire socio-economic organism. Over 80% of Russian families today consume more than their Soviet counterparts did. The availability of domestic appliances has grown by 50%, reaching the level of developed economies. One in two families has a car – a three-fold rise. Housing conditions have palpably improved. Both the statistical average individual and Russian pensioners now consume more basic foods than they did in 1990.

But what is particularly important is that over the past 10 years Russia has produced a considerable segment of the population – people who in the West are called the middle classes. Their incomes allow them a certain freedom in what they choose to spend and what to save, what to buy and how to spend their holidays. They can afford to be choosy over where they work and have some savings under their belt.

Lastly, the middle classes are people who can choose politics. As a rule, their education is such that they can take a discriminating attitude to candidates rather than “voting with their heart.” In short, the middle classes have begun shaping their real demands in various fields.

In 1998, they made up between 5% and 10% of the population – less than in the late USSR. Now the middle classes are estimated to constitute between 20% and 30% of the population. These are people whose earnings are three times as high as the average wage or salary in 1990.

These middle classes must continue to expand. They must become a social majority in our society; to recruit members from among those who really are the lifeblood of the country – doctors, teachers, engineers, and skilled workers.

Russia’s main hope lies with the high educational standards of the population and above all of its youth. This is the case – despite the obvious problems with and complaints about the quality of the country’s educational system.

As many as 57% of people aged 25 to 35 in Russia have a higher education – a level seen in just three other countries: Japan, South Korea and Canada. This explosive growth in demand for educational requirements is continuing: the next generation (15- to 25-year-olds) will likely be one of universal higher education – as more than 80% of young people will either be in the process of attaining, or will have completed courses of higher education.

We are entering a wholly new social reality. The “educational revolution” is fundamentally altering the key features of Russian society and the Russian economy. Even if our economy does not require that many workers with higher education at the moment – there is no going back. People should not have to adapt themselves to the existing economic and labour market structure – it is the economy that must change so as to enable people with a high educational standards and high requirements to find a worthy occupation.

Russia’s main challenge is learning to exploit the “educational drive” of this younger generation, to mobilise the middle class’s enhanced demands and its readiness to assume responsibility for its own welfare in order to guarantee economic growth and the country’s continued stable development.

Better educated people mean a longer life span, less crime, less antisocial behaviour, and more rational options. All of this – in and of itself – is creating a favourable background for our future.

But this is not enough.

The steady growth in Russia’s wealth in the past decade has largely been due to government policy, including a more rational distribution of the country’s commodity earnings. Oil revenues were used to boost people’s incomes – to pull millions out of poverty. We have also ensured that the country had rainy-day savings to support it through crises or disasters. But the potential of our commodity-based economy is becoming depleted, and what’s more, it has no strategic future.

The goal of diversifying the economy and creating new growth sources has been included in our programmes and policy documents as early as 2008.

An innovation-based economy needs to be built for the sake of all educated and responsible citizens, whether they are professionals, business leaders or consumers.

As many as 10-11 million young people will become economically active over the next decade, about 8-9 million of them with university degrees. Today, some 5 million university graduates are not satisfied with their incomes and jobs, and the lack of career growth prospects. Another 2-3 million people employed by public services and agencies wish to find new jobs. In addition, 10 million people are employed by companies that use obsolete technology and equipment. Older technology should become history, and not just because it is not competitive. In some cases it is simply hazardous for a worker’s health or for the natural environment.

In this context, the talk of 25 million new innovation-based high-tech jobs for educated Russians is not just phrase-mongering. It is a vital necessity, a required minimum that should be achieved. This national priority should become the focus of state policy and of business strategy. The country’s business climate should be improved in this respect.

I am confident that Russia’s current and future workforce potential is high enough to provide strong global competition. Russia’s future economy should also meet society’s needs. It should ensure higher incomes and create broader opportunities for professional growth and social improvement.

All the above should become the key growth criteria in the next few years, and not just figures such as GDP, international reserves, rating agencies’ assessments and Russia’s high rank among the world’s leading economies. It is of primary importance that people feel some positive change, mainly growing opportunities.

At the same time, individual initiatives should be the real drivers of growth. We will fail if we rely exclusively on government decisions and on a limited circle of investors and state companies. We are certain to fail if Russians at large remain passive.

Therefore, strong growth in Russia over the next decade implies greater freedom for each of us. Wealth sourced from others, without conscious decision-making and responsibility is out of the question in the 21st century.

There is one more challenge we are facing. Generalities about the benefits of accord or charity are rhetoric that often disguises a lack of trust among our people, their reluctance to make efforts for the public good, to look out for each other and to sacrifice private interests. This is an old and serious ailment in Russian society.

Russian culture includes a longstanding tradition to respect the state, public interest and the nation’s needs. An absolute majority of Russians wants to see their country strong and powerful and it respects national heroes who have given their lives for the greater good. Unfortunately, their pride in their motherland or their patriotic feelings rarely gets reflected in their daily activities such as participation in local policy-making, legal advocacy or real charity.

As a rule, this behaviour is not due to indifference or selfishness. In fact it reflects a lack of self-confidence or distrust of others.

Still, even that has slowly started changing. People have started to do more than make demands of the authorities, however justified they might be. They are taking on important tasks like neighbourhood improvement, supporting people with disabilities, helping those in need, organising leisure activities for children and so on.

In 2012, the government will begin to support these initiatives. Federal and regional programmes have been adopted to support social NGOs. These programmes will be expanded in the future. However, for these programmes to work, we need to overcome state officials’ die-hard prejudice against public activists. This prejudice in fact reflects the officials’ reluctance to share resources, a desire to avoid competition and responsibility for the outcome.

In fact religion – the widespread faiths such as Orthodox Christianity, Islam, Judaism and Buddhism – plays a valuable role in serving the people, in overcoming discord, in boosting trust and willingness to peacefully resolve conflicts that are bound to arise in a fast growing society. Large and important contributions can and must be made by schools and the media, TV and the internet communities.

A society of independent individuals is not the same as a crowd of lonely mercenary egotists indifferent to the public good. We have never been such a people and never will be. Personal freedom is productive only if one looks out for others. Freedom which is not based on morality turns into anarchy.

Trust among people only develops in a society knitted together by shared values and priorities, one where people have not lost their faith, integrity or sense of what is fair. Respect for the law only emerges where the law applies to all, is observed by all and when it is based on truth.

A social portrait of our future would be incomplete without mentioning one crucial element: 10%-11% of our countrymen are living below the poverty line, for a variety of reasons. We have to solve this problem by the end of the decade. We have to overcome poverty, it is unacceptable for a developed country. We must harness the resources of the state and the efforts of most active, committed part of society. We need to ensure that social assistance reaches those who need it and support charitable movements.

Russia must develop a system of social mobility that allows people to climb out of poverty, a system appropriate to a modern society. We must learn to compensate for the negative social consequences of a market economy and the inequality engendered by it, just like other countries with a long-established tradition of capitalism have learned to do. This assistance includes helping children from poor families receive education, providing social housing to low-income families, ending discrimination against people with disabilities and securing them equal access to life essentials and good jobs. Our society will become successful only when our citizens become convinced that it is a fair society.

New stage of global development

The global crisis that erupted in 2008 has affected everyone and has forced us to reassess many things.

Everyone knows that the economic storm was caused not only by cyclical factors and failures of regulation. The root of the problem lies in the accumulated imbalances, which led to a dead-end development model based on unrestrained borrowing, living on credit, sacrificing the future, and on virtual rather than real, values and assets. What is more, the prosperity generated in this model has been distributed among individual countries and regions extremely unevenly. It also undermines global stability, provokes conflicts and reduces the international community’s ability to come to an agreement on the critical, fundamentally important issues.

Phoney principles are developing not only in the economy, but also in politics and the social sphere. The crisis in the developed countries has exposed a dangerous and, in my opinion, purely political trend: a reckless, populist build-up of state social obligations without any connection to the growth of labour productivity, and the engendering of social irresponsibility in some sections of the population. But it is now becoming clear to many that the age of prosperity created by other people's efforts is coming to an end.

No one will be able to live beyond their means. This requirement fully applies to Russia as well.

We have not made empty promises. Our economic policy was well thought out and prudent. Before the crisis, we grew our economy substantially, repaid our debts, increased people’s real incomes and created reserves that allowed us to survive the crisis with minimal impact on people’s living standards. Moreover, we were even able to increase pensions and other social payments considerably during the height of the crisis. Many, particularly those in the opposition camp, urged us to hurry to spend our oil revenues. What would have happened to pensions had we listened to these populists?

Unfortunately, we heard a lot of populist rhetoric during the recent parliamentary election campaign, and we are likely to hear it again during the presidential campaign, from people who have no hope of winning the elections and are therefore free to make promises they will not have to fulfil. I tell you frankly that we must continue to make aggressive use of all available opportunities for improving people’s lives. But as before, we must not act randomly, so that we will not suddenly be faced with the need to take back from the people much more than we so freely handed out to them in the first place, as has happened in some Western countries.

It should be said that the current global imbalances are on such a large scale that they cannot be dealt with within the framework of the existing system. It is true that market fluctuations can be overcome. Most countries have set out a range of tactical measures to respond to the acute manifestations of the crisis, with varying degrees of success.

But speaking in a deeper, longer-term sense, we must admit that the current problems have nothing to do with market volatility. By and large, what the world is facing today is a systemic crisis, a tectonic process of global transformation. It is a visible manifestation of our transition to a new cultural, economic, technological and geopolitical era. The world is entering a period of turbulence, which will be prolonged and painful. We should not be under any illusions.

The end result of the system that has developed in the 20 years since the collapse of the Soviet Union, including the phenomenon of unilateralism, is also obvious. The former single centre of power can no longer maintain global stability, while the new centres of influence are not yet ready to take over. Global economic processes and the military political situation have become increasingly unpredictable and should be dealt with through the confident and responsible cooperation of states, primarily the permanent members of the UN Security Council and the G8 and G20 countries. We must keep working to overcome mutual suspicion, ideological prejudices and short-sighted self-interest.

Instead of boosting development and stabilising the global economic system, the world’s largest economic centres are creating an increasing number of problems and risks. Social, ethnic and cultural tensions are growing rapidly. Destructive forces have strengthened dramatically and have shown their aggressive nature in some parts of the world, ultimately threatening global security. The countries that are using military force to “export democracy” often become allies of these destructive forces.

Even the noblest of intentions cannot justify the violation of international law and state sovereignty. Moreover, experience shows that, as a rule, the initial objectives are not achieved, and the whole venture proves substantially more costly than anticipated.

Given this environment, Russia can and must play a role predicated upon its civilisation model, its great history, geography and its cultural ‘genome’ that organically combines the fundamental principles of European civilisation and many centuries of cooperation with the East, where new centres of economic and political influence are rapidly emerging.

How does Russia perceive the upcoming age of global transformation?

In the 1990s, the country experienced the profound shocks of collapse and degradation, which cost society dear. Inevitably, given the context - statehood atrophied. Indeed, we came close to breaking point. The very fact that several thousand guerrillas were able to attack a country that boasted a one-million strong army – even if they were supported by certain external powers – demonstrates the tragedy of that situation. Too many people believed we could be completely destroyed.

There was a message the FSB intercepted that I remember very well. It was sent by one of the most heinous and murderous international terrorists responsible for the deaths of our people in the North Caucasus – Khattab – to his foreign accomplices. He wrote, “Russia is weak as never before. Now we have our one and only chance to take the North Caucasus away from the Russians.” But the terrorists miscalculated. Russia’s armed forces, supported by the Chechens and other peoples of the Caucasus, defended the country’s territorial inviolability and the unity of the Russian state.

We needed, however, gargantuan efforts and resources to lift the country out of that hole, to restore Russia’s geopolitical status, to rebuild its social system and revive the economy. We restored basic state governance.

We had to restore the authority and power of the state itself. We had to recreate, despite the absence of deep-rooted democratic traditions, popular political parties and a mature civil society, while at the same time locking horns with regional separatism, the dominant influence of oligarchs, corruption and sometimes government bodies’ overt links with the criminal underworld.

Given those circumstances, restoring national unity, which meant establishing Russian sovereignty rather than the pre-eminence of particular individuals or groups, became the priority.

Few people now remember how difficult it was, and how much effort that decision took. Few now recall that in late 1990s, the most reputable experts and many international leaders foresaw one future for Russia: bankruptcy and breakup. The picture of Russia today – seen through the prism of the 1990s – would seem overoptimistic and even unbelievable.

But in fact this ‘forgetfulness’ and society’s readiness to embrace the highest standards in terms of quality of living and democracy – are the best signs of our success.

The country was able to weather the global crisis precisely because of the fact that, in recent years we all, the people of Russia, went such a long way to solving the most pressing and top priority issues. And now we are even in a position to speak about strategies and prospects.

The recovery period is now over. The post-Soviet phase of Russian and global history has now come to a close.

All the prerequisites for progress are in place, with new foundations and at a qualitatively new level. Incidentally, all this -- in the harsh foreign policy and foreign economic conditions. Nevertheless, the inexorable global transformation offers us a tremendous opportunity.

I would like to repeat, once again, why I agreed to stand for presidential election in 2012. I am not going to belittle anyone’s merits in forming this country anew. Many people were involved. But the fact remains that in 1999, when I became prime minister, and later president, our country was in the grips of a severe systemic crisis. And that team of like-minded individuals that your humble servant, the author of these lines, was to form and lead, enjoying majority public support and confident in national unity around our common objectives, helped deliver Russia from the blind alley of civil war, break the back of terrorism, restore the country’s territorial integrity and constitutional order, and spark economic revival – giving us a decade distinguished by one of the world’s fastest economic growth rates and real income growth for the general public.

Now we can see what was successful, what needs improvement, and even what needs to be dismissed.

I see our goal in years to come as sweeping away all that stands in the way of our national development, completing the establishment in Russia of a political system, a structure of social guarantees and safeguards for the public, and an economic model that together form a single, living, ever-changing organism of state that is, at the same time, resilient, stable and healthy. One that is able to guarantee Russia’s sovereignty, and prosperity for our great nation’s citizens, in the decades to come. To defend justice and the dignity of every single individual. Truth and trust in the relationship between the state and society.

A great many issues remain unresolved. New difficult challenges will continue to arise, but we are in a position to use them for the benefit of Russia.

Russia is not the kind of nation to shirk a challenge. Russia muscles up, gathers its strength and responds appropriately to any challenge. Russia comes through any ordeal and is always victorious. We have a new generation of creative and conscientious people who have a vision of the future. They are already taking the lead in industries and businesses, government bodies, and the country as a whole, and will continue to do so.

How we respond to the challenges of the day, how we use this chance to become stronger and reinforce our status in this rapidly changing world is up to us.

In the coming weeks, I will present more detailed statements on this for public discussion.

source: http://premier.gov.ru/eng/events/news/17755/

original Russian text: http://er.ru/news/2012/1/16/putin-rossiya-sosredotachivaetsya-vyzovy-na-kotorye-my-dolzhny-otvetit/