— 03.02.2012 12:54 —
	Sincerely confusing Putin didnt have any luck with his economic article in Vedomosti newspaper. It wasnt understood. His economic manifesto was meant to be liked by everyone, but was unsuccessful http://www.gazeta.ruopinions/2012/02/03/a_3985585.shtml

Tweet

Publish in LJ

close

Copy and paste the html-code below:

<h1><a href="http://en.gazeta.ru/opinions/2012/02/03/a_3985585.shtml" title="Go to «Sincerely confusing»">Opinions: Sincerely confusing</a></h1> <a href="http://en.gazeta.ru/opinions/2012/02/03/a_3985585.shtml" title="Go to «Sincerely confusing»"> <img src="http://img.gazeta.ru/files3/601/3985601/TASS_2488254-pic4-452x302-81083.jpg" alt="Sincerely confusing — Gazeta.Ru "> <p>Putin didnt have any luck with his economic article in Vedomosti newspaper. It wasnt understood. His economic manifesto was meant to be liked by everyone,...</p> </a>

HTML

Print

Putin didn't have any luck with his economic article in Vedomosti newspaper. It wasn't understood. His economic manifesto was meant to be liked by everyone, but was unsuccessful among common people, economists and literature connoisseurs.

People didn't read it: it was too long and too boring. Economists laughed at the messy cocktail of left and liberal recipes and refusal to apologize for the bureaucratic fantasies of past years. Literary critics smashed the article as fiction. Bad composition, sloppy language, repeated language. In short, not Shakespeare.

But Putin likes his article, he thinks it's important and probably even profound. As for the long paragraphs, logical errors and repetitions, they are integral parts of his style, a direct proof of his authorship.

Some drafts of this article may have been written by other people, but the final outlook is definitely Putin's work.

Despite all the shabbiness of the way it's written, this article is not empty. It has a message, and a very sincere one. Moreover, it's not a message to everyone, but only to the clever readers, intellectuals, whom Putin addresses as an intellectual himself in the very highbrow newspaper Vedomosti.

What is this article about? Let's discard the first half, where Putin sums up his achievements of previous years and digresses on irrelevant topics. All the important things are in the second half where, under pretence of discussion of future plans, our №1 candidate tells which economic situations he's ready to face and about which he tries not to think about. These confidential stories are the most interesting part of this article.

The Russian economic problems which Putin is ready to face are many-layered, of which he picks out two.

The first layer – everything connected to the huge government sector, created by Putin himself during the fat years and managed by his friends. This sector is backwards, archaic, and unprofitable. It is the subject of ever increasing criticism and demands more and more money from the government.

But Putin's friends are there, Putin is not going up against them.

So all the state sector measures he announces are perceived as either profitable or at least tolerable for its managers.

The statement that the government sector remains huge and the government decides which industry to develop and which not to, is the central thesis of an article.

This is simultaneously a guarantee for government oligarchs, and a manifestation of Putin's personal management preferences. The addition – a long treatise on management improvement, innovation encouragement, breakthrough into the first rows of humanity and even a new frugal, competitive and 'kickback-less' approach of state acquisitions is just an acceptable dressing to the main course, added so that the public ate it. Suddenly, he found out that the public still doesn't like what it was served, but it's not Putin's fault. He thought it would serve as the modernization sauce.

Privatization of some part of government sector, promised for some reason by 2016, a year seemingly picked at random – is the continuation of the said topic, not a transition to free enterprise ideology. It's clear that the main proprietors of state assets to be sold will be the same people that manage them now. And there's another sauce here: the promise that "together with Russian capital" some global investors will take part in this privatization. This is both politically correct and realistic: the friendship between Russian state-owned companies with carefully selected "global investors" is a known fact.

Later, moving from state sector to private sector problems, Putin changes the language from state capitalist to liberal. Some people find it intolerably eclectic, but it's much easier than that. These are other interests, other requests, and thus another style of promises.

Let's say that some part of large property owners are anxious for the assets they acquired in the 90's. Putin makes them understand that he probably won't take them away. Is it nice? Yes, but not for many. Too many others, we can even say, for all businessmen, from the smallest to the largest, a marvelous liberal program was shown.

This is not just a favorable business climate. It'll work out even better. "We need to change the state itself, the executive and judiciary branches of power…" the power machine will be different, in no way similar to the current one: tactful, serving, even kind, up to the exclusion of "all the legislative catches that allow turning a business case into a criminal case against one of its participants".

One phrase in the article saying that during Medvedev's presidency "the reforms were started, and aimed to improve the business climate, but there was no noticeable change" is interpreted as a light kick to the departing throne warmer. But this is also key to the planned strategy in this area. Progressive reforms will continue, nobody is going to put a stop to them, there is nothing to fret about.

While the liberal words will continue successfully, there still won't be any "noticeable changes". Why should there be?

Who would abandon their business leverage? This leverage is the main Putin's asset, he won't abandon it voluntarily.

These are the economical intentions proclaimed by the main presidential candidate. The wish to please all classes of thinking public wasn't fulfilled. But Putin managed to speak sincerely. One only needs to read exactly what is written, not to try to find a nonexistent ideology where interests, affections and bias rule. Thus, one can find out that there's no eclectics in this economic manifesto. It is fully congruent. To friends – almost everything, to the others – promises of the law.

Sure, there's no word of future crises in the article. No word on how the author is going to hold the economy in balance when half of it is ineffective and the other half is held so tightly it would definitely go haywire after the first serious shake-up.

It seems that he is trying not to think about it, hoping to rely on his talent for improvisation. Is it confusion and fear of a future wave of problems that stands behind this silence? Probably, but who would talk about that in an election campaign article.