Anders Aslund, senior fellow at the Institute of International Economics
Photo:
|
 |
The Old Party System Reestablished under Presidents
// Opinion and Commentary
Senior researcher at the Institute of International Economics in Washington, DC, Anders Aslund was a consultant to the Russian government in the early 1990s and an advisor to Askar Akaev in the late 1990s. This active supporter of the Orange Revolution observes that the Russian president has been subject to increasing criticism in recent years. He shares his views on the Russian political system and possible crises in it with Kommersant reviewer Igor Fedyukin.
Looking at how the situation is developing now, what do you see for Russia in five years?
What will be in fiver years? That's a big question. Maybe oil prices will go down. It will scarcely happen any earlier and it will grow by 7 percent per year until then. But there are several problems. The first is what becomes of the oil industry. That will be 2-3–percent growth or more, or maybe there will be a decrease. That is the biggest risk that is apparent today.
The second problem is the process of redistribution of property in the economy in favor of state enterprises. We know that everything good that has happened in the Russian economy in recent years has come from the private sector. The major problems are concentrated in the state sector: in the military sector, health care, education, law enforcement agencies, the state administration, the court system. Those are the six main problems and they are all state problems. Why spread the problems of the state sector into the economy at large? It is a big question how far that will go in five years. Probably the negative effects will already be very significant.
The growth of the economy, growth of reserves, incomes… All of that contributes to the stability of the political system.
But economic growth doesn't guarantee stability. I was in Iran in 1978, when there as brilliant economic growth, 10-percent economic growth for many years. But there was a revolutionary atmosphere in the country. The year before the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, economic growth was 12 percent. So economic growth is not a stabilizing factor, if the distribution of its fruits is considered unjust.
Are there political forces in Russia today that are capable of provoking tension or a crisis?
They really aren't to be seen today. The oligarchs are frightened and very cautious after the Khodorkovsky case. But there are many smaller businessmen. We saw that in Ukraine during the Orange Revolution. They say they collected $150 million from Ukrainian businessmen “for survival.” Here that could easily be $2 billion from a similar milieu before the elections.
To what extent, in your view, is it unavoidable that the political regime evolves toward centralization and dedemocratization when oil prices are high?
The main problem is that democracy in Russia did not become irreversible. And now certain high-placed persons can distribute state income any way they want.
They are saying more often in Russia now that economic growth can be fueled by additional income from export, on account of the money in the stabilization fund. What role can a stabilization fund play in the economic and political sense?
I don't believe in stabilization funds. Because the question immediately arises as to who will dole it out in the future and how. Better not to collect that money or to collect it on a very limited scale. That goes fro Norway too. After a stabilization fund was formed there, the government started to lose more elections. That's because, no matter who the opposition is, it makes populist demands for the stabilization fund. A stabilization fund increases populism.
It seems that two types of political regime have sprung up in the former USSR. In the West, there are more democratic parliamentary regimes and, in the East, there are harsher presidential regimes. Are those two different types of political culture?
I think that the presidential system here is simply a return to communism. Presidential administrations in the CIS are always located in the same buildings where the Central Committee of the Communist party had been…
But that return occurred in the eastern part of the post-Soviet lands, in contrast to the Baltic countries, Poland, the Czech Republic…
That is not entirely so. It's just that things continually develop here. At first, I believe, there was a true parliamentary system only in Hungary. But gradually the presidents lost more and more authorities in these countries. That's how it was, for example, in the Baltic states. At first the presidents had a little more power. Now Ukraine is converting to a more parliamentary system. The parliamentary system defends democracy much better. Importantly, the controllability and transparency of authority can be developed through the parliamentary system. The presidential system means phone rights –at the presidential administration always sit and phone people. And on the regional level. If there is a gubernatorial administration, it is the same as the communist regional committee. It is the old communist party system reestablished under presidents and governors. That is probably why the parliamentary system is especially needed here and the presidential system has been so undemocratic.
What is your view on the situation in Belarus? How much longer can the rule of Lukashenko last?
Belarus is living on donations. Therefore, it is a question for Russia to answer: how long will it agree to make the donation? Belarus cannot become a puppet state, turn into North Korea, because it has a very open economy. Export and import make up a large share of the economy and Belarus exports most of all to Russia. They make good Soviet goods – good but Soviet. A typical example is household appliances. They are improved Soviet designs. That means that structural problems will eventually arise because they cannot develop new products fast enough.
Should we expect some active intervention in Belarus from the West?
There is great interest in Belarus in the West now. But any intervention could cause a huge conflict between the West and Russia. I think there will be a conflict sooner or later. But Lukashenko will stay in power just as long as Russia wants.
Russia is now often compared with Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and other countries. What analogy might be the most fruitful?
I don't think the comparison with Venezuela is accurate, because the Russian economy is much larger. Russia is beginning to be most reminiscent of Mexico. One ruling party, soft authoritarianism, very corrupt state enterprises that dominate the economy. At the same time, it is a mixed economy. And it is on about the same level of development. It is not a successful model for imitation, but it's not a catastrophe, although the Mexican model means slowing Russia's structural growth.
But I think that the main problem is to be expected not from the economy, but from politics. I don't think this political system will last beyond 2008. The Kremlin may not find a candidate for successor or offer a candidate who is incapable of being president. That is, half a year before the elections, it will turn out that they cannot offer a candidate or a strategy. That will be a crisis.
All the Article in Russian as of Feb. 02, 2006
|
|
|
