[purecapitalism] MODERNIZATION

I want our people to be the modernizers, not just the political class, not just president with an i-pad, not just some elite that seeks change. We realise that if ordinary people feel no desire, no urge to change the setting around them, change the economy and the social environment, and make needed adjustments to the political system, modernization will fail. But `the people' is a broad concept. Of course there always are some people who are more active than others, people who form a politically active class.

Who is part of this class? The political parties, of course. Are our parties ideal? How ready are they to support modernization? They are only as ideal as our political system overall. Our parties are no better or worse than the political system in general, and this includes the biggest party, United Russia, which is currently in power. This party has its merits, and it has quite a few shortcomings too, but I think it would be wrong to think this party incapable of carrying out and supporting modernization.

I cannot say, for example, that United Russia does not share our modernization goals. In any case, no one has said to my face, "We don't need modernization. Let's leave everything as it is. We are already on the right development road and everything is going fine, so let's not meddle with anything, or else we might end up only ruining and destroying what we already have". I have never heard such thoughts from any of United Russia's members, from any of the party's leaders, including Prime Minister Putin and the party's chairman State Duma Speaker Boris Gryzlov and other esteemed colleagues.

Overall then, there is ideological consensus on this subject. I don't think the problem now is that there are forces that oppose modernization, but that a large number of civil servants, and part of the business community too, unfortunately, still see it as a passing thing. They see it as the slogan of the day, but nothing more. People sit there and think to themselves, "Who knows what things will be like in 3-5 years time. Who knows if it won't be modernization but something else that's the order of the day by then, so it's better not to stick my head out too far". This is typical of civil servants' mentality, and perhaps also characterises the mentality of some party activists too.

But I think that the authorities' task, my personal task, and the task for all who believe in modernisation is to consolidate this modernization movement, and do our part to help people realise that modernization is absolutely inevitable. I am convinced of this. We are at the point now when we have simply no choice but to start moving in this direction.

Basil Venitis points out Plato and Aristotle asserted that different regimes produce different types of human beings, and regimes ought to be judged by the character of their citizens. In Europe, the growth of interventionist welfare state has damaged personal responsibility and integrity, fostered dependence, undermined families, rejected venitism, and promoted corruption. Especially in Greece, the most corrupt country on Earth, Graecokleptocracy is accepted as a normal thing, and most Greeks rely on graft, sinecures, cheating, incivility, cacodemony, cancer of socialism, jingoism, religionism, lies, and kickbacks. The character of modern Greece of the 300 Graecokleptocrats is the opposite of the character of ancient Greece of the 300 Spartans of Leonidas.

We have already come to point when we simply cannot rely any longer on raw materials-based growth. The crisis gave us a stark illustration of this fact: our economy declined by more than others, to speak frankly and honestly. It's true that it rebounded quite fast this year. Last year it fell by 10 percent, and industrial production fell by as much as 15 percent of GDP, but this year it grew by 5 percent. Why such ups and downs? This is all because we rely on energy resources. Our economy grew this year not just because the global economy is recovering, but also because energy prices rose too, jumped up again.

Venitis asserts that in order to modernize Russia's economy and industry, Russia needs cooperation partners from abroad, and those modernization partners are to be found mostly in USA and Fourth Reich(EU). That's the logic that lies beneath Russia's new softer foreign policy towards the West. It shows that external policy is seen as an instrument for internal development and modernization.

But we realise that if there is a second or third wave of the crisis – and let's hope this doesn't happen – our economy would fall again. We therefore absolutely must change our economic infrastructure otherwise we simply will not have a future. I worked for 8 years in Gazprom and know it inside out. It is a very important part of our economy, a powerful monopoly, and our country's economic prosperity depends on oil and gas at the moment, but the whole time I was chairman of the Gazprom board of directors I was always thinking, "things are good now, but what about in 30 years time?"

If the world's scientists are successful in their projects and our world really does develop hydrogen engines and other new possibilities, what will our lives be like? Every 50 years brings a change in the energy paradigm, a change in the dominant energy source: coal gave way to oil, then gas, and then nuclear energy. This development will continue. And so we have absolutely no choice but to change our growth sources, and it is precisely for this reason that we must work on advanced technology and innovation.

That is the economic side of things, but there is the political side too. Of course only free people can carry out modernization, only people who consider themselves free.

Blinkered, intimidated people who fear the state authorities, fear the law enforcement agencies, fear competitors and even life itself cannot carry out modernization. Only free people can be modernizers. But this is a complex and in many respects even personal question because perceptions of personal freedom are a far from simple matter. As we develop our political institutions we therefore must keep in mind that by freeing people and opening them up we give them new incentives for modernization.

We have achieved some results over the last two years. During my first year as president I worked on changing the institutions at the federal level. I stress from the outset that these were not radical changes. Not because radical change is not allowed, but because there is no need for it. Over the second year I worked on changing institutions at the regional level. All of the relevant laws have been passed – several dozen. The thing is, when all of this effort is analysed – often by analysts or opposition groups – they say that these are all just cosmetic changes and that radical transformation is required. But the question is what exactly to change?

We could imagine the possibility of a different political system, of course, the introduction of, say, parliamentary democracy here in Russia. Our friends in Kyrgyzstan have chosen this road, but I say quite openly that for Russia, and I am afraid for Kyrgyzstan too, this would be a disaster.

If we work within the current constitutional framework the changes we make can only be careful and gradual, genuinely step by step changes that would not upset the fragile balance we have achieved, all the more so as we still face a huge number of challenges: corruption, terrorism in the Caucasus, and technological disasters against which no one is insured. And so, having a supportive political class and making changes to the country's political organisation are certainly important conditions for modernisation, but are not the sole conditions.

The most efficient political system is venitism, where everything is private, there are no taxes at all, there is no parliament, and a powerless infinitesimal government is chosen and supported not by hoi polloi, but by the most generous benefactors.