In such circumstances, the entrepreneur there is actually 3 choices:
a) to build Potemkin villages;
b) to go bankrupt;
C) pulling at its own expense, the social block, which by definition must be assigned to the state.
And this businessman will be forced to either get bogged down in deep corruption, or be under the oppression of endless tests.
Do You see any way out of this situation?
And another question.
Today in Russia there is no connection between the symbolic orders of officers and the often disastrous consequences of these orders. The officer may be punished in the framework of the fight against corruption, but it seems that we have no system of punishment for the destructive consequences of the adopted persons solutions.
What are the criteria for evaluating the work of authorities should, in your opinion, to make, to get out of this vicious circle?
Mikhail Khazin: you Need to understand that the modern Russian system established after the revolution of 1991 (or counterrevolution), a task which was, in fact, two. The first task — to make so that you inherited the privileges that were given to the representatives of the average item — level and trade. This returned private property. And the second is to free the officials from any responsibility.
In this sense, the formulation of the question that you used to wrong from the point of view of the interests of the country, decisions could be brought to justice — this thing is strictly taboo modern bureaucracy. Note that in the 1993 Constitution it was written that the state has no ideology. Why is it written?
This point is introduced in the Constitution in order to be blamed officials that he does ideologically wrong. That is, when an officer destroys a factory is not a crime. Why? Because — and who said that Russia needs the plant? We have written somewhere that they should increase the number of plants? Not written anywhere. So, the official is innocent.
That is, in other words, theoretically, to punish him only for what is directly added to the penal code. But for this there are various other mechanisms of protection. Well, for example, a collective decision. Many do not know, for example, that the government is a collegial body. The decisions of the ministries, too, are made collectively, for it even the special term "Board". Then there are those people who should — in theory — all work together to make decisions. And, accordingly, none of them is responsible for anything.
And for this reason, the current state will be desperate to resist the attempts to introduce this personal responsibility. It will be called totalitarianism, dictatorship, something else. But in reality the meaning is like this. That is, the use of all these bugaboos and the demonization of Stalin is linked with the fact that when Stalin was the personal responsibility of the officials for the result, and today officials have categorically do not want. And for this reason they need to explain that any personal responsibility is necessarily bloody regime. That is a very clear logic that they implement to the masses.
As for corruption, the case in the absence of control, which I have repeatedly said. Because the system that was in the Soviet Union, was destroyed in the 90 years; and that system which in the first years, somehow, through the stump-deck, but was restored by Putin, was destroyed in the last two to three years — due to continuous economic crisis and in connection with the confrontation of liberal society to the rest of the state.
As a result of the destruction of this system has been a very interesting thing. The fact that early chance on the charges of corruption it was possible for the official to minimize, if he did it right. That is, fulfilled the instructions of his superiors, did not go to direct conflict, interacted with the right groups and minimized the interaction with incorrect and so on.
Today, in connection with the destruction of this secondary control system, the situation is very funny: the accusation of corruption does not correlate with the actions of the official. That is, he can steal a lot and brazen — and he will be nothing. And maybe even almost nothing to make (well, from the point of view of modern bureaucratic "etiquette"), but it still "take" and he's gonna be paying in full.
That is the thing that nothing can be done. I met in the regions with such a situation, when local authorities are stealing blatantly, cynically and deliberately. But since this region is uninteresting Moscow from the point of view of financial flows, what is happening there, just nobody cares.
The lack of correlation between the actions of the officer and the problems that may arise, creates a very peculiar situation. That is, the officer understands clearly that he is under God goes that at any moment it can strike lightning. But to say, when it hits, he can't. Moreover, he knows that what he did does not increase the probability of a lightning strike.
What does it mean? In fact, the situation is as follows. You go in a dark apartment, reaching for the switch... And you know that with some probability the switch is broken, in this case there is a bare wire, and when you hand stretch — you will be killed. But that's no reason not to turn on the light? In addition, the probability is still small today.
And for this reason, the logic of officials is simple: you need to steal as much as possible while you have the chance — and at the right time to "fade". At the same time to escape too soon not because it is dangerous. Too many ties, too many people: when you steal, be involved in a complex system of cross-linking. And if you jump out of it, then all the others start to get annoyed, because you create problems.
And for this reason it is that hangs. Still waiting for something to happen (any PE) to be able to immediately escape. That is our modern state elite — all sitting on suitcases. There's a number of people who cannot escape (for example, because they are under sanctions). But, first, very small, and secondly, their psychology is now difficult to understand.
But in any case, everyone who wants to escape, there is another way, and this must be taken into account. The output is the following: to take Putin. That is, they firmly believe that if Putin would put (conditional, in the Hague), they will receive the indulgence: they cannot be touched. That is actually today creates an interesting situation. On the one hand, in General, in society, there is some consensus about the fact that Putin is better than someone else.
How this consensus is adequate is a separate issue. Moreover, he may not like Putin himself, who can be, and was not averse to go. But a significant part of the modern bureaucracy — not to say "the vast majority" — has a vested interest to take Putin to the Hague and thereby to obtain a pardon for all that had been done. Because they are, in General, more or less understand, nowhere to run away. Because if you run with pods, then you either dispossessed or something like that — the risks are very high.
Here is a picture, which is now developing. The only way out of this situation is to completely destroy the existing bureaucratic consensus. And for that you need to do? Need to do in parallel with the old unit the new unit then the old machine to eliminate. Not in the sense physically, but in the sense to fire everyone. To create a parallel Ministry to set up parallel structures of, respectively, new people, new rules. And create for them a system of accountability. Explaining that in this new system you can make a career only in the case if you live in another model, namely the model of responsibility.
And the old all fired. You do not need them or shoot any plant. Because the situation in which they find themselves — will be honored for the happiness that nobody touches them. For example, enter a condition that the person who worked within the old ministries, to move into a new Ministry can only under the condition that he will fully explain all the possessions and your family. If he can't explain, then do not take it — it's one of the options.
But as long as this problem is not solved, count on the fact that officials will be someone to help, is naive. From the point of view of an official of any entrepreneur — especially one who by his actions demonstrates a divergence of the official, that is, increase the danger of trouble is the enemy. It is necessary to calm, soothe, and in any case, cannibalize.
Interviewed Cyril Rychkov
- 07-01-2018Ten major risks for the world in 2018
- 01-01-2018"A bulwark against world capitalism": as was formed by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
- 16-12-2017The modern world: the rise of inequality and political instability
- 02-12-2017Look at China, with six parties: the experts analyze contemporary international relations
- 07-08-2017SS, gave America space
- 04-07-2012Russia cooking oil blockade and the collapse of the scenario of the 80-ies
- 23-12-2012The Vedic understanding of state policy
- 22-11-2013In the archives of the "world government"
- 08-01-2014Of a mega-Church and their communication strategies
- 08-11-2012The main threat to peace or a recipe for success