"The new presidents of Russia
and the United States addressed the public on the same day. … Obama addressed
50 million supporters who voted for him, while Medvedev spoke to a thousand
legislators, governors, and bureaucrats. To Americans, Obama's words, 'It can't
happen without you' seemed quite obvious. But Medvedev couldn't have
said in the Kremlin 'It will not happen without you,' even to his select
audience. Because even this narrow circle would have been too wide ... Decisions here are made by a far smaller number of people."
Russian President Dmitriy Medvedev: He uses the language of democracy, but behaves like a technocrat. And it appears that some in the Russian press aren't afraid to say so ...
The new
presidents of Russia and the United States addressed the public on the same
day [videos below]. But despite any textual similarities, they showed radically different views
of the world and approaches to politics.
It so happened
that the first post-election speech by Barack Obama and the first presidential address
of Dmitriy Medvedev were delivered on the same day.
Comparisons readily emerged - at least among us. And our commentators didn't
hesitate to quip and compare.
And as far as the
outside world goes, millions empathized with Obama's winning rhetoric, while Medvedev's speech was quoted, generally with disapproval,
only with regard to the events surrounding the missile defense system in
Europe.
Both the Russian
and the newly-elected American presidents look rather unusual in their
positions.
Obama is
unusually young for a leader of a great power, and Medvedev is four years younger.
Both are intellectuals and were previously attorneys. Both have had meteoric
careers. Just a few years ago, hardly anyone could have imagined that either would
have had any chance of leading his country.
But for all the
similarities, their speeches reflect radically different views of the world and
different approaches to politics, although their textual similarities are
greater than one would imagine.
Both frequently appeal
to the people and a sense of patriotism. And both pay special tribute to
populist sycophancy, each in the spirit of local tradition, of course. In his
address, Medvedev castigated top officials over our bureaucracy. In his
Chicago speech, Obama appealed to the American dream in the most heartfelt terms.
The Russian
president used the word "freedom" half a dozen times - almost as
frequently as the word "democracy" and "justice." The
American leader pressed "opportunity" and "hope." In a
very un-detailed way, both quite categorically promised to deal with the crisis.
Both called for renewal and change.
Except that Obama
addressed 50 million supporters who voted for him, while Medvedev spoke to a
thousand legislators, governors, and bureaucrats.
When Obama repeated
time and again, "we," "us," "our climb," "our
goals," regardless of how sincere these words were, his listeners believed
them: "we" - this is the people, the citizens of the United States.
It is the citizens, the regular people that the new leader appeals to. They're
the ones who now have "the chance to make change." And the words that
"it can't happen without you" seemed quite obvious.
But Dmitriy Medvedev couldn't have said in the Kremlin "It
will not happen without you," even to his select audience. Because after
all, even this narrow circle would have been too wide for such comments. Decisions
here are made by a far smaller number of people.
His frequent
repetition of the word "we" meant: "We, the authorities." The
citizens appeared in Medvedev's address only as
objects of paternalistic care; citizens who, under the wing of the government, need
not worry about salaries, pensions or investments. The states will take care of
everything without them.
The individual
opinion of an ordinary person (unlike his abstract "rights and freedoms")
is definitely not about to be taken into account by those at the "top."
The most recent
reform of the political system in all of its aspects leans toward reducing even
the current, extremely modest participation of ordinary people in the political
process.
For example, the reform meant people vote for president and members of the Duma [Parliament] less frequently. And mayors elected by the people can now be more easily fired from their posts without voters' consent.
All the liberal indulgences
(or those that appear to be) are merely a milder way for the bosses to oversee
the servants - for instance, in regard to the judiciary. And these are indulgences
directed not at average people, but various segments of the "top."
For instance, parties
that "receive from 5 to 7 percent of the vote" are promised "1-2
percent of the legislative mandate." With these figures, which carry nothing
less than a chemist's precision, one can instantly guess what parties are being
referred to, even the particular individuals these mandates are being designed
for. [The measure is aimed at marginalizing smaller, mostly opposition parties
and politicians]. However, even on this count, restrictions are added to the privileges
awarded to some. "It's necessary to amend the Law on Parties to require
the apparatus of party governance to adopt a system of rotation, under which
one person is barred from holding office … from occupying the same position … beyond
a specific period of time … ."
Who knows,
perhaps Obama, too, would like to institute a "rotation" of the
leadership of the Republican Party of the United States. But the notion of
legalizing such a procedure would never enter his mind - to put it mildly, no one
would understand. As for us, the majority of Russians consider the fact that
the government dominates political parties to be completely normal, and already a number
of party veterans have announced their intention to retire.
The technocratic
approach in all spheres of life is not merely a pillar of Medvedev's
presidential address, it is the prevalent way of at the upper echelon of the government. Only those at the very "top" know and decide for
everyone.
This is why there
are no politics - there is only management. Every governor, every
businessperson and every party is designated a place in the order, which one is
not recommended to leave.
Posted by WORLDMEETS.US
The country as a whole has subscribed to the "concept of the "Four I’s" - institutions, investments, infrastructure and innovation. This approach is reinforced in the conception of development … up to the year 2020. And this plan must be realized in full. Add to this the fifth component, “intellect." So everything has been decided and planned for many years ahead, stacked neatly on the appropriate shelves with no room for dissent - even a simple initiative that would be welcomed in the abstract is in fact punishable.
Such is the
technocratic system which, of course, has never before nor will it in the
future, accommodate real life. One may add, if you like, that neither is a more
democratic or populist system able to overcome the vicissitudes of life. However,
America's new leader understands that: "There are many who won't agree
with every decision or policy I make as president."
In every country
and at all times, not all actions of the government are favored by the
majority, and not all of its decisions are dictated from below. But that freedom
is better than captivity, and therefore the fact that democracy is better than
technocracy is known to Dmitriy Medvedev. And
everyone knows that he knows.
