CC BY
13
Sergei Karaganov,
D. Sc. (Hist.), Higher School of Economics, Moscow RUSSIA IN THE CHANGING WORLD
Much of what has been going on in this world of ours cannot be placed within either a liberal or an antiliberal framework. The world is now in a state of madness.
First. What is taking place around Russia? It is the rapid redistribution of forces, the swiftest in mankind's history. Plus, a political and information revolution. Everything is changing so rapidly that people are unable to catch up with events and understand what's going on. But, as is known, human beings are able to adapt themselves almost to everything, and therefore we do not see any noticeable features of mass stress so far, nevertheless they are accumulating. The habitual and traditional axioms with which we have been used to explain everything around us lose ground and disappear. New explanations and new theories come to the fore which we see in the mass media and the scientific publications. But they do not work, as a rule. The volume of information becomes ten times bigger every decade. People are unable either to explain what is happening, or to cope with this volume. In this situation they are forced to follow not so much the arguments of reason as emotions.
It seems to me that the age of reason, the Age of Enlightenment which gave birth to Europe, begins to recede into the background. And
now it is emotions that begin to rule the world. Religion, or something like it, is coming to the scene through the back door. People grab the simplest explanations in an attempt to understand the current situation. In short, this process might be termed "re-ideologization of international relations." Unable to explain in a coherent manner what is taking place around them, people and countries draw explanations from the past, trying to apply old liberal or antiliberal theories to the present time.
One of the most evident traits of ideologization is the exacerbation of the struggle between democracy and authoritarianism. Although it does not explain anything, nevertheless, everybody talks of the threat of authoritarianism and collapse and weakening of democracy.
Old economic recipes evolved during the past two hundred years do not work. We see how countries are trying to cope with the economic crisis, which has now turned into a prolonged economic slump and stagnation, with the help of opposite methods: by the Keynesian methods, that is, by supporting demand at the expense of the budget, and by monetarist methods restricting state activities. It is quite evident that the elites do not know what to do and act "each in its own way," often guided by one's own selfish political aims. Luckily, results have not been catastrophic so far, because reason got the upper hand. Nevertheless, it is clearly seen that old classical recipes do not help any longer.
Of course, the most important thing to be always remembered is the existence of such global problems as the climate change and the state of the environment. True, certain positive shifts do take place, especially in Europe. Culture and the way of life now take greater care of the environment and energy saving. However, the real figures show that the amount of harmful discharges increases and more and more
risky phenomena accumulate in nature, which result in the aggravation of the ecological crisis and climatic anomalies. Observations show that never before have there been so many floods, tsunamis and other natural disasters bringing death and destruction to mankind. I do not mean that we shall perish. But the fact is that this problem is not being tackled properly. Evidently, our society has neither strength nor will to take the necessary measures. Even the ecological convention - the Kyoto Protocol - has actually expired. The European states, which have assumed all obligations according to the Protocol, are unable to fulfill them practically alone. The Protocol has actually been made null and void by the United States, China, India, and Russia, to boot, although our country has also signed corresponding documents in its time.
Mankind is not yet ready to offer any alternative way of life to itself. The wellbeing of a considerable part of mankind has been growing at a rate unprecedented for even the past century. Economic growth was negligible in the 19th century. In the 20th century it amounted to two or three percent, on average, a year. From the 1980s the economy grew, on average, by four to five percent a year. This increase has now slowed down, but it continues by about 3.5 to four percent. People want to consume more, eat more and tastier, drive better cars, and live in more comfortable homes. Consumption is now the main aim and criterion of human progress. Perhaps, there is no alternative to this paradigm. This is accompanied with the unprecedented redistribution of consumption. Some fifteen years later a greater part of the world middle class will live in Asia. Just imagine what energy and climate changes this will entail. In fifteen years about forty percent of the world middle class will live in Europe and the United States. The boundless growth of consumption will bring mankind to the dangerous point of no return for the state of energy resources and climate.
Another great change taking place before our very eyes, for which mankind is not yet ready, is its mass ageing. For centuries, right up to the 20th century (of course, we know of great old men who reached the age of 70 or 80), people lived up to the age of thirty - fifty, on average. At present, due to positive changes in the quality of life: better working conditions, better nourishment, better health protection, the number of elderly people is growing, even in Africa. The first negative consequence of this is the problem of social security of the retired people. In our country the pension system was calculated for the population which could not live up to be 55-60. In the advanced countries normal longevity is about 80, and it will grow. It is clear that this will lead to major social changes, especially in the well-developed part of the world. By 2050, there will only be 57 percent of Europeans in the able-bodied age.
Meanwhile, pension systems will continue to collapse because not a single democratic or semi-democratic country will dare raise the retirement age, except Italy's Premier Mario Monti who was bold enough to raise it to 66 for men and gradually to the same age for women.
The world has become really global and as a result of this advanced countries have come across an unprecedented competition which will inevitably lead to a decline in the living standards in Europe, at least by 20 to 25 percent. The problem is that the European economy is distinguished by a very low competitiveness because business and the middle class in Indonesia, China and other countries of Asia and the Pacific are ready to work for less money with the same, or even higher, efficiency. This, naturally, will lead to the transformation, weakening and partial withering away of a socially-oriented state. Of course, there will be no catastrophe, but we shall see that within the next ten to
fifteen years advanced countries, and our European neighbors among them, will live through hard times.
People realize full well that natural resources can be depleted, and they are prepared for the need to be thrifty in using them. However, a shortage of fresh water has not yet become a phenomenon of mass consciousness, and it is not properly understood by all. Everybody pays attention primarily to the districts of Central Asia and the Middle East, but the entire developing Asia is the region of a great shortage of water, including India, China and most Asian countries where drinking water is in short supply due to pollution of the environment and the use of enormous quantity of water for industrial and agricultural needs. Production of food is falling in many regions of the world due to a shortage of water. Drinking water becomes a vital resource of the earth for which people are really at war.
The next problem is a threat of the real reduction of the hydrocarbon production necessary for energy generation. It is quite evident that their simple replacement with the now fashionable shale gas or alternative sources of energy will not lead to a reduction of the deficit of energy resources. Quite often they become the cause of political and economic struggle in the world.
The world has now become really global and requires a genuinely world government. Since the time of the great French enlighteners of the 18th century, liberals have always been dreaming of world government and universal reason. Conservatives have always been searching for Judeo-Masonic, American or communist conspiracies or secret governments. There is no secret government, and governance as such is deteriorating. All of them proved wrong. World government is simply necessary, but there is none. All institutions -from G8 to G20 - become weak or simply turn into places of pleasant but empty talks.
It seems to me that the main contradiction facing mankind in our time is the contradiction between globalization of the world and deglobalization of government. International institutions become weaker. National states are trying to take something into their own hands, but they have also become weak and could not cope with the problems even within their own countries, because information, part of the economy, politics and sovereignty has slipped from under their control. This contradiction can be solved somehow, but this has not yet been realized properly.
If we take all problems and contradictions facing mankind, there would not have been a situation in human history which could look more like a prewar situation. In this sense, the situation of 1914 was simply ridiculous. The year 1939 evidently looked like a prewar year because a time bomb had unfortunately been placed under European politics in the form of the Versailles Treaty. The situation in 1914 brought about war quite accidentally. At present the situation looks much more as a prewar one, but there will be no war, although there are many people who would wish a war, which could write off all unresolved problems.
But mankind has not got wise, and it hardly will. However, nuclear weapon does exist, and mankind, which does not believe in otherworldly hell, is aware of the fact that there will be hell on this earth of ours, if it goes too far and overstep the definite boundary. Mankind already saw this hell in Japan in 1945. This is why all countries, especially big and nuclear, even those using armed force, realize full well that there is a definite barrier which should not be crossed. Nuclear weapon is a guarantee of the future life of humankind.
Intellectuals, politicians, left-wing forces now speak with concern of the crisis of democracy in the world. This concern is close to panic in Europe. But they are wrong. Democracy is winning, but in a
very special way. Never before has mankind been so open. Never before have the popular masses been able to influence the world so effectively. This is due primarily to a revolution in information which renders the previous control over the population impossible. The wave of democratization is sweeping over all countries, except, perhaps, North Korea. Incidentally, this wave has not missed Russia either, and it is becoming ever stronger. Why then are there people claiming that democracy is in a crisis?
The point is that new democracies are not necessarily turning pro-western, as say, the countries of Central and East Europe, which have been offered very advantageous conditions for joining the community of developed democratic states. India is not a pro-Western democracy. And the states of the Arab East are very far from proWestern trends. They are dominated by anti-Western and anti-Israeli sentiments accumulated over the past several decades. Democracy there should rather be taken for opposition to tyranny and despotism of the local rulers.
Secondly, Western democracy itself will have to drift to its state in about the 1950s. At that time society was not as democratic as in later years. In other words, the West will move toward authoritarian democracy and certain closeness of society. This is taking place already now. In France it may look like de Gaulle regime. In Germany and in the United States many democratic freedoms may be curtailed to the level of the 1950s - 1960s. This is caused by the changed conditions, and history knows of such cases.
Russia cannot be a democratic country, if we take into account its development level - social, economic, political, as well as its history. To become democratic we must overcome the terrible trauma of communism, when faith and dignity were destroyed, where the best members of society were killed, where certain people who became the
country's leaders thought and decided for us. And we still feel all this. We must overcome this heritage and become stronger in order to become more democratic.
At present, an interesting discussion is going on in the world. It turns out that democracy is not the end of history, and there are other variants. Besides, each country has many development ways. Democracy is not always equal to progress, just as authoritarianism is not always regress. There are quite a few African authoritarian states which evoke horror in us. But we also know of the example of Ukraine. It entered 1991 with the per capita GDP twice as big as that of Belarus. And now this index is two times lower than Belorussian. Authoritarian China is developing much faster than much more democratic India where the government system is less effective. And democratic Bangladesh is simply on the verge of human catastrophe.
The position of Russia in the present-day world is quite favorable so far. Consumption of raw materials and energy is growing all over the globe, and this plays into our hands. There is a shortage of food products in the world, and we can increase their output 2.5 times over within the next five years. The shortage of water in countries close to our borders is also to our advantage. Strong China, too, can be used by us for maneuvering in political games. Our old rivals become weaker. This fact is also playing into our hands. Our diplomacy is harsh and capable to work in the conditions of geopolitics. And finally, nobody and nothing threatens us. This is a magnificent feeling for Russia which had been formed on the idea of opposition to an external threat. This had been our national idea for a thousand years. During that period we had always defended ourselves from the outside enemy. And all of a sudden there is nobody and nothing to threaten us. This can even be regarded as a challenge to identity. Yet, problems are accumulating...
The main problem is that Russia has heaved aback. We do not know where to move to. We are lucky to have much money, that is, high incomes from selling our oil and gas. Of course, the economy is growing little by little due to high-tech import, but we produce very little. The ruling grouping enjoy high oil and gas incomes, the intelligentsia and the creative middle class get bits and pieces of this wealth, crave more and protest, as to plain people, they also have "crumbles of this festive cake." But they are much bigger than those they used to get in the 20th century. So everybody is more or less satisfied. But this is very dangerous, because it is impermissible to ease off in the present world. The drift should end, and the sooner the better. We need a new goal, well-substantiated and agreed-on by the ruling elites. We must realize what we are and what we want to be. From my point of view, the most important spheres to develop are education, culture, science and research and advanced development processes. There are good brains and well-educated people in our country. Nevertheless, we are still a country which exports oil, gas, clever persons and money. If we continue to proceed along this road, there may be two types of development. The first: we cease to be a great power and become a satellite not of Europe but China. This is not a catastrophe, but a great misfortune. This is a variant, provided the oil prices remain high, and we shall not start producing anything worthwhile. If the oil prices fall down, which is quite possible, there will be another variant of development - harsh authoritarian rule, total control over resources, rationing, etc. Accordingly, the remainder of money will fly abroad, and people will follow it. By this scenario we shall have a chance to avoid a catastrophe, but everything may end very sadly.
Nevertheless, I am an optimist. We have many times extricated ourselves from an impasse and catastrophe. However, if we fail to
evolve the single, agreed-on aim of movement forward within the next three to five years and do not start to realize it firmly and consistently, I am afraid we shall live by the first scenario, in the best case, and in the worst - by the second.
Discussion
Anton Inyushev, journalist from Penza region:
In your review there are more questions than answers. We do not know where mankind is moving to. Ideologies begin to revive and emotions begin to dominate reason. Will not new leaders come who will suppress our emotions and adapt old ideologies? Will not a new Hitler emerge who will fight for purity of the Arian race, or a new Stalin who will raise our country with the help of new collectivization?
Sergei Karaganov:
In the modern information world the emergence of new totalitarian regimes and totalitarian ideologies is hardly possible. However, a certain movement in this direction, strengthening of mass racist sentiments, and the emergence of the new "left" elements are possible. I think this is one of the threats which we shall have to fight. When I spoke of the inevitability of a certain drift to authoritarian democracy, I proceeded from the fact that democracy in its pure form is unable to fight such totalitarian ideologies. Harsher methods of struggle should be used for the purpose. I don't expect either Hitler or Stalin. However, we should remember that communism was imported to us after a democratic revolution in February 1917. And Hitler came to power in a genuinely democratic manner. This is why I believe that in the present, much more complex world the strengthening of certain authoritarian components without the abolition of democratic institutions and procedures will be an answer to the threats you mention.
Veli Mehtiyev, member of the Political Council of the Republican party of Russia, Dagestan:
You said that rationalism in politics now gives place to emotions and, perhaps, superfluous religiousness, and this may lead to a certain unbalance of the world forces. There will not be a big war, but local conflicts are possible, which will rock "the boat" of world politics.
Another thing. You mentioned China. The Chinese dragon, Asian tigers, the center of force is shifting to Asia. What shall Russia expect? Will it become an Asian satellite, or will it preserve its identity? Because there is no development in ideas, just regress. What is your vision of the future?
Sergei Karaganov:
If we dangle in an ice-hole like a piece of shit we shall become satellites. If we muster strength, courage and resolution, we shall remain proud and independent. China is not going to conquer us. It needs us as a rear in its confrontation with the United States. But if we continue to weaken, there will be a process of what is called "Finlandization," that is, the slow process of adjustment.
Now about conflicts. A series of wars in the Greater Middle East, which is quite close to our Caucasus, is absolute inevitability. I shall cite three reasons. Modern Muslim countries are unable to compete with the West effectively. Due to various reasons, the Islamic world is lagging behind the West. To boot, the information expansion of western values causes great irritation in the Islamic world. Another reason: the retreat of secular regimes in Muslim countries which have gone through the "Arab spring." Secular regimes collapse one after another, and this process will continue. They will be replaced by traditionalist regimes hostile to any modernization. And the third reason: errors committed by the United States, first and foremost, when it violated the balance between the Shi'ites and Sunnites, or to be more exact, between Saudi
Arabia and Iran. When the United States invaded Iraq, it strengthened Iran. Simultaneously, the process of the systematic transfer of money to the Sunna monarchies of the Persian Gulf was going on. In turn, they financed their ideological allies in Egypt, Syria and other countries. Thus a series of conflicts began and no end to them is seen. But there is a certain positive change in this process. When the war in Iraq was coming to an end, many experts feared that the terrorist international numbering tens of thousands of men would sweep over our Caucasus. This did not happen, instead they came to Syria and plunged the country into a civil war which is supported by external forces. I repeat that the situation demands that we should keep balance in order to protect ourselves. This is why we do not want to spoil relations with Iran, inasmuch as it was quite neutral during the Chechen war. And it does not exert any destabilizing influence on our southern regions, including the Caucasus, and on Central Asia. This is why we are trying to keep balance. Old-time diplomacy is quite effective. Of course, we understand that we slightly differ from our European friends concerning Iran and Syria. But we should admit that they take erroneous steps sometimes. After all, it's human to err.
Olga Zakharova, deputy editor-in-chief of the newspaper "Orlovsky vestnik," Oryol region:
Your story is rather pessimistic, but very instructive. Your statement that a democratization process is going on in Russia at present is pleasant to hear. How could you characterize the political regime under which we live now?
Sergei Karaganov:
We live under a soft authoritarian regime, or managed democracy. It is an enlightened, but not modernized regime. It used to be modernized before 2006, but then it ceased to be such. However, the educational level is rising, people become more active, access to
information is broadening. We have a soft, humane enough form of authoritarianism with certain elements of democracy. The present-day regime is worried by the events of last winter and realizes that there will be social unrest caused by unresolved social problems. Therefore its leader has decided to tighten up screws. But I am not greatly disturbed, although it's not to my liking. Such is life.
Aleksei Andreyev, director of the editorial board of the newspaper "Severnaya Pravda," Kostroma:
Thinking in the global world is changing toward ecological protection, especially after the disaster at the Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan. We are facing this problem in our Kostroma region. A nuclear power plant is about to be built here, but the population is categorically against it, as it was shown by the recent referendum. Yet many political leaders speak for the construction of the plant. What is the chief reason for building it, a shortage of energy or anything else?
Sergei Karaganov:
This is an important problem for the whole of mankind. Nuclear energy production is the safest ecologically, yet dangerous enough. True, energy generation by wind power plants is the safest, but is very costly to build and maintain. I know that Kostroma region is situated far from regions suffering from floods, earthquakes, or other natural disasters. Besides, present-day nuclear reactors are more reliable. But the problem of safety should always be put to the fore.
Silvy Kofmann, editor-in-chief of the newspaper "Le Monde" (France):
You said that the world is moving in the direction of authoritarian democracy, and that this movement will weaken democracy in western societies. I see this problem in a different light. It seems to me that democracy is far from ideal, but we don't see any alternative to it so far, we have not found it. I agree with your view on
the cataclysms taking place in the world. If we take the "Arab spring," a power struggle is going on between different Muslim forces in Egypt and Indonesia. These are not revolutionary forces, but they have come to power as a result of democratic elections. The liberal and democratic forces are also fighting one another. We observe this in Egypt today. Everything is very complicated, because the forces of the old regime unite with the liberal and democratic forces in certain cases. And we do not know the result. But I think that the drive for democracy still exists and scores success.
Look at China. It is a classical example of the authoritarian regime. But its middle class, which becomes more numerous thanks to economic growth, is waging a struggle for the values which, in my view, are democratic enough. We don't know as yet who will win. Perhaps, the stable authoritarian regime in China will get the upper hand. And it may be that in some ten to twenty years we shall see a democratic society there.
At present democracy is in a rather chaotic state. President Obama spoke about it several weeks ago. He said that democracy may not be pleasant to all. But western societies are open. We have major problems: those of management in Washington, and those between the administration and the Congress. There are problems in the European Union, too. But we don't want less democracy, on the contrary, we want more of it. Certain institutions should adapt themselves to the great variety of the world.
I think that we do not put to doubt this very model. But authoritarian democracy is simply a mixed metaphor. At the time of de Gaulle there was democracy in France. Of course, de Gaulle was a very strong man. We rebuilt our society and our economy, and he was the man of his time. And when the events of 1968 were taking place in France..., you may call them revolution, people expressed the desire to
get rid of his strong arm. And he left in a democratic way. A referendum was organized on the reduction of powers of the local authorities and the Senate. The problem did not touch the President directly. However, France said "No" on the question of referendum, and that was enough for de Gaulle to leave the presidential palace. We had presidential elections and elected the next president. If this is authoritarian democracy, it's good. But it was a strong presidential regime. This is what I wanted to say.
Sergei Karaganov:
What you've just said was an excellent illustration to what I have said. I spoke about the re-ideologization of the world. Silvy was defending democracy. Moreover, I said something what Silvy obviously missed to hear, namely, that democracy is winning all over the world, but the West is losing. This is the first thing.
Secondly, I did not say that democracy would die. Even China is becoming more democratic. If, God forbid, China becomes a democracy there will be one-and-a-half billion people free from strict control, and nobody knows what will happen then. We don't need such situation. These billion and a half people have a strong tradition of rebellions and domestic wars.
Nevertheless, I say that democracy with such broad freedoms as those with which Europe entered this century should be restricted a little bit. That's all. Some regulating mechanisms should be switched on. I am sure the Europeans will not reject democracy. Simply, there should be stricter and more effective management, which means that it may be necessary to resort to certain non-democratic procedures.
Previously, it was unthinkable to increase the retirement age by almost ten years in Italy. But many people realize that it is necessary to agree with restrictions.
This is why there will be another form of democracy. It will be more authoritarian, more Gaullist, more Thatcherite. Just remember how mass strikes of coal workers were suppressed in Thatcher's time. It is unthinkable now, but soon it may become possible again. Because it will be impossible to combat such unemployment and such drop in living standards by other means.
I will not agree with Silvy concerning the problem of the re-ideologization of our views on the world, especially of our European friends. They assess the developments in the Arab East as democratization. As to me, I think this is Islamization and degradation. What is going on there is the Islamic radicalization of the social order, the introduction of the Sharia law, etc. On the other hand, the liberal intelligentsia is losing positions, and the secular state, which existed in both Egypt and Syria, has collapsed. This is very bad for civilization.
I repeat: democracy, people's rights and ability to influence the natural and social environment are increasing and broadening. Democracy is mankind's future. But we live in a global world where everything is very complex.
Elena Nemirovskaya:
In one way or another, democratization is a process going on everywhere. But this does not mean that Russia, or China, or African countries should necessarily follow the western model of democracy. National specific features exist in all countries and in different parts of the world, including Europe. One of the most important aspects of it is that a law-abiding state is built through democratization, irrespective of what we say about the crisis of democracy in Europe where independent judiciary exists and works effectively. The rights of the minorities and freedom of the press are observed there. And there is also a legal opposition which is needed by the winning party in order to legitimize the election results and correct the policy of the ruling party.
Sergei Karaganov:
People need well-being and freedom. Democracy is one of the means, one of the instruments to ensure this. What Elena said about judiciary is very important. There cannot be anything without it. Russia badly needs a judicial reform. One of the main problems of Russia is that property here has not been legitimate enough up to now. After all, the entire political struggle is waged ultimately for property, because it is not legitimate. In France after the revolution property was redistributed and became legitimate.
We must overcome ourselves and realize that we are the victorious people. We got rid of the Tatar-Mongolian yoke, we conquered the Polish invaders, we conquered the great French army of Napoleon, we conquered the Nazi Wehrmacht of Hitler, and finally we conquered communism. Now what we have to do are just trifles, but they are very important trifles.
"Obshchaya tetrad'. VestnikMoskovskoi shkoly politicheskikh issledovanii, " Moscow, 2012, No 4, pp. 8-21.
Victor Avksentyev,
Ph. D. (Philosophy), Director, Institute of Socioeconomic and Humanitarian Research, Southern Scientific Center, Russian Academy of Sciences REGIONAL SPECIFICS OF MODERN RELIGIOUS "RENAISSANCE" IN THE SOUTH: CONFLICT OR DIALOGUE
The differentiation of the population by confession is a mechanism of the actualization of socio-political risks connected with the religious revival in the South of Russia. The dividing potential of religion for countries and regions with a polyconfessional population
