- All three sections of the Forum cover the challenges that modern states are facing today. The first section touches the issue of the different groups demanding equal rights in a complex democratic society which makes governance complicated. The second section will take a look at the disproportions between the rich and the poor that were caused by unregulated global capitalism and in part by the states’ inability to organize the economy with more just income distribution. Finally, the third section provides the space for discussion of the global security challenges that always have local projections. In your opinion, what is the most difficult challenge today? Which problems can be solved in the near future and which of them can be dealt with only in the long-term perspective? Is the modern state able to solve these issues in the situation when its powers are constantly challenged?

 

- Let’s start from the last point. I am sure that the modern state is unable to solve those topical problems that will be discussed on the third Global Policy Forum in Yaroslavl. All three topics that you have mentioned have wrong premises that reflect the misguided understanding of the nowadays world that politicians and experts suffer from. 

As for the first point, you say that the democratic society demands equal rights for all groups. Where does all this come from? Firstly, democracy was not born yesterday: the USA and Great Britain were already democratic societies in the second half of the 19^th century. However, Afro-Americans in the USA were treated almost as somebody’s property while in England the property qualification limited the percentage of voters to 6% of citizens. At that time the democratic society did not demand equal rights for all groups of people. Does the society demand it today? We have to prove this but nobody commits himself/herself to make such an analysis.

Secondly, why do we think about the society in terms of the groups? Because of the implicit belief in differences between blacks and whites, native population and migrants? Did the founders of the liberal doctrine ever spoke about democratic process in terms of the gains it has for the groups? No, they always placed the emphasis on individuals. This is why it is wrong to aim at providing equal rights for all the groups; we should instead focus on the rights of the individuals. You don’t have to expect from the democracy what is cannot provide: apology of the society divided into groups and the defense of their interests.

When you say that the states are unable to organize the economy with more just income distribution, I would like to argue that the modern economy does ensure such distribution without state intrusion which means that the latter is not needed. However, today justice does not mean equality and this is the point. In the past the person’s wealth was determined by its position in the social hierarchy. One could be a wealthy count, but if the King took his manor, the person became a poor knight-errant.

Another example: one possesses factories, but then bankrupts and becomes a petty dealer. Certainly, the social status was arbitrary because some obtained it by birth, but today the situation is different. A person can get ultra-high wage thanks to his skills. The most high-paid people today are managers and finance sector employees, lawyers and professors, sportsmen and performance art stars, architects and programmers. They can change jobs, countries, lifestyles, but again and again they will receive high income. If they want, they can create their own companies or work individually, their talent brings them money and for them the social mobility is very high. In order to make a fortune, a young yuppie born into a prosperous family becomes a lawyer or a banker. A Black youngster born among the urban poor wants to become a rapper, a boy from the Muslim suburbs dreams about the football career. They make all their efforts in order to achieve the success and their social background does not impede them to make money. Is it unjust? The modern society is the society of fair inequality. The more the state tries to level it, the more it goes against the natural tendency and, in the end, against its own citizens.

Finally, comes the security. Politicians who prioritize this over all other issues take the road of a big lie. Over the last centuries the world became more global than before, and globalization always comes with a price. British officers who wanted to conquest India or Spanish soldiers who explored new territories in the Caribbean had few chances to return home. However, at that time dangers were located “outside” of the metropolitan country when today the globalization is so large-scale that there are no differences between the metropolitan country and the periphery anymore. From my point of view, if you want to buy freely Sierra Leonean brilliants in London and Paris, if you want to put Sudanese fuel in your car in China, if you are ready to ruin countries while playing stock market games, you should be ready that your planes will from time to time crash in the downtowns of your cities. If the “modern state” wants to wage wars in Iraq and Chechnya, it should not be surprised when such things as terrorist acts in Madrid and London or the Dubrovka Theatre hostage crisis happen.  

All these issues are not challenges. They are part of the reality of the modern world which simply cannot be equal, just and secure. It is the world of competition, not cooperation. That is why it develops so fast and not everybody can benefit from it.

 

- Do the topics of the Yaroslavl Forum agenda indicate the lack of the international consensus on the construction of democracy, the creation of a more just society and a more secure world? Why is it like this? Why exactly do we stop understanding each other?

 

- As I have said before, existing problems are caused by objective factors. We are stepping into an unknown social space and we don’t know its laws and cannot see what it will bring to us. If there is an international consensus on democracy, equality and security issues, this means only that the humanity has lost its way and lives in the imagined world, not a real one. We understand each other relatively well, but worst of all is that we do not understand the world we live in.

 

- How deeply connected are the problems of democracy, security and socio-economic inequality? What do they mean for Russia? What should Russia do in order not to stay in the game while modernizing itself?

 

- All these problems are deeply intertwined, because they have the same cause – the establishment of the individualized society. This society values above all unique and exceptional talents and skills. Those who have them can have more opportunities and will earn more. Belonging to the masses which earlier has been a good justifying technique today is a sort of verdict. The motivations are becoming more polarized: people who earn vast amounts of money lose any desire for further wealth accumulation (partly because they do the job they love and this gives satisfaction as well), while those who don’t have any unique skills are doomed to languish in poverty. As a result, religious, ethnic or other group identities become more valuable than professional ones. The society breaks into groups and diasporas that by definition are not equal. On the global scale the inequality is even sharper, because national governments tend to suppress it and there is no global governance that could take care of it. Therefore, all these problems are connected and none of them can be solved.

Russia’s main problem is slightly different: it lays primarily in the economy. Russia indeed needs modernization otherwise we will be lagging behind the other great powers without any hope of ever reaching them.  At the same time we should understand that the success of modernization means also inclusion into the modern globalized world. If we don’t adopt these rules, we will never be able to modernize the country. If we adopt them, we will stop being the country we were in the last fifty years. We will have a number of problems to which one should add the low level of Russian political elite that plans to enter the global world as the “elite by status” while the global world favors only “elites by merit”. I foresee many attempts for make a U-turn from the road to modernization. Honestly speaking, we should pay our primary attention to this non-modern political class.

 

- Different mass media write today that we will face the second, worse wave of the world economic crisis. Do you agree with that? How do you plan to discuss the crisis during the Global Policy Forum? Could you illustrate the correlation between the above-mentioned spheres and analyze possible consequences of such development of events? What is the future of democracy, equality and security after the second half of the crisis?

 

- The speculations about the new wave of the crisis look quite trustworthy. Over the last years the leading economies got several trillions of dollars injected to them by their governments, but the real growth remained practically absent. Now the states themselves became are potentially insolvent debtors while corporations have accumulated with vast savings that they are scared to invest in business. Thus, the second wave looks almost inevitable and it can be avoided only if consumers suddenly feel that they should immediately start spending while the entrepreneurs feel that their goods will not only be sold today but will also cost more tomorrow. I think you know what this may mean – inflation. It is through inflation that the governments can restart the economic growth, cut the expenses, salaries included, and devalue their high financial obligations. It means that the rescue is possible only by the process that all key economists and politicians were fighting so hard against over the last 30 years. Are they ready to admit that inflation is not an enemy anymore? I do not know, but I am sure that if these recommendations are ignored, we will face a new Great Depression and it will happen quite soon.

To conclude my answer, I will say that I do not see any direct correlation between possible economic crisis and the problems that we have in the sphere of public administration or security. The economic crisis can exacerbate these difficulties, but this can be done by other factors as well.

 

- How significant is the 3^rd Global Policy Forum in Yaroslavl? In which way is it different from the previous ones? What makes it special?

 

- I will not be original in saying that such forums are important mainly because they give chances to exchange opinions to people who could hardly meet with each other under other circumstances. It will be the best opportunity for the Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to meet with the leading Western experts who understand very well the nature of the global challenges. For the Western experts the Forum presents a unique opportunity to exchange ideas with their Russian counterparts, Russian political leaders and heads of the Russian regions. Finally, thanks to the Yaroslavl Forum young Russian politicians, representatives of the Russian legislative bodies and local governments have a chance to grasp the meaning and participate in the discussions that are held today in the world.

Certainly the Executive Directorate tried to diversify the agenda of this year’s Forum. Both days will have special evening sessions that will focus on more concrete, but no less important issues than those that were discussed during the day sections. I cannot yet disclose all the details, but I am sure that these sessions will certainly be very interesting for the Forum participants.

 

By Yulia Netesova

 

Translated by George Plaschinsky

Tweet