TRAC
Interview Transcript

Kirill Razlogov   (cont)

So, this illusions that I'll call governmental illusions, are very apparant, and we really don't know what is the reason for that.  And the question I wanted to ask every American participant, I met people who gave these credits, these wonderful credits, to the Soviet Union.  Did they really think that they will be useful in organizing Russia?  Are they silly?  Or do they pretend to be silly?  Do they pretend to believe things that are, let's say, politically correct and politically fashionable.  Because, from our point of view, the Russian grassroots point of view, there was no doubt whatsoever that they were used for entirely different things.  And it was not astonishing.  It's like with the crisis.  There was no surprise in the crisis.  There was no surprise that this money went elsewhere, because it was meant to go elsewhere.

So, was it a sincere illusion, or was it a deliberate lie?  Do they really think that Russian economy will go well after all these 10 years of changes, or do they just deliberately lie about it, because noneconomists and nonspecialists and people who have nothing to do with economics knew very well that it can't continue that way.  And I would like to quote Sasha*.  At one point, he said a wonderful thing--that we are reworking the constitution for Primakov.  It's true.  We are really reworking the constitution for Primakov.  But reworking a constitution for a very intelligent but elderly man doesn't make any real political sense.  But it has a precise sense during the next five minutes after the constitution is reworked.  We reworked the constitution for Boris Yeltsin; now we are reworking it for Primakov, we will be reworking it for the next one, etc.  So that's the approach of the political class, which has nothing to do with a reasonable approach from a grassroots level.

From this point of view, if we look at some of the events that were happening in our country during the last 15 years, we might change not only the value system, but also some explanations of what was going on.  For example, I did a public conference in France with representatives of the newspaper, Le Monde, and one of the questions was some time ago, I think three or four years ago, and one of the questions that was asked: how things that are done by your government might be so hectic and unexplainable.  Of course, if we think about the measures taken by the government point of view of public good, they seem hectic and unexplainable.  But if we look at it from the point of view of what are the lobbies that need this or that decision, we see immediately how easily explainable they become and how each decision and each lie is dictated by several lobbies that are interested in this decision or that decision.  And the difference in explanation is very important to understand what's really going on and how politics is really done.  We can't make a moral judgment on it. They say it's bad that they didn't think about public good.  They thought about solving their personal problems.

I don't think it's bad; I think in a way it's normal, because everybody everywhere thinks about its own good, the good of its family, and the everyday life problems.  The real problem is why, in certain circles, for instance, doing something good for yourself becomes a public good also.  And in other circles, for instance, doing something good for yourself becomes a public nightmare.

If we look at the perestroika period from this point of view, there is an explanation that was pointed out--I don't think it was highly publicized of course--which was that the generation of the communist leadership who about 50 had a different view of what was going on in the country, from those who have been 70, because people of 70 have good places, good possibilities, and their children were also well off in good places and good material and political conditions.  For those about 50, everything could go on well, but not for their children.  So they had to think about how to make their children well off, because they knew very well that the economical crisis will begin if not in 10 years, in 20 or 25 or 30 years.  And the reason for the perestroika was to privatize the public good that they managed and to give it to their children, in what they succeeded.  From this point of view, it was not a mistake or not a proper judgment, but it was a practical way of solving a practical problem.  Of course, not only their children did get benefits from it.  Artists did get benefits from it.  We did get benefits from it.  But also, many people suffered from it.

 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8