First Deputy Prime Minister of the Russian Federation Igor Shuvalov assessed the relationship between government and society as follows.

“The degree of discontent, sometimes even bordering on hatred, is very high now, this is understandable. And against this background, we need to achieve real changes. They say that there are very strong sentiments of rejection of the authorities in general. This is true, but also very high level support for the authorities, on the other hand,” Shuvalov said, speaking at a round table as part of the celebration of the 20th anniversary of the Russian Economic School on Friday. “So this means that there are extreme positions. You have to learn to work with these extreme positions, which is very difficult. The situation is much more difficult than several years ago,” he emphasized.

“You already understand that possible competitors are breathing down your back, that in any case, constitutional power can pass into other hands at any time through elections,” admitted the First Deputy Prime Minister. The current government must ensure that it is able to be re-elected, he noted, and if it gives way to others, it is necessary to ensure the continuity of the basic components of the current course, because Russia cannot experience another turn in left side, for example, to mass nationalization and similar things.

“The possibility of constitutional change is really present at every moment of the elections. Because as soon as moods move from one state to another, you cannot influence this situation with any additional, in quotes, tools. Because if you influence, then it’s immediately a revolution, that’s all,” Shuvalov concluded.

: Shuvalov understands the situation correctly?

Grigory Trofimchuk, political scientist, first vice-president of the Center for Strategic Development Modeling: Such public confessions, oddly enough, decorate the authorities. They show that the authorities are absolutely adequate and accurately assess the situation, at least in the person of its individual representatives. And then for a long time it seemed the opposite. Even the emotional term “hatred” used by Shuvalov does not seem to be too much, but looks like a simple statement of fact. With the other social pole, the support group, which Shuvalov also speaks with confidence about, the situation is unclear. According to Shuvalov, who is this support - oligarchs, youth movements, trusted representatives? The oligarchs will be blackmailed, for accounts and money, by the West; pioneers, in case of danger, will abandon their bugles and drums; trusted representatives no longer know what to tell the people about the “good Serdyukov.”

It is also unclear who Shuvalov means when he says that the current government is “breathing down its back” and can seize the helm at any moment. If he means the liberal opposition, then there is no need to expect danger from this side even with the next surge of its activity: Russia remembers the results of the 1991 revolution and will not fall for it a second time. Rather, it will sway behind the force that will be ready to punish liberals in reality, and not through vague, dull criticism of the “murky 90s,” as the government is doing today, strengthening that very Shuvalov “hatred” directed at itself personally.

But today there is no force that would punish. It is simply ridiculous to say about the parties represented in the State Duma that they “breathe down the back” of Shuvalov and his associates. These will suffer in the same package as the authorities, among the first, so they are also breathing down their backs. But there are no other forces in Russia yet. Theoretically, nationalists could become such a force, since they have never been in power before, but for decades they have neither serious leaders nor a fascinating ideology - they are just flat cliches, divorced from life. Russian nationalists are not interested in housing and communal services or food prices.

There is no threat of “constitutional change” to the current government, because Even if Russian nationalists were allowed to participate in the elections, voters, due to the lack of bright leaders and ideas, would not vote for them in the required percentage. Therefore, a threat can come and be realized, as always, unexpectedly. To neutralize this threat, the government must now secretly cultivate a vibrant political force that has nothing in common with the usual parties in power, which could itself, without the efforts of the Kremlin media, please the people. And even more so with the Kremlin ones.

Such a preventive counterbalance, in the event of a sudden force majeure in the country, could regulate any situation. The path into this force must be denied to all officials, all so-called. media personalities from the current political era. And to maintain guarantees by the current higher Russian politicians The next successor president should under no circumstances be Medvedev or Rogozin - the next election of someone like them will automatically bring down the country. The period of calm application of the “successor” format in Russia is over.

We must understand that the danger comes not only from within Russia, but also from outside - from the rapidly shrinking geopolitical volume for it. To respond to these threats, other people and forces are needed.

If the authorities do not invest part of the funds in advance to create such a structure, they will wait with increasing anxiety for each next day. Shuvalov simply voiced these concerns out loud, for which we can say “thank you” to him once again. If such things began to break out, it means that Russia has entered into new stage of its existence, where “the street is full of surprises.”

Rostislav Ishchenko, political scientist, president of the Center for System Analysis and Forecasting:

I think that's right. Almost the entire period of Putin’s rule was an attempt to ensure continuity of policy while a change in the personal composition of power was inevitable. Not one ruler and not one Political Party cannot remain in power forever. Therefore, any responsible and competent politician, throughout the entire period of being in power, must think about what will happen after him. A responsible politician ensures the protection of national interests both in power and in opposition, and even by leaving politics altogether. The best a politician can do is to create a self-reproducing and self-correcting system that can operate effectively with minimal user competence.

Just as the Roman legions were guaranteed to win battles even with very mediocre command, so the political system must provide its state with the opportunity to effectively compete on the world stage even with mediocre (but honest) politicians, at least not giving up national interests intentionally. As far as I understand, Putin has been busy with this for the fourteenth year. In any case, his personal rule was ensured for any period he personally desired by the end of 2003. If he were interested in creating a system of personal power, then political reform in Russia could have stopped by the mid-2000s, but it not only continues, but is gaining momentum and is clearly aimed at ensuring the survivability of the system, regardless of Putin. So far it’s not working out well, but this is a problem with the available human material.

Larisa Beltser-Lisyutkina, cultural scientist, candidate of philosophical sciences (Germany):

Yes, when society is ripe for change, it is impossible to prevent it. Even at the cost civil war, like in Syria or Libya. These revolutions were by no means imported, as some claim, they ripened from below, exactly as Shuvalov describes. Hatred own people breathing down the backs of dictators. Regardless of whether there are alternative political programs and leaders, and what price will have to be paid for overthrowing dictators. In the 21st century, dictatorships are an anachronism, supporting Putin’s dictatorial ambitions, Russian society made a very bad choice, primarily for himself.

Yuri Yuryev, political constructor:

Shuvalov presents the situation ambiguously. From a script point of view, it is appropriate to consider his speech from the standpoint of the “principle of Moliere’s classicism,” that is, as: “Unity of time, place, action.” The time is definitely Putin’s, since the people in power are entirely Putin’s and allies, and the protests are becoming smaller. The place is definitely “liberalistic”, since NES is the legendary epicenter of liberalism and denationalization in favor of a few, and fundamentally “non-patriots”. The time is when it is necessary to remove the power ministers, since they have worse problems than the Trotskyists, and for such violations in China they would have already been shot by the thousands and their property would have been confiscated all over the planet.

It seems that NES-alam he is simply brightening up the reception of guests. They say that Russia is now so liberal and democratic that absolutely illiberal forces can come to power as a result of elections. This paradox is eternal, just remember how Zemsky Sobors They chose dictatorships, like the Romans and the Reich, they elected fascists, and now public demand for a strict order (at least like in China and the USA, with executions and confiscations) can give rise to the most brutal power in the most liberal elections. Rumor has it that Shuvalov’s son serves in combat units of the Marines, so Shuvalov may well have information from the people directly and understand that these are the trends. And their essence is not in the conflict “fathers and sons,” which is also eternal. But the point is that both fathers and children are tired of:

— Feudalism and despotism of some government officials who are clearly incapable of humanism and technological growth.

— The outflow of capital abroad and the transformation of officials and the bourgeoisie into rentiers who prefer to live abroad.

— The inability of the ruling classes to fight either for the rule of law in the country, or for order in the streets, or for defense power.

So Shuvalov very successfully hinted to NES that the situation was approaching the situation in 1917. And let them think.

Andrey Kuprikov, political scientist, head of Volgograd regional office"Business Russia":

This is an open challenge to Putin, a horror story and an attempt at wishful thinking, as well as fear of responsibility for what has been done, this is a cry for help and a desire to somehow legalize kleptocracy. It is significant that this was said immediately after the message Federal Assembly, this is the response of a certain pro-Western liberal group in the government.

Of course, it’s up to Putin to draw conclusions, but if I were him, I would dismiss Shuvalov immediately.

Experts do not exclude that in Russia for last years the risks of protests and revolution have increased, that is, society is inclined towards non-electoral types of political struggle.

Such conclusions are contained in the report of the Minchenko Consulting holding. The document is called “The New Political Reality and the Risks of an Anti-Elite War in Russia.” It includes sociological surveys and comparisons with what is happening in Western countries.

According to experts, Russia is now experiencing a similar anti-establishment wave. But if in the UK it was explained by Brexit, and in the USA by Trump’s victory, in Russia the reason for this was a sharp deterioration in people’s social well-being.

Currently, the position of United Russia is weakening, and populist politicians are gaining weight. Thus, political scientists of the communication holding analyzed possible scenarios rebooting the party and political system of Russia.

Its prerequisites are the defeat of government candidates in several regions in the gubernatorial elections in September. The public demand for changes in the situation is also clearly visible in the RANEPA survey conducted in October.

It says that 42% of respondents could not name the party that expresses their interests. About 28% of respondents said that parties serve the interests of rich people, oligarchs, authorities (17%), as well as their leaders (12%).

The Russian party system, according to respondents, is characterized by facade, incompetence and closed system, as well as serious corruption. Populists may find themselves in the ranks of liberal, left-conservative, anti-elite projects.

Thus, writes RBC, the authors propose several strategies to combat the populist opposition. The authorities are encouraged to use censorship, forceful methods, and regulation of access to elections. This becomes relevant against the background of the fact that the number of those dissatisfied with the situation in the country prevails over those satisfied (52% versus 45%).

Dissatisfaction is based on the obvious deterioration in living standards and insufficient social support measures. Rising prices and tariffs and an increase in the tax burden, as well as the difference between Moscow and the rest of the country, also have an impact.

According to Russians, there is stagnation and stagnation in the country, and this cannot be considered “stability”. In fact, discontent in society is constantly growing, but in the existing political conditions it cannot be expressed. Accordingly, protest activity is being implemented in a targeted manner and at different levels. But in the future it will only increase, analysts note, since the volume of accumulated problems is too great.

It is this state of affairs that can become the basis for a major anti-system project. The center will either have to create a new party project to extinguish protest activity, or reform the entire party system as a whole. The creation of new parties that could form the State Duma in 2021 is becoming urgent.

On this occasion, political consultant Dmitry Fetisov explained to RBC that the party system needs to be updated. Of course, part of the lost electorate, which turned away from United Russia due to the announcement of an extremely unpopular pension reform, can be used by the existing parties, but so far it remains unclaimed. In this regard, the Kremlin must take into account the absence of political forces capable of competing with it, but be aware of the likelihood of their emergence.

The hopes of political strategists from the Presidential Administration to “drain” protest sentiments with the help of Navalny and other political dwarfs did not materialize. Chief oppositionist out of habit, he called everyone to the barricades, and he himself gave slippers to Europe, and discontent continues to grow: sociologists continue to record a sharp drop in Vladimir Putin’s rating (9% per week).
As reported by the media, opposition leader Alexei Navalny decided on June 30 that it was best to fight the bloody regime from a cafe in Budapest. A video appeared online showing him and his family landing at Vnukovo Airport. On the same day, July 1, at seven Russian cities Concerted rallies took place against raising the retirement age, which, in fact, were initiated by Navalny. Of course, Alexey presented himself as a hero - on his Facebook page, he said that he was allegedly under surveillance, and explained that, just in case, he decided to leave the country on the eve of the protests.

It must be admitted that Navalny had previously pulled off a similar act instead of participating in rallies that he supported or organized. So, on May 12, on the eve of a rally agreed by the Moscow mayor’s office in defense of Internet freedom, he flew to Italy. After this, the oppositionist complained that he was preparing for the arrest and postponed all his cases, but now he has nothing to do.

Meanwhile, if some people on Old Square really expected that Navalny’s appearance in the pension “clearing” would cause people to stop being indignant, he clearly made a mistake. Firstly, the rallies took place anyway, and secondly, the trade unions, which are still negotiating and hope for the prudence of the Kremlin and the cancellation of at least the pension reform, have not yet had their say. As Katyusha has already reported, this option is indeed being considered in the Administration (the implementation of the scenario may occur during the July meeting of the State Council).

Further, the country’s leadership can no longer pretend that the reforms of the liberals do not concern it. No matter how hard our football team puts its best on the field, discontent grows and affects not only Medvedev and Siluanov - with these everything is already clear, but also Shoigu, Lavrov and, in fact, Putin himself.

Thus, the state-owned Public Opinion Foundation has recorded: today, 43% of Russians are ready to participate in street protests. As a result of the study, the Public Opinion Foundation also noted that 80% of Russians are dissatisfied with the planned increase in the retirement age. Half of them said that raising the retirement age is unacceptable in principle.

And these are only pensions, but how people will react to rising prices due to increased VAT, gasoline, the pogrom of schools, total digitization and other “wonderful” initiatives of Medvedev’s liberals, you don’t even need to go to the FOM. They are already reacting - all the leading politicians in the country are losing their ratings, and the President is the strongest of all.

Such figures have not been seen since the time of Boris Yeltsin, when the people and the authorities found themselves in different sides barricades

The same FOM analysts note in their reports that Russians’ dissatisfaction was caused not so much by the reforms themselves and jumps in gasoline prices, but by the President’s promises to improve living standards in March.

If the authorities do not take urgent measures, the main social explosion may occur in early autumn, when the World Cup takes place and deputies returning from vacation begin to discuss new laws on increasing taxes and the retirement age. They will discuss them exactly when municipal elections are held across the country, which means there will be many who will raise and cheat people. What's worse is that if the unions don't get an answer by this time, they will rise up too.

In this situation, the Kremlin will be forced to either make concessions to the people and cancel everything, removing liberals from the government, which already seems unlikely, or ignore the opinion of the people, continuing to stir up discontent according to the Ukrainian scenario, where Yanukovych’s much less stringent reforms during Euro 2012 launched a protest a mechanism that led to the Maidan in less than a year and a half.

Only an “alien” can fail to understand that an attempt to return us to the 90s is fraught with confrontation with the people, and even in the conditions of the Cold War with the United States. Perhaps their overseas “partners” are counting on them.

The crushing defeat of the Russian national team from Uruguay with a mystical score of 3:0 returned the majority of Russians from a state of festive euphoria to concern about the announced pension reform, the upcoming increase in VAT and other government innovations. The magic of football failed to distract people's attention from these painful topics.

Trying to put on a good face bad game, the press secretary of the Russian President Dmitry Peskov has already denied Vladimir Putin’s involvement in the upcoming increase in the retirement age three times, thereby confirming his patron’s now-meme statement that sometimes he “brings a blizzard.”

It is unlikely that there are people in Russia who believe that at least one more or less serious decision of the government, the Duma or another government agency, can be adopted without consultation with the Presidential Administration and Putin personally.

This is confirmed not only by the logic of what has been happening on the political field over the past 18 years, but also by regular “Direct Lines”, where the guarantor demonstrates concern for even the most insignificant problems of Russians. Moreover, this understanding extends not only to ordinary citizens, but also to senior government officials. It allows, for example, the current State Duma speaker Vyacheslav Volodin, formerly the first deputy head of the Kremlin administration, to declare: “If there is Putin, there is Russia, if there is no Putin, there is no Russia.”

But if Peskov’s obvious cunning can convince someone, the number of those convinced clearly does not include the majority of Russians, who, according to sociologists from VTsIOM and then FOM, have significantly reduced their approval of the activities of the president and his government.

According to a survey conducted by the All-Russian Center for the Study of Public Opinion, for the week from June 11 to 17, the level of approval of Putin’s activities was 72.1%, which is 5% less than the week before. Compared to May, the figure decreased by 8.2%. The work of the Prime Minister and the government is approved by 38.5% and 44.7% of respondents, respectively.

A survey by the Public Opinion Foundation showed that 30% of respondents “certainly trust” the president of their country; “rather trust” - 37%; “do not trust at all” 13%. 8% of respondents admitted to trusting the Prime Minister. 21% “rather trust” the head of government, 25% “rather distrust” the head of government.

In addition, 67% told FOM sociologists that they heard from others critical statements to Russian authorities This is the highest level since 2013. Half of the respondents admitted that the actions of the authorities over the past month caused dissatisfaction with them personally.

Peskov spoke about the head of state’s reaction to the dissatisfaction of Russian residents: “Therefore, public resonance one way or another affects the volatility of rating indicators. But you know that Putin is very pragmatic about this, and for him the main thing is to continue working, fulfilling his duties as head of state, and in this case he never looks back at his rating; the interests of the people are above all for him.”

Even if you don’t pay attention to the strange linguistic construct “public resonance influencing the volatility of rating indicators,” with which the president’s press secretary denotes the extreme concern and indignation of Russians, then his passage about the interests of people being above all else hardly corresponds to the logic of the action authorities over the past month. But this logic is consistent with the reasoning that the current government is increasingly moving away from democratic positions, making laws behind closed doors and reacting positively only to the interests of certain groups (remember the quick and effective assistance to the oligarchs who fell under sanctions - author's note), without taking into account needs and aspirations of the majority of the population. And despite the fact that we are still holding elections, although voices are increasingly heard saying that elections have become a mere formality and can be painlessly canceled, the appearance of democracy comes down to only the ability to vote every few years for one or another a political candidate who is carefully, practically without alternative, brought down to us from somewhere above, giving the winner carte blanche for the duration of his powers. But such a system, by and large, is a fiction, since such a politician is really responsible to those who recommended him from above, and not to those who voted for him.

Well, if the head of state, as his press secretary said, never looks back at his rating, and after him, apparently, the majority of deputies and governors do not look back at him, how to explain the violence and incessant novelties perpetrated against the Russian electoral system? legislation that is fashioned in the most bizarre ways before the start of each political season?

And if the government of the Russian Federation was seized with a reform itch, why did it have to immediately take the most unobvious and ineffective path, namely raising the retirement age, raising VAT, increasing all kinds of taxes and fees, and all this, probably, to increase budget profitability. And if for some reason it is impossible to restore order in the sphere of state monopolies, then why, for example, not move from words to deeds on the issue of developing small and medium-sized businesses. Why not try to do the obvious: improve the economy, revive the production of goods with high added value, give benefits for oil refining within the country, create your own base for the production of computers, etc.

While Peskov is talking about rating volatility, a statement from a certain employee of one of the Moscow LLCs is spreading on the Internet at a frantic pace, in which he asks to be transferred to a “black” salary, since he will not live up to his pension, and does not want to pay contributions to the state.

If the authorities read such posts, they should be very sobered and impressed by the comments that accompany the screenshot of this statement. And if in the virtual world one can argue whether this statement is fake or not, then in the real world the editors of the publication spoke with a dozen businessmen who not only sympathize with this statement, but have already had conversations with their employees and formally fired them in order to express their protest against government policy. Small and medium business after the VAT increase, and they are unlikely to lead to an increase in the budget. And despite the fact that some officials, on condition of anonymity, said that small and medium-sized businesses are in their infancy, and even if they go into the “gray” sphere, the budget will not suffer much, since the main emphasis is on state monopolies and large enterprises. This position is fraught with such alienation of power and society, which will block any attempts by the state to function and lead to the collapse of the existing system.

Tags: Vladimir Putin, Dmitry Peskov, reforms, state

Inflation and unemployment are becoming the main problems for the population

The overwhelming majority of citizens - about 90% - have some kind of complaints against the current Cabinet of Ministers of the Russian Federation. The government cannot cope with inflation and the fall in incomes of the population - these are the most frequently mentioned complaints. Russians are also concerned about rising unemployment.

Only 10% of citizens surveyed by the Levada Center currently have no complaints about the current cabinet of ministers. Sociologists came to this conclusion after surveying 1,600 people over 18 years of age in 134 localities in 46 regions of the country at the end of February.

The rest, that is, approximately 90% of respondents, have a wide variety of complaints against the government. The most important of them is related to the fact that the Russian government cannot cope with rising prices and falling incomes. This was stated by 55% of the citizens surveyed. Just a year ago, 41% put forward such a claim to the government, and in 2000 – 39%.

It is worth recalling that in 2000, price growth in the country reached 20%, however, judging by sociologists, then this caused less dissatisfaction among Russians than now, with annual inflation of about 17%. This paradox can be explained by the fact that at the beginning of the 2000s, economic difficulties were perceived by citizens as temporary adversity. The population hoped that under the new president, life in Russia would soon improve. And it won’t be worse than during the 1998 default. These hopes were not groundless, because in the first half of the 2000s, real disposable income of the population grew by 10% per year, or even more.

Now positive sentiments citizens seem to be on the decline. Today, many Russians think that the near future will only bring worsening problems. Many citizens do not see that the government is effectively solving problems that arise. One example is the emergency increase in the key rate by the Central Bank at the height of the currency crisis. Finally, the current double-digit inflation is no longer accompanied by faster growth in income, as was the case at the beginning of the last decade. On the contrary, today real incomes of the population have gone negative for the first time since 2000.

Second on the list of complaints is the lack of a well-thought-out economic program by the Cabinet of Ministers. This was indicated by 29% of respondents.

Citizens also blamed the government for the fact that the authorities cannot cope with the economic crisis, do not care about the social protection of the population, cannot provide Russians with work, that the authorities are corrupt and act in their own interests - each of these options received approximately 20% of the votes.

However, the press service of the Levada Center explained to NG yesterday that in fact the level of citizens’ dissatisfaction with the government’s actions is always at approximately the same level. Over time, only the reasons for this discontent change. Thus, in 2001, 20% of respondents accused the government of being unable to ensure stability in the North Caucasus. Now only 1% of surveyed citizens indicated such a problem. Another example: in 2007, 47% of respondents said that the government does not care about social protection of the population. But this was the last pre-crisis, fat year. Now the frequency of mentioning this problem has almost halved.

Finally, Russians told sociologists what worries them most. In first place was price growth, reported by 82% of respondents. 43% of respondents reported poverty and even impoverishment of the population. The third most pressing problem is the rise in unemployment, which is worried about by 38% of respondents.

Let us clarify that the new year 2015 really began for many Russians with layoffs or transfer to part-time work. Previously, the Ministry of Labor already reported that in February the number of officially registered unemployed in Russia increased weekly by 19–20 thousand people, or about 2% (see “NG” dated 03/01/15). Yesterday, the Ministry of Labor reported that the number of unemployed citizens who applied to employment services exceeded 990 thousand people.

True, Maxim Topilin’s department boasted that the weekly growth rate of registered unemployment began to decline: “From March 4 to March 11, the number of unemployed citizens registered with the employment service increased by 0.6%.” “For the second week in a row, a decrease in the growth rate of registered unemployment has been recorded,” Topilin explained.

Experts interviewed by NG admit that there is a direct connection between the state of the economy and the level of support for the authorities. "On this moment the population generally supports the political course, but if inflation continues to rise, then the views of ordinary citizens may change,” says Lionstone Investment Services analyst Ani Kruzh.

In turn, Timur Nigmatullin, an analyst at the Finam holding, points out that “the population of democratic capitalist countries is primarily interested in the level of unemployment, and not in inflation or the tax regime.”

Unemployment rate, according to methodology International organization labor (ILO), in Russia is still close to historical minimums since the collapse of the USSR, the expert notes: “In January 2015, the figure was 5.5%, and the historical minimum was reached in August 2014, when unemployment was 4.8%.” . And against this background, inflation, according to Nigmatullin, will not greatly worsen the attitude of Russians towards the country’s leadership. Discontent will begin to grow, apparently, only with mass layoffs.

Meanwhile, as follows from VTsIOM data, Russians now approve of the president’s actions, but many are skeptic towards the government. In early March, 80% of Russians approved of the president's actions and only 45% approved of the government's performance.