Economist Vladislav Inozemtsev in the article published by Vtimes, writes that in Russian protests of the late 1980s and early 1990s (up to 1994), economic requirements played an important role, but since then, in his opinion, the situation has changed - More individualistic modern culture suppressed the protest mood of society. Despite the depletion of the population and weak economic growth, the mobilization of society around economic problems is unlikely, they do not cause "general reproduction," says ingenians, therefore, political mobilization in the foreseeable future is unlikely.
I remember Russia that another era - from restructuring until 1994 I came to Moscow in December 1987 as a specialist Citibank (author - former corporate finance director in Eastern Europe Citibank, New York. - vtimes). The city looked at all as I saw him when I first visited the USSR in 1963, being still a student. Everywhere there were inscriptions "closed for repair", although nothing was repaired. Casting parks and ponds. Empty shelves stores.
The next year I came with the Vice-Chairman of Citibank Jack Clark to meet with the Deputy Chairman of the Board of Vorthergbank and the Future Chairman of the Central Bank Viktor Gerashchenko. Clark thought Mikhail Gorbachev was a lonely reformer without support, but Gerashchenko explained that this did not and that very many Russians understand the fundamental problem of the country: what was produced in accordance with Mamurn, this is not at all necessary for the population. Many educated people realized that this is a systemic problem and you need to solve it with general efforts, I told Geranoshko to us.
I communicated very much with market reformers and idealists. In all ministries and organizations, people were convinced: only open society, only political transformations will give a chance to solve economic problems and overcome the economic crisis. The political measures taken in the years of publicity and in Boris Yeltsin contributed to the emergence of market institutions - the exchange of securities, the law on property, the banking system. And people who spent the changes in the late 1980s were of the privileged layers - the gross equivalent of today's economically succeeding individuals, carriers of the most individualistic culture. Even Gerashchenko, who can not be called a favorite of reformers, made the need for fundamental transformations.
From ordinary people, whom I met in those years, I often heard: I want to live in a civilized country. And in these words, they invested not only economic meaning. I remember long queues on Tverskaya in the American Cosmetic Store - the first one in Moscow. Or a young woman with an Orthodox cross is a very radical statement for 1987, - who said that she was not religious, but he wanted to choose what to wear her. The right to freely express its individuality - and today, too, is the strongest motivator.
Russia, as Inozem residents writes, made a jerk since the 1990s. But economic development, in my opinion, cannot be sustainable without political transformations. Societies burdened by corruption are devoid of a chance for steady economic progress. The theft of the country's wealth deprives her economy of resources necessary for growth, dealers it. Hard control over the political system inhibits economic transformations, since any initiative of economic reforms inevitably becomes political. In countries that came to such a trap, the difference between economic and political demands becomes conditional.
We have just observed how the American electorate removed the current president during the relative prosperity of the economy and low unemployment (before Pandemic Kovid) mainly because of fear that this president threatens the stability of our political order. The most secured, educated voters did not support Donald Trump, fearing for the preservation of civil society.
Events in Washington January 6 proved that concerns were faithful. If there were no sustainable civil society in the United States, the damage for our democracy would be much stronger. Fortunately, the US Congress did not become the same symbol as the Winter Palace in 1917.
The mobilization of society in Russia, as in the 1980s, will be possible if many strata or classes decide that systemic reforms are needed. Given the stormy history of Russia in the 20th century, it is not surprising that many Russians are not so strongly worried about political restrictions and their attention is focused on career, family and finance. And nevertheless, the most educated part of society, those who more than others benefit from transformations can be united to preserve the achieved. The desire appeared in the 80s to live in a civilized country is still powerful power.
The author's opinion may not coincide with the position of the VTIMES edition.