Paul Goble
Staunton,
June 20 – The conflict over government plans to increase the retirement age in
large part reflects the existence of two different nations in Russia, who live
in different worlds and eras and who do not have a common language in which the
upper and lower strata of the population can discuss what is going on,
according to Rosbalt commentator Sergey Shelin.
Unlike in
many other countries, he argues (rosbalt.ru/blogs/2018/06/19/1711497.html),
Russia does not face a pension crisis. Indeed, an analysis
prepared by the Bank of Russia last year reached precisely that conclusion in
the course of an examination of the system for at least the next two decades (cbr.ru/publ/moneyandcredit/vlasov_mamedli_08_17.pdf).
But that
is not how things appear to those at the top of the Russian political and economic
system. “Vladimir Putin, along with his closest circle live in the distant past
when the nobleman distributed to his peasants various bounties,” sometime more
and sometimes less but without a fixed system, Shelin says.
“The
previous ‘reform’ of Russian pensions, with the introduction of the ball system
and the end of savings plans, completely fit into this logic,” Shelin says. “If
before this a citizen reading the annual reports of the Pension Fund sent to
him about the sum of savings, as corrected for inflation, could calculate his
future pension, now this became impossible.”
But “on
the other hand, nothing interfered with his continuing to hope for the generosity
of the nobleman. People with an archaic cast of mind or artificially induced to
that condition have become accustomed over the last 12 years to the idea that
pensions in real terms will almost always grow.”
And it is
from this that arises “the principled distinction of ordinary people from the
passive peasants of the century before last.”
Today’s
man on the street like his predecessor does not have any idea where the money
for his pension is coming from but unlike the Russian peasant in the past can’t
imagine that the state will ever pull back. “From the leader and from
television, he expects to find out only about new benefits.”
“It is
understandable why the head of government did not tell the people a word about
the supposedly government (but not presidential!) plan for raising the pension
age. He and the ideal part of his subjects simply haven’t developed the
language needed for discussing the so-called unpopular decisions.”
In the
current system, Shelin continues, “the [supreme] leader dispenses only
benefits. This is his key function which in a specific case may be carried out
a little later either by the softening of the ‘government’ plan by order from
one high or in the extreme case even by its replacement.”
But there
is a problem: “besides the ideal citizens, we have unideal ones. Those who
absolutely do not believe the state, who try to keep away from it as far as
possible, who live and work in the shadows, and who don’t make contributions to
the pension fund.” The number in “the
tens of millions.”
The leader
and his surrounding people view them as a problem and the source of a deficit in
the Pension Fund. But this is not really the case, Shelin says, at least in the
middle term. The powers that be don’t have a vocabulary to get these people to
contribute, and therefore they turn to the only means they know, exposure and
punishment.
“In
Russia there is also a stratum of people who think in a contemporary fashion.
They live mostly in the megalopolises and in principle are prepared to a serious
argument about new pension plans … But agitation in favor of ‘pension reforms’
will only perplex those who think independently.”
Such
people don’t believe the government will keep its promises for any period of
time: it hasn’t up to now. And consequently, they will be suspicious too. And
so they too will be angry about what the government is proposing.
But these
are only part of a more general problem: The lack of a common language between the
powers and the people. “As in the past, there is no generally understood language
in which various groups of the less privileged can discuss measures” that will affect
their position in a negative way.
Until
that language emerges – and there is little sign that it can given the current
rulers – the real fight is not between two positions on raising the retirement
age. Rather, it is about two world views, one based on a past that cannot be
restored and another on a future that is only incompletely here.
No comments:
Post a Comment