MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti political commentator Maxim Krans) - The somewhat protracted "government casting" is over. Now policymakers, political scientists and journalists will devote at least several days to heated debates over the president's choice and the White House's new residents.
However, this subject is not likely to be of interest to most people - sociological studies show that only 16% of Russians hope that the Viktor Zubkov government will work better than the previous one; 62% do not expect it to make any breakthroughs or labor exploits.
Their skepticism is easy to understand - ministers come and go, but the problems remain.
The recently published poll of the Yury Levada Analytical Center shows that the Russians have quite a few grievances against the Mikhail Fradkov government, primarily concerning its performance in the social sphere. Although the attitude to this Cabinet is better than to Kasyanov's, 34% are still unhappy that the ministers have not stopped the growth of prices and a real decline in incomes. Another 30% blame the Cabinet for insufficient attention to social security and 18% for the failure to provide enough jobs. Half of those polled are confident that the White House reshuffle will not change anything, and more than two thirds are certain that the new Cabinet will be bogged down in red tape and bribery as much as the previous one, if not more.
Why are people so skeptical? After all, in the last few years social issues have moved to the fore, and for the first time in 15 years there is a chance of alleviating if not resolving them. Four national projects were launched last year - the first three deal with social problems and the fourth - on the recovery of the agro-industrial sector - has a strong social leaning. The government has allotted huge funds for health care and education. What are the people so unhappy about?
I believe they are unhappy because few of them have personally benefited from these grandiose programs or have not gained enough to feel satisfied with life. We can recall here the pension reform, the benefits-for-cash program launched by the former Minister of Health and Social Development Mikhail Zurabov, salary increases for GPs but not specialists, which has driven a wedge into the medical community, or the ministry's recent 25% cut of the expenses for treatment of the disabled at resorts.
It seems that the attempt to boost the birth rate by giving out financial incentives was a good idea. But experts insist that the allowance of 250,000 rubles is enough to buy an average of seven square meters of housing and even less than that in the capital and other big cities. As for other potential expenditures, the certificate for matriculation in a college may come good in 13 to 14 years and for happy old age in 30-35 years. Our people have long stopped believing the state's bonds, especially so long-term.
Zurabov's successor Tatyana Golikova has inherited a host of problems - a huge, messy and dysfunctional ministry. She is in charge of 16 directions - from health care to pharmacology and from pension support to labor migration. Each of these directions is in a deplorable condition. In the near future, Golikova will have to sort out the APM (additional provision of medicines), pilot projects and the pension reform. She will have to organize massive anti-flu inoculations - there is a real threat that this project will fail. Golikova will also work for settlement with the Russian Academy of Medical Science - her predecessor Zurabov was trying to deprive it of its best medical centers.
Colleagues describe Golikova as an excellent professional who excels in budget planning. Zurabov, a cyber engineer, has obviously failed to cope with the distribution of cash flows. But his main weakness was his failure to consider all possible options and the most effective ways of settling problems, and, importantly, the consequences of his actions. Will his successor, a financier with little experience of the challenges presented by her new job, handle it better?
Another social institution - the Regional Development Ministry - is also one of the disadvantaged. It has gone from Vladimir Yakovlev to Dmitry Kozak. The ministry was charged with the national project on affordable housing but did not cope with it. It transpired that this project does not help people to acquire new apartments and that only well-to-do can afford to pay the mortgage - but they can resolve their housing problems without the government's help anyway. There was also the utilities reform, "the most difficult and unsuccessful venture, which has been launched several times to no avail...," as Dmitry Medvedev put it.
On the whole, the enumeration of mistakes made by the former ministers and inherited by their successors practically coincides with the list of the initiatives launched by the government in the social sphere. I think the reason for this coincidence is obvious. The government launches major decisions without large-scale discussion in society, by the media and, of course, by professionals. It seems that we are witnessing the come-back of the Soviet paternalist attitude toward the nation, when the president and his administration assume responsibility for its development while the subjects have no choice but to feel deep gratitude for paternal care.
By and large, is Putin's reshuffle important at all? The Cabinet plays more of a technical role as an agency responsible for the implementation of decisions from "above." In the Russia Ltd corporation, the levers of managing the national economy and social sphere are by no means in the White House. At any rate, this is how the people perceive executive authorities. For them the government is a very abstract notion. Russians simply do not know who their ministers are and what they do. The Public Opinion Foundation's poll bears out that 68% of them have never heard of Leonid Reiman, 63% of Alexander Sokolov and Yury Trutnev, 59% about Igor Levitin and 48% of Viktor Khristenko.
Introducing the new Cabinet, Vladimir Putin said that from now on the government, ministries and regional administrations will be graded. Who will grade them -- the president, his administration or those for whom they are supposed to work?
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
