Paul Goble
Staunton, February 21 – Only just over one in five Russians shares European values and their number has not increased significantly over the last 15 years, a pattern that makes the emergence of democracy in that country anytime soon almost impossible, according to an assessment of a major cross-national study of values recently published in Moscow.
But these 22 percent, V.S. Magun and M.G. Rudnyev write in an article in “Obshchestvennyye nauki i Sovremennost’,” have more in common with French and Swedish citizens than they do with the remaining 78 percent of the population of the Russian Federation (cross-cultural.ru/researchers/rudnev/publications/2010%20-%20%D0%9E%D0%B1%D1%89%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B5%20%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%83%D0%BA%D0%B8-2.pdf).
An appreciation of their massive and detailed 24,000-word cross-national investigation has now been provided by Pavel Pryanikov in an articled posted online yesterday on the “Svobodnaya pressa” portal entitled “Why the Construction of Democracy in Russia is Impossible” (svpressa.ru/society/article/39132/).
Pryanikov begins his essay by observing that with only a year until the elections, President Dmitry Medvedev has changed the focus of his public speeches from modernization and reforms to comments suggesting that Russians must not “rock the boat,” that he personally is “disappointed in the [Russian] people,” and that he has concluded he must use “the Stick.”
This shift, Pryanikov says, reflects Medvedev’s experiences and his perusal of various sociological studies prepared for him and other Russian leaders. Among the most important and most accessible, the Moscow writer says, is the work of Magun and Rudnyev, who found that only”an insignificant minority – 22 percent” – of Russians “share the values” of Europe.
Among these values are “an openness to change” rather than a desire for order above all things. But what is especially interesting in this report is that these “’Russian Europeans’ are equally distributed by profession and territory of the country, undercutting the thesis of many intellectuals that ‘life exists only inside the Garden Ring in Moscow.’”
“For the Russian,” Magun and Rudnyev write, “in comparison with residents of other countries is characteristic a higher level of caution (or even fear0 Nad a requirement for defense from the side of a strong state, a weakly expressed desire for innovation, creativity, freedom and independence, and a small inclination to risk and striving for happiness and satisfaction.”
“But at the same time,” they say, “one is speaking about [the Russians’] strong striving to wealth and power ... A strong orientation toward personal self-assertion leaves in the consciousness of this person less than among representatives of other countries any place for concern about equality and justice in the country and the world.”
In short, Pryanikov notes, the 78 percent of Russians who do not share European values recall “personages from the novels of Saltykov-Shchedrin.”
This is far from the most devastating conclusion of the sociologists, at least from the point of view of those like Medvedev who have suggested they would like modernization. Magur and Rudnyev note that “unlike many other ‘transit’ countries, in the course of the 15 years of the investigation there has not been a significant change” in these values among Russians.”
Another Russian investigator, Sergey Magril, reaches similar conclusions, Pryanikov notes. In an article in “Nezavisimaya gazeta,” Magril writes that “the macro-social strategies of the basic social groups of contemporary Russian society are again directed at its disorganization and therefore at its disintegration” (www.ng.ru/science/2011-02-09/12_naz_intellect.html).
As a result, and unlike in Europe where the level of inter-personal trust is in the 80-85 percent range, in Russia, this is at the level of only 24 percent, making cooperation difficult if not impossible, all the more so because “on the order of 80 percent o fhte respondents,” feeling they have no impact on decisions, “do not take responsibility for what is taking place in the country.”
But unlike Magun and Rudnyev, Magril insists that both the political elite and the intelligentsia bear responsibility for this because each has failed to promote or even reflect the very values its members say they value and that are necessary for modernization and democratization.
They have not challenged the kind of patron-client relationships that scholars like Ernest Gellner has described, relationships that are, as Pryanikov notes, “a typical description of somekind of medieval pirate republic” rather than a modern democracy of the kind Moscow says it wants.
Russia’s Social Chamber, Pryanikov continues, have reached the same conclusions as the scholars in its 2010 report, finding that roughly three-quarters of all “Russians consider the basic mass of their fellow citizens as alien people,” with whom it is impossible to trust or cooperate (www.oprf.ru/files/Doklad-OPRF-2010.pdf).
Pryanikov concludes with words that are likely to disturb many. In Soviet times, he notes, students were told that a revolution is approaching when “those above cannot, and those below do not want.” What remains an open question is “do the Russians [of the lower social strata who are not Europeanized] want?”
For the time being, it appears clear, the “Svobodnaya pressa” writer says, that they have not figured out what they want besides being left alone. And in that situation, he suggests, Russian can continue “for a very long time yet,” something that some in the elite appear to hope for and that many of the Europeanized strata fear.
Monday, February 21, 2011
Window on Eurasia: Russia May Not Have Any Forests Left to Sell in 20-30 Years, Experts Say
Paul Goble
Staunton, February 21 – Within 30 years, Russia may have so overharvested, legally and illegally, its forests and signally failed to plant replacement trees that the country which now has the largest forests in the world will not have any wood left either for domestic use or sale abroad, according to Russian and international experts.
And that situation, Rodion Rudnyev writes in “Versiya,” is about to be exacerbated by a proposed bill that would allow every Russian to harvest his own Christmas/New Year’s tree each year, a measure that would open the way to even more widespread theft of that country’s forest resources (versia.ru/articles/2011/feb/21/exsport_nezakonnoy_drevisiny).
The Kostroma oblast duma has sent a proposed amendment to the Russian forest code that would allow Russians to cut down a tree for Christmas or New Year’s without being at risk as is now the case of fines that in some cases can at least theoretically reach up to 800,000 rubles (26,000 US dollars).
If that were all that the measure would do, Rudnyev suggests, no one would be too worried, but it is clear that the opening of such a loophole would be exploited by those who are illegally cutting down trees for profit. Indeed, he reports, up to a third of the 160 million cubic meters of wood being harvested in Russia now is “harvested” by criminal groups.
On the one hand, he continues, this illegal harvest and its illegal sale abroad is, according to the World Wildlife Fund, costing Russian government budgets almost one billion US dollars a year. And on the other, such illegal operatives rarely if ever plant new trees in place of those they have cut down, thus rapidly reducing the size of Russia’s forests.
Rudnyev suggests that the timing of the Kostroma “initiative” raises suspicions. After all, it comes “almost 11 months before the next holiday period,” but it coincides with “the moment when world markets have shown a record increase in the demand” for wood and when prices are extremely high.
According to Russian statistics, “from ten to thirty percent” of wood harvested in Russia is done so illegally. The large range is the product of different definitions. If one is speaking about individuals chopping down trees “without documents,” it is the former. If one is speaking about groups that exceed their licenses and overharvest, then it is the latter.
Because of its enormous forest holdings and because of the high price of wood, Russia is a major exporter of wood, but 15 to 25 percent of the wood shipped abroad is illegal in the sense that it either has been harvested without proper documentation or has been shipped without official sanction.
The profits being made in this sector are enormous, especially for those engaged in it illegally. According to some assessments, Rudnev says, the profits may reach 300 percent of costs, something that tempts criminal groups and that gives them the funds to put pressure on officials and legislators not to interfere or even to help.
As a result, Rudnyev says, the cutting down and sale of wood “is becoming one of the most criminalized sectors of the economy of Russian regions.” The reasons for that are clear: the risks are “minimal” because criminals and officials routinely protect one another, and even when charges are brought, those higher up the power vertical ensure that violators typically get off.
For example, the “Versiya” journalist writes, “in the spring of 2007, two officers from the economic crimes sector were arrested. They were found guilty in the misuse of their positions because they provided assistance to Chinese and Russian-language forest harvesting companies.” They were threatened with ten years in prison, but higher ups freed them in early 2008.
Having gone from the specific to the general, Rudnyev concludes by focusing again on the Kostroma proposal. The worst thing about it, he suggests, is that “federal subjects have already demonstrated their inability to deal with the administration and control of the forest economy.”
Some of them have not provided any financing for this control despite the requirements of the January 2007 forest code. While many of them did focus on “the catastrophic consequences of the fires of last summer,” they have almost not noted the barbaric [destruction] of the forests” otherwise.
The situation is truly dire. The international organization Forest Trends predicts, Rudnyev says, that “already after 20 to 30 years [this] gigantic illegal business [in Russia] will be able to destroy the largest forest region on the planet,” something that will have tragic consequences not only for Russia but for the international environment.
In Soviet times, people joked that if Saudi Arabia went communist, in five years, the Arabs would be importing sand. It will be truly tragic if half a century after the collapse of the USSR, Russians who have always been proud of their forests will be forced because of the actions of criminals and the officials who protect them to import wood.
Staunton, February 21 – Within 30 years, Russia may have so overharvested, legally and illegally, its forests and signally failed to plant replacement trees that the country which now has the largest forests in the world will not have any wood left either for domestic use or sale abroad, according to Russian and international experts.
And that situation, Rodion Rudnyev writes in “Versiya,” is about to be exacerbated by a proposed bill that would allow every Russian to harvest his own Christmas/New Year’s tree each year, a measure that would open the way to even more widespread theft of that country’s forest resources (versia.ru/articles/2011/feb/21/exsport_nezakonnoy_drevisiny).
The Kostroma oblast duma has sent a proposed amendment to the Russian forest code that would allow Russians to cut down a tree for Christmas or New Year’s without being at risk as is now the case of fines that in some cases can at least theoretically reach up to 800,000 rubles (26,000 US dollars).
If that were all that the measure would do, Rudnyev suggests, no one would be too worried, but it is clear that the opening of such a loophole would be exploited by those who are illegally cutting down trees for profit. Indeed, he reports, up to a third of the 160 million cubic meters of wood being harvested in Russia now is “harvested” by criminal groups.
On the one hand, he continues, this illegal harvest and its illegal sale abroad is, according to the World Wildlife Fund, costing Russian government budgets almost one billion US dollars a year. And on the other, such illegal operatives rarely if ever plant new trees in place of those they have cut down, thus rapidly reducing the size of Russia’s forests.
Rudnyev suggests that the timing of the Kostroma “initiative” raises suspicions. After all, it comes “almost 11 months before the next holiday period,” but it coincides with “the moment when world markets have shown a record increase in the demand” for wood and when prices are extremely high.
According to Russian statistics, “from ten to thirty percent” of wood harvested in Russia is done so illegally. The large range is the product of different definitions. If one is speaking about individuals chopping down trees “without documents,” it is the former. If one is speaking about groups that exceed their licenses and overharvest, then it is the latter.
Because of its enormous forest holdings and because of the high price of wood, Russia is a major exporter of wood, but 15 to 25 percent of the wood shipped abroad is illegal in the sense that it either has been harvested without proper documentation or has been shipped without official sanction.
The profits being made in this sector are enormous, especially for those engaged in it illegally. According to some assessments, Rudnev says, the profits may reach 300 percent of costs, something that tempts criminal groups and that gives them the funds to put pressure on officials and legislators not to interfere or even to help.
As a result, Rudnyev says, the cutting down and sale of wood “is becoming one of the most criminalized sectors of the economy of Russian regions.” The reasons for that are clear: the risks are “minimal” because criminals and officials routinely protect one another, and even when charges are brought, those higher up the power vertical ensure that violators typically get off.
For example, the “Versiya” journalist writes, “in the spring of 2007, two officers from the economic crimes sector were arrested. They were found guilty in the misuse of their positions because they provided assistance to Chinese and Russian-language forest harvesting companies.” They were threatened with ten years in prison, but higher ups freed them in early 2008.
Having gone from the specific to the general, Rudnyev concludes by focusing again on the Kostroma proposal. The worst thing about it, he suggests, is that “federal subjects have already demonstrated their inability to deal with the administration and control of the forest economy.”
Some of them have not provided any financing for this control despite the requirements of the January 2007 forest code. While many of them did focus on “the catastrophic consequences of the fires of last summer,” they have almost not noted the barbaric [destruction] of the forests” otherwise.
The situation is truly dire. The international organization Forest Trends predicts, Rudnyev says, that “already after 20 to 30 years [this] gigantic illegal business [in Russia] will be able to destroy the largest forest region on the planet,” something that will have tragic consequences not only for Russia but for the international environment.
In Soviet times, people joked that if Saudi Arabia went communist, in five years, the Arabs would be importing sand. It will be truly tragic if half a century after the collapse of the USSR, Russians who have always been proud of their forests will be forced because of the actions of criminals and the officials who protect them to import wood.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
