As President Obama arrives in Moscow to engage in discussions on reducing nuclear weapons, cooperating on security, non-proliferation and missile defense, and expanding the ties between American and Russian society and business, it's worth noting the very complicated dynamic between the Russian government and the Russian citizenry, as the
ongoing transition to Democracy continues, and the idea of "civil society" is still being developed. In April, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev gave his first-ever interview to Novaya Gazeta, a newspaper that has been a harsh critic of the current administration. President Medevedev spoke with writer Dmitry Muratov about what "civil society" means in the context of difficult economic times, when fundamentals such as food and shelter are very expensive, and unemployment is high (photo: President Medvedev during the interview). An excerpt:A social contract: Once again about sausages and freedom
NOVAYA GAZETA: On April 15 you will host the Presidential Civil Society Institutions and Human Rights Council....Do I understand that today civil society is more important to you then that of “plainclothes men”?
DMITRY MEDVEDEV: You know, civil society is a category that we have not fully absorbed in Russia. Throughout the world civil society is the flip side of the state. The state is not only a political machine, it is also a form of organising life in society, one that is based on state power and relies on the law, while civil society is the human dimension of any state. Though its members are governed by state legislation they often act according to human laws that, incidentally, do not always have a legal form. Still quite recently, many people did not understand the words civil society. A state is more or less clear. But what is civil society? A society of citizens? So we are all citizens of our country. And now there is the understanding that civil society is an integral non-governmental institution in any state. An institution that provides feedback. The organisations of people who do not hold office, but are nevertheless actively involved in the life of their country.
Therefore meetings and contacts between the President and representatives of civil society are indispensable. Let me emphasise: these relations are not easy for any authority, because all members of civil society and representatives of human rights organisations have a huge number of issues to raise with the government and leaders. They have a lot of questions, and these are questions the authorities do not always want to answer. But that is why such contacts must be systematic, including contacts within the framework of the Council you mentioned. I expect that this will be an interesting conversation. It will likely be hard, but therein lies its value.
NOVAYA GAZETA: For a few years now there has been an unspoken contract between state and society (or, more precisely, the majority of society): the state provides a given level of comfort and well-being, and in exchange society remains loyal to the state.
DMITRY MEDVEDEV: You mean “democracy in exchange for prosperity” or, say, “sausages in exchange for freedom”?
NOVAYA GAZETA: Yes. But now, in the absence of prosperity, what do you think a new contract could be? I will not even say the word thaw, but perhaps the defrosting [Alexander Auzan’s term] of society is pertinent? Since neither society nor the state can deal with the crisis alone, they will have to talk.
DMITRY MEDVEDEV: The idea of a social contract is certainly one of the brightest human ideas and has undoubtedly played a very significant role in the development of democratic institutions throughout the world. The origins of Rousseau’s idea are well-known, but if you refer to the modern social contract then I would say that its framework is laid out in our Constitution. The Constitution is a special agreement between on the one hand the state and, on the other, its citizens.
NOVAYA GAZETA: An agreement on what?
DMITRY MEDVEDEV: On how to exercise power in the territory of our state, of our country. In this context, the social contract refers to the partial assignment of authority, which by virtue of natural law belongs to the individual, to the state so that the state guarantees individual’s prosperity, life and liberty. But it seems to me that one should never oppose a stable and prosperous life, and a set of political rights and freedoms. You can not oppose democracy and well-being. On the other hand, it is clear that the inalienable rights and freedoms of the individual and citizen may be in jeopardy if society is unstable, if the elementary needs of individuals are not provided for, if people do not feel secure, if they do not receive their wages, if they are unable to buy basic foodstuffs, if their lives are threatened.
Therefore, I see no contradiction in your question to me. It is obvious that the social contract goes back not only to the well-known theories of the 17th and 18th centuries, but also to our Constitution.
NOVAYA GAZETA: Are you suggesting that you can offer Russia both freedom and prosperity?
DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Yes.
*Read the full interview here.
*Photo at top of post: Obama and Medvedev matyroshka dolls from a Moscow bazaar, via Foreign Policy Report
