There is only one way to tackle all economic crisis – hard work. The task of the state and “business captains” is extremely easy here – to motivate each person for hard work, to support those left behind under the changing economic conditions and to encourage those, who work well.

The rest depends on a concrete person, but under one condition: while carving up a shrinking pie and distributing the burden of the crisis it is important to let people see that it is done “on an equity basis” and their opinion is taken into account. Of course, it is impossible to live through the crisis without making a single mistake. The only way to prevent people’s dissatisfaction from growing and endangering social and political stability is to develop “democracy of trust”, to launch new channels of a public dialogue and to maintain the already existing ones.

The program initiated by the president and aimed at increasing the share of the people’s representation in the bodies of power (unofficially called “ten steps”) not only supports the democracy and freedom, but also stands against the old-type bureaucracy based on distrust for people. Let’s recall elements of these “ten-step program” and identify the problem zones it intends to address.

Representative authorities expand their supervising functions – the government is to report to it and to answer questions, including those tricky. If this pattern runs smoothly, each voter will realize that he or she can approach any minister or even the Prime Minister with a question through a special representative in the State Duma.

It will be impossible to get into the Federation Council not having passed through a trial of elections to a regional or a municipal representative body. It means establishment of stronger links between members of the Federation Council and people from the region they represent in Moscow.

Only a party with the majority seats in the legislative body of the constituent entity of the Federation will have the right to nominate a governor. This enhances transparency and ensures establishment of cross liability between the executive and the legislative power in the region. It is vital for parties, especially for the largest one, to set up internal decision-making pattern facilitating nomination of candidates. This pattern should involve not only the leadership of the federal party, but also a local organization, which is to work with this governor on a regular basis.

It is necessary to make entry into politics easier for all parties, including small ones. Limitations on the number of party members and on the number of signatures needed for a nominee to qualify for elections are reducing, yet, quite slowly. The parties to gain over 5% at elections are not only to represent their voters at the Parliament, but also to gain full privileges of parliamentary party.

That is what I can say against criticism of this pattern: it is not the point that certain parties will gain only a couple of seats at the Duma - the point is that they will be protected against bureaucratic tyranny during elections - the same as their political activities. A more important thing is that such an initiative prevents political competition from being artificially frozen. I mean cases when parties were barred from running for Parliament, when their members were under excessive control and internal party rules were too strict, when parties found it too difficult to gain access to mass media sources. These very norms of local bureaucracy are to be tested for relevance. We should check whether local bureaucrats have heard the President’s address, where he talked about how unacceptable it is to distrust the free man and to disapprove of independent activities.

The “democracy of trust” Russia is trying to reach will expand responsibilities of the Public Chamber and will introduce liberal politicians (“critics of the regime”) into the pool of Presidential advisors and entrusting municipal assemblies with the right to remove inefficient mayors.

The mentioned methods, akin to democracy, are not an answer to everything. They will only eliminate barriers between the state and its people and to make it clear that the government approves of expansion and development with the aim to strengthen the public confidence and to lead the country to success. To make this success possible all country’s citizens are to take joint efforts. It will take several years to make these norms effective, whilst impact of the program will manifest itself step by step. It is vital to start developing and encouraging any forms of “democracy of trust” right now.

One of the first surveys conducted by our Institute focused on development of the Russian democracy pattern. Our key conclusions coincide with the president’s suggestions. It is necessary to develop the “democracy of trust” and to establish an intensive dialogue between the state and its people in order to find ways to combat the crisis and to work out a pattern for Russia’s steady development.

Will this dialogue transform into a pact or a contract between the state and the public? This is a tough question. On the one hand, it is not an ultimate goal, since the public is unlikely to come up with names of those to sign such a contract, since there are no such people to be trusted by the majority of Russians. However, all parties and (most importantly) the government must observe certain contract terms.

First, the dialogue must be honest with all the parties observing the contract terms. If anything goes wrong, there should not be any information gaps and all people responsible for a collapse are to take a relevant responsibility (if applicable). Secondly, anyone should be free to join the dialogue: all parties, trade unions, employers’ associations and all structures of the civil society, both already existing and new. Admission to the dialogue should be provided not by a bureaucrat with a round seal, but by people, who had entrusted a newly formed trade union or an association of crisis-victims with the right to represent their interests. Thirdly, the dialogue participants must respect each other.

The main thing the authorities should grasp is that people are ready to adjust to the consequences of the crisis, but they won’t tolerate humiliation from the government (let’s imagine some dull bureaucrat) or from a heel of an employer. A person who ends up at a protest should not be looked upon as an enemy: he is protecting his lawful interest through lawful means. Protests should not be forbidden – Russian law does not give such a right to bureaucrats. Protestors should not be called “agents of influence” or selfish thieves; their actions should not be scrutinized for the hand of Russia’s enemies. All of these “methods,” alas, have already been used in our country – with disastrous effects. And I want to believe that we won’t repeat our mistakes.

The first year of Dmitry Medvedev’s presidency showed that the free individual is at the center of his political strategy. The government is obligated (both according to the Constitution and out of moral necessity) to create the conditions for this individual’s self-actualization; it is also obligated to protect his political, civil and social rights. “If we need a policy that is oriented toward the individual, then… civil society should have the opportunity to control the implementation of social policy,” Dmitry Medvedev stressed during his speech at the ceremony marking the establishment of our institute, the board of trustees of which he heads. He said this half a year prior to the beginning of the crisis. But this idea remains relevant, especially as the crisis compels us to look for new approaches to observing social obligations and promoting innovative development.

Published in Rossiyskaya Gazeta, March 13, 2009