Aleksander Voloshin met with university professors and students in the Golden Hall. Voloshin was a former head of the Presidential Administration and chairman of the board of such large companies as RAO “UES” and “Norilsk Nickel.” He is now primarily involved in projects on science and innovation, serving on the Yandex director’s council, supervisory board of the Higher School of Economics, the coordination committee of the Skolkovo school, and others. In a brief introduction, EUSP rector Oleg Kharkhordin remarked that such a shift in interests is similar to the ideas of Bourdieu. Voloshin then addressed the audience, confessing that he had never visited the EUSP before but had heard a lot about the university. He proposed that the meeting proceed in a Q&A format, joking that he had never given a lecture before and didn’t want to start now.
The first question came from Nikita Lomagin, Vice-Rector for GR, on the possibility of modernizing the contemporary Russian bureaucracy. Professor Lomagin mentioned a project implemented by the EUSP several years ago, noting that when participants tried to imagine ways to modernize Russia they found Russian bureaucracy to be a major obstacle incapable of changing itself. Lomagin asked Voloshin to assess whether or not Russian bureaucracy could be modernized and, if so, what could speed up this process.
In response, Voloshin pointed out that Russian bureaucracy is neither better nor worse than many other bureaucracies, as it more or less successfully manages the task of running the country. According to his hypothesis, if we try to keep the current system it would be impossible to cope with well-known disadvantages; the only way to fundamentally change the system is to drastically reduce the functions of the state and to more effectively fulfill those that remain. Voloshin also mentioned that systematic changes would require either a strong will from above or enormous pressure from below. Authorities, according to him, are capable of working satisfactory only in a strong civil society and that should be a primary vector in the Russian government’s development.
The next question came from Kirill Borissov, a professor in the Department of Economics. He asked Voloshin to share his observations about whether the Russian government now сonsiders expert opinions and whether there exists a society of experts within the country. In response, Voloshin remarked that the Russian government is, like any other, more comfortably operating in a closed format, and we certainly know very little about its motivations. According to Voloshin, a community of economic experts is notably absent, because in many areas there are not just simply enough specialists. He believes, however, that there are certain areas where clusters of experts have already been formed and already work. He cited the example of the “Open Government” project, whose council of experts plays a significant role in the activities of the Russian administration—particularly in developing the contemporary space program. Still, expert’s evaluations have yet to become an integral part of the system, though Voloshin expressed hope that this situation will change.
In a follow-up to Nikita Lomagin’s question, Svetlana Lavrova, executive director of the EUSP endowment fund, asked about issues of the Russian bureaucracy’s culture and mentality. In her opinion, will from above and pressure from below may provoke change, but are unlikely to change the people already working within the system. She gave an example from several decades ago, when co-operative stores recruited people without experience in Soviet trade in order to change the system from within. Lavrova was interested in how the mindset of Russian bureaucracy can be changed. Voloshin answered that in the advent of any change, certain groups of people prove to be labile and adjust in accordance with new conditions, but not all people can change. In his opinion, we need to strike a compromise that preserves the positive aspects of the old system and creates new, progressive bureaucrats. All this depends on the tasks that are set before the state apparatus, and focusing attention on the necessity of radically reducing the level of bureaucracy and opting for the high quality regulation and direct management of state companies.
First vice-rector Boris Kolonitsky changed the topic to introduce a discussion of history. He asked whether Voloshin perceived himself to be an object of historical study, as academic discussion about his tenure in the president’s administration is already underway. Kolonitsky also asked whether, in Voloshin’s opinion, there exists a correlation between the current situation and the political events in which he was directly involved. Voloshin answered that predicting the future is much easier than describing the past, as there are many different opinions about every historical event. While the participants of these events are still living, Voloshin believes that any discussion of them will be subjective—he finds it difficult to guarantee objectivity himself.
Maksim Bouev, dean of the Department of Economics, noted that the Voloshin has always postulated the need for the state to reduce its presence in the economy. Bouev’s question concerned the current economic situation, the exit from which will be possible either through increased government or precisely the opposite, depending on various points of view. Voloshin agreed that the current situation is indeed complicated, and in his opinion, the most important thing is to radically improve the business climate, as conducting business (especially small and mid-sized businesses) is now extremely difficult in Russia. The issue of improving the business climate should also include significant changes in the judicial system and regulatory environment. Voloshin believes that Russia holds enormous potential, both in resources and intellect, which could serve as the source of dynamic development.
The last question came from Galina Lisitsyna, vice-rector for academic affairs. Recalling that in the 1990s there existed a great number of prerequisites for forming a civil society in Russia that went unrealized, she asked for Voloshin’s opinion on contemporary national and nationalist movements in the context of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. Voloshin disagreed with Lisitsyna’s view of the 1990s: in his view, civil society is developed to a much greater degree today than it was twenty years ago. Regarding the question of conflict, he answered that this, of course, should be as small as possible, though the problem discussed is much more complex: he called Ukraine a “composite” multiethnic country and noted that, in his view, the form of nation-building practiced in Ukraine is doomed to failure.
Noticing that the discussion lasted much longer than planned, rector Oleg Kharkhordin remarked on its productivity and Voloshin thanked the university staff for an interesting discussion. He expressed hope that he would visit the European University again.
Andrian Vlakhov
