В.Путин.Интервью главным редакторам. Part 2

Excerpts from an Interview with the Chief Editors of the Newspapers Komsomolskaya Pravda, Izvestia, Moskovsky Komsomolets and 2 March 22,2001. Moscow. Интервью главным редакторам газет «Комсомольская правда», «Известия», «Московский комсомолец», «Труд» 22 марта 2001 года. Москва. What are the disappointing things? There are some. I wont speak now about what we have failed to do in practical terms, but there is one problem that cannot but prompt sad thoughts: it is very hard to combat Russian bureaucracy. Decisions are hard to arrive at and hard to communicate to those who are to carry them out and, of course, even harder to implement. This problem makes one think about improving the system of administration in the country as a whole. P. GUSEV: The economic growth rate has turned out to be less than expected. How do you square your wish to carry out economic reforms and achieve a breakthrough while at the same time preserving all the social benefits to prevent social upheaval? Wont it cause a split between the Presidential Executive Office and the Government, who I think have different assessments of Russias economic growth? Lets face it, they take different views on the matter. VLADIMIR PUTIN: I wouldnt agree with you that we had expected more impressive growth. We had expected more modest growth; we spoke in terms of four, five or at most six percent or a little more. It has turned out to be almost eight percent. So, the result has exceeded expectations. We know for sure that we havent had such a growth rate in the last fifteen years. Could more have been achieved? I agree with you there, perhaps, we could have achieved more. I will tell you later what we have missed, but first I would like to answer the question about the contradictions between individual members of my staff, the Presidential Executive Office, and the Government over approaches to reform. The main thing is, you know, that the Government and the Executive Office think in similar categories, they have common strategic goals and common tasks and interpretation of these tasks. They differ over the methods and the instruments of achieving these goals. That is true. You know, what worries me more is a situation when there are no arguments. Then one becomes truly worried that we may make a mistake, overlook the most acceptable course of development or of tackling a specific task. When there is argument, that is normal, it does not worry me. So, I repeat, given the shared goals and approaches to solving common tasks, differences of methodology do not appear to me to be something critical or dangerous. On the contrary, it is a positive sign. Today we note a slight slowdown of economic growth towards the end of the year, but we know that other countries face similar problems. Take Japan. The problems there are much more serious in terms of economic growth. But we shouldnt use others as an excuse, we should mind our own business. It is of course a subject for serious analysis of the economic situation by the Government and a subject for discussion within the Government and the Presidential Executive Office, which may involve a rethink of the means being used to achieve our economic goals. As regards the relationship between ensuring economic growth and the social situation, my position is as follows: it is impossible to reform the economy without popular support. And popular support cannot be won without the state meeting its social obligations. Everything is so intertwined that it warrants the firm conclusion: any shock therapy, however well intentioned it may be, is fraught with serious dangers.