Politicians and political strategists competed in predicting the future at the congress of the Russian Association of Political Consultants

Last weekend, politicians and political strategists outlined to each other their vision of the country’s political future. They presented the fruits of these reflections at the two-day congress of the Russian Association of Political Consultants (RAPK). The concepts brought to the attention of colleagues turned out to be very diverse, in contrast to the internal political consensus, which was manifested quite clearly in the speeches.

The RAPC Congress was opened on the morning of December 15 by representatives of four parliamentary parties (only the “New People” rejected the invitation). “The future is the desired image of the present,” the chief deputy secretary of the General Council began immediately “United Russia” (ER) Sergey Perminov. A stable system has several characteristics: working institutions, established political traditions and inter-elite consensus, he pointed out: “Over the last 30 years, we have built this political system and are not playing into the cannibalistic Somali tradition, where the strong eat the weak.”

According to United Russia, the unfolding global ideological confrontation poses a challenge to the players integrated into the system, and the winner here will be “the party that understands the new language” and absorbs the new public demand.

First Deputy Chairman of the Central Committee Communist Party of the Russian Federation Yuri Afonin also recognized the presence of global challenges, albeit from a Marxist position: “Changes have a primary source—changes in economic relations.” The development model of Russia, he stated, is changing from a peripheral capitalist (resource) one to a “reorientation to other tracks and other (non-Western) partners,” and with it the public perception of familiar (Soviet) practices and attitudes is changing. “Of course, given the role of the president, no one can challenge the presence of a significant political force in the person of our opponents from United Russia,” the communist admitted, but “in real political competition, the country will approach a two-party system.” The second force, of course, will be the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, and its very presence provides work for those gathered in the hall, the speaker ironized: “The authorities are turning to you to fight us, first of all, and the existence of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation is the existence of an institute of political strategists. Therefore, I recommend that you actively support us.”

Deputy head of the central apparatus LDPR Vladimir Kostin dispensed with party propaganda and suggested working together to restore trust in the system of power as a whole. “I would define two Russias – voting and non-voting, and we can only judge what’s happening there by opinion polls, which we ourselves don’t trust,” the party member reasoned. “That means we’re all not interesting enough.” With the end of the SVO, he suggested, “frozen domestic politics will begin to thaw,” and the population will “quickly become politicized,” so the opposition should think about “becoming interesting,” and the authorities should think about increasing political competition: “Bringing back competition equals bringing back trust.” .

Secretary of the Presidium of the Central Council “A Just Russia – For the Truth” on political issues, Dmitry Gusev also proposed to intensify competition: “What development is possible within the framework of consensus democracy?” It is important to follow the procedures and rules, he made a reservation, but it is necessary to act quickly: “All problems arise from the uncertainty of how we will build a political system: victory awaits us, but how will we live with it?”

However, ordinary citizens are not expecting anything, said Mikhail Vinogradov, president of the St. Petersburg Politics Foundation, opening a panel with the participation of industry experts.

“The Chinese interpretation of the image of the future dominates in the world: we don’t understand what it will be like, but nothing good awaits us there,” the political scientist pointed out, noting that such an attitude “prevents reflection” and “gives rise to attempts to saturate the topic with images.” As a result, the elites strive to maintain the status quo, and young people, to whom, in theory, constructed images should be directed, care little about ideologies, the expert complained. “Young people have always been a bugbear for electoral practices and preferences, the goal of supposedly social policy,” agreed the head of APEC Dmitry Orlov. “But upon closer examination it turns out that they are a reason for forming an agenda, and not a participant in the process.”

Strictly speaking, there was no need to participate, as follows from the words of the philosopher Boris Mezhuev, since the development scenario has already been laid down, including by the dynamics of the development of the West and “our current situation”: “The question is to what extent the events of 2024 will be determined by centripetal or centrifugal processes.” Russia, the scientist believes, has its own scenario, based on its identity, where the dominant image of the future will remain “an island, separated from all blocks.”

The president of the Center for the Development of Regional Policy, Ilya Grashchenkov, spoke from a less fatalistic position: he said that the customer of “words and strategies” is the government, and it is important for political strategists to competently “sell” the images they have invented.

“Which one “sells” will be the same!” – the political scientist promised and briefly recounted four concepts of his own development: USSR 2.0, NEP 2.0, “Nation Z” and “Eurasia”.

He himself hopes to “sell” the most liberal concept: “NEP as a space of freedom: market Russia, renewal of the country, proactive promotion in all environments, not isolationism, but demanding progressivism, civic self-education…”

Certain scenarios may come true even in the absence of formal civil representation, argued political scientist Marat Bashirov: “Digitalization will ultimately lead to the fact that representative bodies will become rudiments, and the executive branch will be able to itself develop those decisions that will satisfy the voter.” Lawmaking is a “technical” story, the expert is sure, and therefore the transformation of the political field is inevitable, while the parties will remain “career elevators”. “All parties have lost their ideological meaning,” the political scientist concluded, although United Russia is “searching for its place.”

The concepts presented on the second day of the congress suggested no less radical changes. Economist Sergei Glazyev proclaimed the end of “liberal globalization” and the “restoration of international equality.” Philosopher Alexey Kara-Murza prophesied the establishment of Russia as an extremely independent “northern” civilization if the country “does not go to extremes and does not stagger towards China.” Political scientist Dmitry Orlov also came out from an isolationist position, revealing the already mentioned “Island of Russia” concept.

Summing up the two-day discussions, RAPC President Grigory Kazankov admitted that the organizers were afraid whether the speakers would speak frankly and listen to their colleagues. However, the attention of the audience and the general atmosphere “stimulated everyone to talk about something interesting, not stilted,” he concluded.

Grigory Leiba