The architect of modern Russian politics: how Gleb Pavlovsky is assessed

Russian political scientist and publicist, founder of the Effective Policy Foundation and one of the main advisers to the Kremlin’s domestic political bloc in the 2010s. Gleb Pavlovsky died on the night of February 27 at the age of 71. Relatives reported that he died after a severe and prolonged illness at the First Moscow Hospice named after Vera Millionshchikova. Experts and former colleagues of Pavlovsky interviewed by Vedomosti call him one of the creators of the Russian political system of the 2000s. and constructor of “Putin’s majority”.

Alexey Chadaev, political scientist, former FEP employee:

He did not live eight days before his [72-го] birthday. Every time I congratulated him. We have known each other since 1997. Over the years, there was nothing but – I worked for him, we worked together, everything happened. If you try to isolate the main thing, I want to say that his main contribution, whether he liked it or not, is the features of the basic architecture of the Russian political regime, which he introduced during the transition from [Бориса] Yeltsin to [Владимиру] Putin.

One of the key points that he did not like at all in recent years is that the system has a heightened interest in history, historical consciousness, the struggle for its own version of history, the right to its own history. The most striking example is Putin’s lecture on the beginning of a special operation. This did not exist at all in the 1990s, but in the mind of Pavlovsky, a historian by education and vocation, historical thinking was central and decisive. This gene, the style of political management as the practical creation of history (he called himself a “practicing historian”, “historian-repairman”) is what he instilled, brought in the first Putin administration, and this has been preserved in all subsequent ones.

Nikolai Mironov, political scientist:

Pavlovsky is one of the founding fathers of the Russian state system in the late 1990s and early 2000s. He had a hand in almost all the political constructions of that time, many of which still live today: from the idea of ​​sovereign democracy and a one and a half party system to the configuration of political media and the blogosphere. True, it so happened that the architect designed the “Building” and then turned out to be unclaimed: not all the inhabitants of the “Building” wanted to share authorship with him. But, with all the pluses and minuses of the resulting design, it turned out to be stable and lived up to the challenges of its time.

Boris Nadezhdin, politician, former State Duma deputy from SPS:

I remember Pavlovsky as a bright, creative and very active person. He had a lot of ideas all the time. In recent years, we met with him, mainly, surprisingly, at opposition events. He stepped away from power, began to criticize it. Of course, he did a lot to help both Yeltsin and the early Putin. He participated in the development of key decisions, but, ultimately, politicians make decisions.

His influence was undoubtedly significant. He also came up with some terms that later became basic for discussing everything that happens in the country. “Putin’s majority”, for example. The main thing he came up with is the language in which many still describe Russian politics.

Gleb differed from other political strategists in that he had a system of values. He reflected very strongly on whether it corresponds to what he does in reality. Unlike the current political technologists, Pavlovsky could not fit into the current system [именно потому]that he had values. Without any doubt, he felt that everything was going wrong in 2003. He realized then that the situation was changing. But in open opposition, as [Борис] Nemtsov, he didn’t leave.

Nikolai Yukhanov, associate professor at the Higher School of Economics:

I worked at FEP from 2000 to 2011. Until the closing, or rather the blocking of Gleb Pavlovsky’s admission to the Kremlin. It was at the end of April. The screenwriter, the master of the game and conceptualization, was put out the door. The last FEP client, Dmitry Mededev, was never destined to realize all his theses.

On that April day, it became clear to the Fund’s employees that the Russian political spring of 2011 ended for them with the loss of their jobs, and the transition of power, which Gleb talked about for so long in his numerous interviews, was postponed indefinitely. The system was simplified with excitement, a course was proclaimed to abolish any extremes. There was a gradual simplification of the political system, the windows of opportunity were closing, which Gleb Olegovich loved to cut through all his life in the dungeons of the Soviet and sovereign democracies.

In recent years, the Effective Policy Foundation for Gleb Pavlovsky has been a pressure group within the ruling transit faction. During the years that the FEP worked, a huge number of specialists in PR and political professions passed through its departments and training grounds. Today they all send each other links with sad news. The era is gone.

On December 15, I wrote: “We love you very, very much and are waiting for you. You are our teacher in the world of Russian history, politics and technology. Get well soon, Gleb Olegovich.” He will read my wish, being already in another world. Let’s hope that from there he will do everything possible so that we stop simplifying the political system in the face of new challenges.

Maxim Kononenko, journalist, co-host of Pavlovsky in the Real Politics program on NTV:

In fact, this is not very unexpected news, since he has been ill since the fall. I worked with both Gleb Olegovich and [одним из создателей ФЭП] Marat Gelman (recognized as a foreign agent in Russia). Both of them can’t fight. There were no conflicts with me, because I am a person who always gives in. But the conflicts that I observed between them and other people was a rather hilarious sight: they tried to appear angry and somehow scolded, but I wanted to laugh.

man he [Павловский] was very good, sympathetic, very kind. He was a very liberal man in his work. He was my guru, I learned from him to think.

The Real Politics program was all a project to promote Dmitry Anatolyevich [Медведева] for the presidency of the Russian Federation. As soon as this happened and Putin announced that Medvedev would become a candidate, Gleb Olegovich immediately closed the program, for him it was a completely heavy burden. Gleb Olegovich always came to the shooting of the program in the morning and introduced the film crew into complete hysteria, because they did not have enough time to mount and overtake everything.

Alexey Makarkin, political scientist:

Pavlovsky was a statesman – and this is the main thing. There are different types of statesmen. There are those who waver along with the line of the state. Today he is a Westerner, tomorrow he is an anti-Westernist. As the state says, so it acts. And there is another type who constantly advises the state, tries to explain to the state how it is better to live, act, what risks there may be, how to prevent these risks. And he acts from his understanding of the risks and problems. At some stage, this understanding coincides with the opinion of the state, and such a person has a chance. He is being listened to. But this is a rather short time, then the idea of ​​the state and the authorities about themselves begins to diverge from such recommendations. This happened to Pavlovsky at different stages of his life.

His finest hour is the late 1990s – early 2000s. His position coincided with the views of the state authorities on how to act. That it is necessary to equidistant the oligarchs, to strengthen the vertical – and at the same time it is necessary to carry out reforms. He really helped the Kremlin by going against the mainstream – he was in that [Евгений] Primakov goes to the presidency. He proposed specific technologies, for which his state power appreciated him at that moment – decisions, moves that were successful.

Pavlovsky sought to give a picture of state policy, the stability of the state, the prospects, as he imagined. And there was dissonance. By 2011, when the public breakup occurred, his advice was far more skeptical. They write that he went over to the opposition. But he was not in opposition. Here, too, he tried to explain to the state how to act, how to behave, what to do. He was very skeptical about the opposition, did not perceive it as a real force and tried to broadcast his thoughts to the state. But his opinion as an expert on public policy diverged.

If we perceive the state as a client, then the client does not like it when they try to explain to him that he is doing wrong. And here the consultant has a choice. You can work in accordance with the instructions of the client, you can quietly go to another area. And Pavlovsky is a statesman who tried to explain to the state how to behave correctly, how to act correctly, so that in a few years there would be no big troubles. And in this situation, such a statesman [был] not in demand.