Author:
Gauchet Marcel Topics: Culture / Politics
01.02.2004
The 20th Century was the century of organisation; the 21st will become the
century of the individual. At present in the Western world an enormous number
of people have attained, in the broadest sense of the term, a high standard of
living. Whereas in 1900 only 5% of its population were living comfortably, now
it is 60-70%, and in some countries even more. This levelling of wealth, or
more precisely prosperity, is having extraordinary effects and is creating as
many problems as it is solving.
Interview
France is known as the “land of philosophers”. In the country of Descartes and Montesquieu, Sartre and Pascal, Rousseau and
Camus, philosophy in all its manifestations has always been a kind of religion;
not simply a mind game, but the occupation of those rare and refined
intellectuals, who mould not only the state of the nation
’s soul, but also the image of France, and above all her self-perception.
However, following the revolutionary ferment of May 1968, to be counted among
the ranks of the philosophers also became a matter of commercial prestige in
Paris. Once discovered by the media, the long-haired subversives of the
“old certainties” became, with incredible speed, permanent denizens of radio and television and,
like film stars, began to be invited to social functions and celebrity events.
Marcel Gauchet is another matter entirely. According to an acute remark in Le
Figaro,
“he is in no way one of those thinkers more often appearing on television shows
than lecturing in university faculties
”. Nonetheless, among those close to the spheres of philosophy, history and
political theory, Gauchet, editor of the prestigious intellectual journal D
ébat and scientific director of the Higher School of Social Studies (EHESS), is
regarded as an incontestable authority.
“One of the most significant French thinkers of modern times” (Libération). “The paradoxical mind of this Norman thinker cannot fail to impress” (Expansion). “The entire intellectualism of French social life passes through him” (Le Figaro Magazine). These are just some of the comments about Gauchet’s books and his scientific work.
Marcel Gauchet was born into a family of modest means immediately after the
liberation of Lower Normandy from Nazi occupation. He grew up under the
powerful influence of his father, a village intellectual and fanatical
supporter of General de Gaulle. This, however, in no way prevented Marcel
Gauchet, a born nonconformist, from joining, in the mid-sixties, the
left-wingers of the
“ultra” Trotskyiste movement in the Norman city of Caen. At that time he was a school
teacher and, quite by chance, a book by Raymond Aron, a militant right-wing
philosopher and publicist, fell into his hands. In an instant everything around
him was reflected in a totally different light! As Gauchet himself was to write
later:
“I went into a bitter political hangover”. He parted from his “ultra-revolutionary” friends and adopted the ideas of bourgeois social democracy. He broke from his
previous environment and together with the psychiatrist Gladys Swain
– a brilliant woman, who lived a short life, but had a major influence on the
formation of his world view,
– headed for Paris. There, after a while, he joined the circle of philosophers,
historians and ethnographers that had formed around Claude Lefort, Pierre
Clastres and Francois Furet. His acquaintance with the latter, a prominent
researcher of the French Revolution, was to become determining for Marcel
Gauchet. Knowing few people in Paris at that time, and subsisting on casual
earnings, Gauchet happened to be delivering a lecture on
“conspiracy theory” at one of the public gatherings, when Furet was present in the room.
Immediately after the lecture, Francois Furet came up to Marcel Gauchet and
offered him a prestigious contract in EHESS. This facilitated his path and led
to the founding of the journal D
ébat in 1980, which became a platform for the boldest minds in present-day
France, and to the writing of his many books, some of which can now be regarded
as truly ground-breaking.
Herald of Europe correspondent, Kirill Privalov, met Marcel Gauchet in his
office at the publishing house Gallimard, where D
ébat is edited, and asked the philosopher to share some of his thoughts about
current events and the outlook for the future.
– The 21st Century is getting into its stride. As a historical philosopher, how
do you regard it?
– The 20th Century was the century of organisation; the 21st will become the
century of the individual. At present in the Western world an enormous number
of people have attained, in the broadest sense of the term, a high standard of
living. Whereas in 1900 only 5% of its population were living comfortably, now
it is 60-70%, and in some countries even more. This levelling of wealth, or
more precisely prosperity, is having extraordinary effects and is creating as
many problems as it is solving. Let us say that at present we are witnessing
the appearance of a great wave of liberalism, one of whose manifestations is
individualism. People are becoming more and more isolated and lonely. This
cannot end well.
– Clearly we need to define what you mean by liberalism.
– Present-day liberalism is a consequence of the elimination of the ideological
conflict caused by the prolonged coexistence of communist totalitarianism and
capitalist democracy. After the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the
Soviet Union, both societies
– Western European and Eastern European – swiftly opened up, and new initiatives appeared for their development. One
immediately thinks of the astonishing rate of development of the Western world
in the period from 1880 to 1914. Throughout the ages, almost all European
States were formed and developed in a situation of century-long conflicts
between neighbouring States. Then suddenly questions of defence receded into
the background of national concerns in Europe. Nowadays, maintaining enormous
armies has ceased to be the main imperative for States. And this
“onset of peace” has happened in the context of a strengthening of the role of the “protector-state”, which assumes an important social role towards its citizens. The main purpose
of the liberal State nowadays is the defence of the economic and social
interests of its subjects. To a significant extent, precisely because of this
“nanny State”, it has been possible to soften the consequences of the very severe economic
and financial crises that befell the West in the closing decades of the last
century.
– So it seems that liberalism is a relatively new concept, associated with the
second half of the last century?
– Not really. Liberalism is both the triumphant illusion of the present time, and
one of the most important characteristics of a whole century of organisation.
During that century, liberalism became a general phenomenon, which spread
throughout the West. What is more, the overthrow of the century of organisation
was inherent in its very organisation. The State did not oppose the
consolidation of liberalism and the greater freedom of the individual meant
that it ceased to function properly. Planning proved to be a delusion and
budget stagnation began. In the West, the foundations of the economy trembled,
while in the East the Socialist bloc quite simply fell apart. It is not for
nothing that many researchers now speak of the
“paralysis of the State”.
– And how do you explain this?
– The nature of the State has changed. Not by occupying a smaller place in our
life
– quite the contrary. However, its role has changed: the “taming State” and the “warrior State” no longer exist. But people, sad to say, are attracted to strength. They have,
moreover, lost all faith in politicians, as they can no longer associate them
with any specific programme. What slogans are there to entice the voter?
“Defence of the nation against an internal enemy?” “Upholding the principle of proletarian solidarity?” “A search for universal progress?” “Enrichment of the man in the street at any price?” No, none of this works any more. General de Gaulle, having convinced his fellow
citizens that he himself personified the
“eternal France”, survives only in the history books. We have turned into political spectators:
we watch politicians on television who represent nothing and no one but
themselves and we feel no involvement with what they are trying to feed to us.
– Why do you suppose this is?
– Partly it is the fault of childishness on the part of the electorate. People
vote not for a politician
’s convictions and his ability to be productive and constructive, but for his
function, for the public position that he occupies or in which he is involved.
At the same time, the politician has no guarantees that at the smallest
political or economic reverse his
“signed-up” electorate will not desert him at a stroke. The politician has constantly to
confirm the legitimacy of his actions and in the absence of concrete
achievements he needs the evidence of referendums, public opinion polls or
ratings in the media.
– So maybe the sociological soundings are in their own way evidence of the
impotence of politicians?
– Present-day Western leaders – 99% of them – are afraid of taking genuine, important decisions based on their true
convictions. In order to give the appearance of meaningful activity, they
skilfully exploit the Mass Media. If a solution cannot be delayed any longer,
the State will organise a referendum. Politicians take the initiative
themselves less and less, and increasingly present themselves as
director-producers of the collective will. In other words,
“don’t put the blame on us, it was the will of the people”. “There is no problem which would not be solved on account of the absence of the
possibility of its solution
”, asserted Andre Kei, a famous French politician of the past and one of the
founding fathers of NATO. These words could be the motto of our present-day
rulers. We don
’t understand what is going on around us, and this is why dissatisfaction is
increasing.
– And the political opposition takes advantage of it.
– The concept of a “political opposition” is very relative nowadays. Those same political figures who speak of themselves
as anti-liberals are, in reality, admirers of liberalism, either hiding this
from the public or not realising it themselves. I would like to emphasise that
I am speaking only about the Western world! The opposition say to the liberals:
“The world is not turning out in the way you promised us. It is up to you to
create the conditions that will allow you to fulfil your promises
”. At the same time, the anti-liberals have the same view of the public as their
political opponents, even though they have different ideas on how to reach
their goals. The aim is the same, but the means for achieving it are different!
That
’s the only difference! It is this that constitutes the delicate and at times
elusive difference between the
“Right” and the “Left” in Western society. In essence, they are entirely in agreement with one another
and live in harmony on the fundamentals of the political scene.
– And the electorate accepts this as inevitable?
– What other choice do they have? In the final analysis, a politician who is more
cynical than the rest and panders to the desires of this prosperous but
ever-demanding populace can trumpet his achievements. I do not rule out the
possibility that the pendulum of Western prosperity may soon swing in the
opposite direction. And that will mark the start of difficulties the nature and
scale of which we cannot even foresee today. I am sure that my American
colleague Francis Fukuyama was mistaken when he spoke of
“the end of History”. In the 21st Century it is only just beginning!
– You mean, more revolutions, barricades, class confrontations?
– Not at all! The development of capitalism transforms society much more quickly,
more effectively and more powerfully than revolutionary upheavals and
inflammatory speeches. The Western economy offers people every opportunity both
for self-advancement and for the improvement of society. The individual no
longer resists the good things of life, but invests resources to obtain them.
All very peaceful and friendly! People build relationships with one another
according to the rules of economics
– on a contractual basis. No authoritarianism. Market relationships have no need
of the commanding tone often personified by politicians. Certainly not for
obvious, crude dictatorship!
– And as the famous Russian poet and singer Vladimir Vysotsky used to maintain: “there aren’t many wild men, that’s why there are no leaders”. What do you think of the modern political leaders of Europe?
– Not very much! Only one contemporary politician, perhaps, is worthy of
attention. That is the British Prime Minister Tony Blair. His serious,
Protestant education from his youth has given him a strong internal core that
allows him to do things he does not like at all and still remain himself. Blair
is able to separate what he wants from the way matters actually turn out. I
know that to many Europeans from the Continent, the leader of New Labour with
his British way of behaving and his purely English sense of humour seems rather
a strange person, but
– believe me – This man has yet to show himself. He has a global outlook. But in general, it
requires great events to produce great politicians. For about sixty years, we
have been free from war on our territories. Life has been good
– prosperous and uneventful. Where are great political figures going to spring
from? We lack the appropriate context for them
– events of the necessary scale. Great politicians are born out of tragic events.
The West is paying for its present peace and prosperity with the general
emptiness of the political scene.
– At the end of 2003, the European Social Forum, organised by French opponents of
globalisation, took place in Paris and its suburbs. I was most surprised when I
saw your name in one of the conference programmes. I had no idea that you had
anti-globalisation views!
– I haven’t! If I take part in the discussions with leaders of the opponents of
globalisation
– say, with the French economist Jacques Nikonoff, leader of the association
ATTAC,
– it is so that I can show the error of their ways. I regard their logic as
fallacious. The opponents of globalisation have a totally distorted idea of the
workings of present-day economics. Globalisation is basically quite simple.
Above all, it
’s a phenomenon of infrastructure. Places where there are communications systems – computers, the Internet, mobile phones, high-speed travel – are very different from places without these means and resources. There can be
no denying the obvious effect of the telecommunications and transport
phenomenon. And then there are the financial aspects to be taken into account.
Living standards have risen, life-span has increased and everywhere in the West
people are putting money aside for their pensions. The main investors on the
money markets today are not capitalists but pension investment funds (PIF). In
other words, a gigantic financial opening has been created by technical means.
Vast sums are traded every day on the financial markets. As a result, the main
problem of globalisation is not economic and financial, but social: the problem
of pensioners in the Western world. Yes, the 21st Century will become the
century of the pensioner! And what of it? It is not something to fear.
– So the opponents of globalisation are misguided in sounding the alarm about the
“financial expansion of American pension funds, ruining Europe”? Is antiglobalism merely a bubble of left-wing propaganda on the economic
surface of the modern world?
– It’s not as simple as that. Globalisation is a world without frontiers. Vast
numbers of migrants! Life on this planet has entered a new phase, the result of
migration in every sense of the word. For this reason, we must also acknowledge
the appearance of globalised crime. In international economics, the leading
item for revenue in trade relations between continents and countries is energy
supplies, mainly oil and gas. The second is drugs. Statistics show cars, tools
and components as the third item. And the fourth? The trade in
“live goods”. This includes not only prostitution, but also illegal immigration, and the
traffic in human organs. An appalling finding! And here I agree with the
“left-wing” antiglobalists: we have to take steps to bring this global chaos under control!
But if you ask me what steps we should take I do not have an answer.
– Maybe it is worth putting this question on the agenda of the United Nations?
– It’s not worth stirring that organisation. It’s of little use for anything, but for the present that’s the way it suits everybody. In any case, its institution was the result of
historic international compromises and it should be valued for that reason.
– Let’s talk about the foreseeable future! Do you have faith in the European Union?
– The rules which have governed the European Union since its creation are no
longer
workable. That’s an open secret! When ordinary people have run into a problem and been bruised
by the encounter, what do they do? They try to calm down, sit back and reflect.
But the Europeans are rushing headlong into the unknown, refusing to recognise
the difficulties. And those difficulties will inevitably multiply in the
future. It
’s like the story of the luckless French army recruits at the start of the Second
World War:
«Courage! We’re retreating!» It is a terrible mistake to imagine that the problems of European expansion can
be solved once and for all, as if by the wave of a magic wand. Europe is not
only a politically integrated continent, but also an enormous free trade zone
with inter-related economies.
– You sound just like Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, whose draft constitution for the European Union was very recently
buried at the Brussels summit!
– It is precisely the existence of the free trade zone, which allows supporters
of the European Union not to admit to the collapse of their pan-European
political ambitions. Commercial contacts between Europeans give politicians the
opportunity to avoid saying that their political schemes are bankrupt. And
despite their ambitions no-one has any idea how to create a pan-European
government that is not just a paper formula but a plan that really works.
Europe is expanding but where is it heading? For the accession States the
European Union has no meaning beyond the financial. The social democrats, so
long entrenched in the leading European States, have raised the expectation
that Europe hands out money liberally to all comers. Tell me, why should the
Bulgarians and Romanians not want European money? It
’s on offer – take it!
– They’re not involved at present! It’s the Poles, the Czechs..., Eastern European Nations.
– The inclusion of all these into the EU is a leap into the unknown. I think the
Western Europeans felt this keenly when they saw the obstinacy with which the
Poles, for example, with their inordinate ambitions, sabotaged the adoption of
the European constitution in Brussels. The consequences of the rash expansion
of Europe may be dire.
– Such as, for example?
– First of all, the farmers in the countries of Eastern and Central Europe will
not be able to compete with the industrialised agriculture of the West, and
will inevitably collapse. In the East of the continent, this will lead to the
creation of a destitute subproletariat numbering many millions. From Portugal
to Russia, a horde of hungry and destitute farm labourers will start to migrate
seasonally looking for work or unemployment benefit. It is not an exaggeration
to foresee this apocalyptic picture!
– There are those in France who would agree with you. But what will the role of
your country be in the coming century?
– France is not in a healthy state and doesn’t feel happy with globalisation. Not only that, but the Fifth Republic is the
European country which more than any other is disturbed by the way
globalisation is proceeding. Present-day France is a small country, which still
wants to appear as a world power. And the less notice is taken of her, the more
loudly she tries to voice her protest against US policy. It is true that France
has strength through her right of veto in the UN Security Council. Also, France
has retained a sphere of influence in the countries of Black Africa. All this
still gives us a feeling of importance. But nothing extraordinary should be
expected of France this century. Our country is good for tourism: the paved
walkways by the Seine, the flowering chestnut trees, the C
ôte d’Azur.
– And what can be expected from Great Britain?
– We should probably not expect much from Britain either. To me, Great Britain
remains a paradox: the country that has been able to retain its apparent
historic role, while at the same time remaining the next US state. For half a
century the British, whose national character differs fundamentally from that
of the Americans, have managed to retain their
“special relationship” while at the same time not making enemies of the Yankees. I know of no
precedent for this! Admittedly, at present the British, who increasingly have
to take account of continental Europe, are in a period of profound disruption
of their cultural traditions, and are rewriting their own history. In such a
delicate undertaking, the essential thing is to stop in time.
– Who then will set the tone in Europe? The Germans?
– Most probably. The Germans are no longer so preoccupied with that constant
self-reproach which has characterised them since 1945. The feeling of guilt of
Bismarck
’s descendents towards humanity is passing, evaporating. People born in Germany
in the last half century cannot, and indeed do not want to feel guilty for the
crimes of the Nazis. In the near future, the Germans
’ self-image will undergo a decisive change. To me, Germany is the greatest
enigma of the Europe of the future. In twenty years, that country will have
undergone radical change.
– Roughly like present-day Spain, compared with Franco’s Spain?
– Spain is Lazarus, risen from the tomb. It has made a miraculous recovery. As
early as the 18th Century, the Spanish, bogged down in their colonies overseas,
missed the chance of entering the new world. Then they made a mess of their
entry into capitalism, into liberalism. Modern Western society took shape
without Spain. Franco with his closed borders merely intensified a prolonged
and very profound crisis. Fortunately, Spain is now staging a successful
recovery from its ancient, centuries-old trauma, but the rehabilitation process
is far from complete. The country has yet to find a voice of its own.
– And Italy?
– Not a country but a Commedia dell’ Arte! Silvio Berlusconi is in power – an unbelievable buffoon, worthy of street theatre or strolling players. The
Italians paid a heavy price for emerging into the modern world
– Mussolini and Fascism, many wars – and even now have not found their “placement” at the political world’s dinner table. Italy is constantly floating between an entirely civilised
liberalism and unbelievable political buffoonery, between a developed economy
and complete political bankruptcy. Even so, the descendants of the Romans
themselves take what is happening to them lightly, and playfully. Of course,
that
’s their nature!
– If you are serious, you are giving an altogether likeable picture of a
democratic, liberal Europe. But pressing against her from below there is
Africa, and the Arab Muslim world. What will characterise this ongoing
collision of civilisations?
– Africa is a total humanitarian tragedy. Modernisation according to the Western
model has become inevitable for all countries. And their culture, the strength
of their cultural traditions, historical inheritance, if you like, allows them
to enter into this new, inevitable dimension. Look how easily the Japanese,
Chinese and Koreans entered into the new world. Or India, nowadays one of the
most vigorously developing States! But in Africa, for a diversity of reasons,
the conditions do not exist for the Dark Continent to penetrate the modern,
global world. Those same essential conditions are also very weakly represented
in the Arab Muslim world. With two notable exceptions: Turkey and Iran. And
this is not by accident: these are two countries with deep cultural and
historical roots. However paradoxical it may seem
– history – a country’s past, is the key to its modernisation!
– And what about South Africa with its mines and skyscrapers?
– They are the result of the brief, but significant Afrikaner cultural legacy.
However it was not very profound and already it is not providing the momentum
that present-day South Africa needs for its further development. I would rather
not believe this, but in South Africa everything will soon turn out very badly.
Matters are heading for the same tragic course of events as in neighbouring
Zimbabwe and Namibia, where the white minority is becoming an outcast race.
There could be huge massacres, pogroms of the white population.
– And what will be the outcome? After all, at the same time the black population
in Europe is steadily rising.
– As a former student of mine returning home to Cameroon from Paris said to me: “The salvation of Africa lies only in its recolonisation”. But of course that is impossible. And indeed no longer necessary to the West.
An amusing example: when Jacques Chirac arrived in Mali on an official visit,
he intended to discuss with the President of that country a tightening of the
rules governing the emigration of Malians to France. However, in Bamako, the
President of Mali opened his speech by thanking Monsieur Chirac for the fact
that the whole economy of the country exists with the aid of Malians working in
France. My frail hopes are bound up only with the enormous cultural effect of
emigration. Africans send home from Europe and America not only money, but also
new ideas, another culture. Maybe in time this will have a positive effect?
– Fortunately, the world does not yet know African terrorism. Something you
cannot say about Arab Islamic terrorism. Will the Muslim fundamentalists
continue their acts of terrorism?
– I cannot say anything encouraging: they will! Taking the global view,
fundamental Islam is a paper tiger. The ability of Islam to assemble powerful
political and economic forces around itself is nil. However, in parallel, there
exists a multitude of associated local problems. The Israel-Palestine conflict,
for instance, is currently drawing in almost two billion people, who in some
way or another have a connection with one of the camps. And the problems
connected with the Muslim world will only become more acute. For the Islamists
feel profoundly humiliated by history. Islam, the youngest monotheistic world
religion, claiming to be an improvement on the other two
– Judaism and Christianity – is being ruined by an untruthful feeling of its own superiority. And at the
same time, the countries where Muslim rule holds sway are not developing.
– Why is that?
– It’s a complex question, requiring a long explanation. But it is an indisputable
fact. Apart from their oil revenues, the Islamic countries have no resources
for development. Add to this the humiliations they have regularly suffered from
the Israelis and the Americans, and the long years of colonialism, and you have
collectively, an extremely strong and entrenched hatred of the West. And indeed
of the whole
“white” world in general. Notwithstanding this, the Islamists who so resolutely condemn
the West are completely corrupted by that very same West, and secretly delight
in its pleasures. For some reason, Islamic fundamentalists do not want to
preach the ideas of the Koran in their own country, no, they are drawn to
Europe! For immigrants from the Maghreb, migration to the West is an enormous
economic success, almost their life
’s work. And nonetheless they never stop criticising and subverting that same
environment which has hospitably accepted them. In the tangled history of world
immigration, nothing like this has ever been seen before.
– Presumably, this attitude of Muslims to other civilisations is due to the Koran
itself.
– This is exactly why Islam represents such a serious danger. A handful of
fanatics are capable of creating the kind of disorder no-one could have dreamt
of! In principle, there are not really that many Muslim fundamentalists in
Europe. Thus, in France only 20% of immigrants from Muslim countries regularly
practise their religion. But this has not lessened the Islamic threat. The
point is that politically Islam is not capable of giving rise to viable
regimes. Turkey doesn
’t count; it exists in spite of Islamic fanaticism. There was, admittedly, one
exception: Iran. But the Islamists finished that off twenty years ago or more.
In brief, the general Islamic mood today is despair.
– There is then a problem in relation to Islamic immigration into Europe.
– What is needed on our side is a wise, finely tuned and very cautious policy.
However, as events show, there is no danger whatever of our seeing this from
our politicians in the near future. European politicians are totally unaware of
the danger of Islamism. As a result, we see terrorist acts both in the Middle
East and in the West. Yes, terrorism
– that is the last refuge of those who have lost hope. But politicians who
attempt to flirt with the Islamists and tame them are also responsible for it.
The support of the Saudi regime is an absolute scandal of Western civilisation.
Madness! And this despite the fact that in all the Western capitals they
understand perfectly well that the mechanism of the Saudi regime is working
against us. The extent of the politicians
’ blindness bowls me over! It’s not even cynicism, but something more frightening. Western politicians have
not become used to thinking about it; they don
’t want to because they live only for the present. Their underlying thinking is
obvious: I have, after all, been elected or appointed to high office for a
limited period. In a year or two I shan
’t be here, so why stick my neck out for no purpose?
– Will Islamism also threaten America?
– Why not? Nowadays, no one in the world has control over what is happening. Only
the government of the USA still blissfully believes that everything can be
settled by the use of force. But this is typical of the Americans. They don
’t know and don’t want to know the world outside the USA. From the start of the 20th Century,
the Americans have interfered in the affairs of other countries, on the basis,
first and foremost, of moral criteria. Against the
“bad”, the “evil”. They don’t even know their own allies; that is beyond their understanding. America is
utterly unprepared for living n a world where there are no clearly defined
enemies. The most powerful State in the world doesn
’t understand the world outside its borders. Watch out!
– But doesn’t it seem to you that the critical moment in the formation of the Americans’ new world view was the destruction of the World Trade Centre?
– The explosions of 11 September marked the emergence of the US into the global
world. They now find themselves at a crossroads in history. On the one hand, by
all accounts a triumph: total supremacy. And at the same time, the Americans
have to review their relationships with the rest of the world. For the present,
they have no wish to change. But one must not underestimate the Americans. That
state has one great merit
– the Americans are capable of calculating any task precisely and fulfilling it
in a very short time. They have an exceptional capacity for self-renewal! One
can only marvel at the creativity of the Americans. They are a poorly educated
nation; they do not have centuries of cultural and historical baggage like the
Europeans, but they do have the ability to concentrate, to learn and memorise.
Unlike the Europeans, they are not sclerotic and are devoid of complexes.
– I can’t resist bringing up Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor of California!
– Schwarzi may yet surprise us all, like Ronald Reagan. These are not mere words:
in America, people have unlimited possibilities. Moreover, I believe in
outsiders. People who have arrived in any sphere from outside are indifferent
to the prejudices and judgments of others. If a person, even an intelligent
one, keeps repeating the same thing for a decade, people become used to him and
stop paying attention. When a new person
– even if not the most brilliant – comes in from outside, he is by definition free from prejudices and invariably
brings something fresh.
– I feel that you have moved on to Vladimir Putin, to Russia. What does the new
century have in store for Russians?
– By comparison with the West, Russia is behind in its development. It has ceased
to be a
“warrior-State”, but has not yet become a “protector-State”. However, it seems to me that the conditions for a powerful, developed Russia
are already in existence. And the question here is not one of economics, but
rather the enormous cultural and historical baggage that I call
“solid history”. It will save Russia! Perhaps I am repeating myself, but the paradox is that a
country
’s rich past becomes its key to a rich future.
– In that case China is destined to become the richest state among the most
developed modern countries.
– You know, I have no feel for that country. The statisticians thrust figures
under our noses
– all these graphs, diagrams and calculations of economic growth – proving that the industrial production of the planet will soon be concentrated
almost entirely in China. But a huge doubt arises in my mind. There
’s something wrong here! Nowadays it’s customary to accept figures without question, but they arouse my scepticism in
relation to China. Democracy is closely linked with capitalism, though by no
means an inevitable consequence of it. Without everyday democracy, which China
does not have at the moment, it is very difficult to solve long-term economic
problems. It is nonetheless true that the inhabitants of the Celestial Empire
have one enormous resource
– a high work ethic. But this alone is not sufficient to create a modern, liberal
economy. If I were a capitalist, I would invest in China with great caution.
– Anyway, let’s return to Russia! What lies ahead for her?
– How this country will develop in the near future, I do not know in detail.
However, in spite of the endlessly recurring war in the Caucasus, all the
conditions for a successful start have already been brought together. At
present, Russia is emerging from an economic and financial crisis, the
responsibility for which is borne by foreigners and the past ruling elites who
ran to them for aid. Suddenly, the former Russian leadership was led to believe
that the Americans were controlling the functioning of their economy, which was
very far from the truth. When under Yeltsin they started to transfer
Chicago-style formulae into the Russian situation, utter absurdity resulted. At
one time, Moscow was literally hypnotised by American programmes and the
promises of their authors. Americans are in fact very bad advisors. At home,
they can work wonders, but for other countries their economic formulae do not
apply. The capitalism of the US, its economics and legislation, are not
exportable
– it’s not possible. Europe is in any case much closer to Russia in all respects.
– And how will their relationship develop in the coming year?
Everything for the best in the best of all possible worlds. The principle of
the relationship of foreigners to Russia is in general simple, like the handle
of a shovel. When the politician in power in the Kremlin has firm control of
the country and is able to keep his word, let us say in the repayment of credit
or the laying of an oil pipeline, then the West is pleased and rubs its hands.
It is, as usual, cynical and egotistical. Such is life!