In September, the State Duma in the second reading approved the draft pension reform, taking into account the additions submitted by Putin. The retirement age will be gradually increased from 2019 for women from 55 to 60 years, and for men from 60 to 65 years. In order for the bill to be fully realized, it still needs to go through the 2 stage: first, the Council of Federation will approve the reform, and then the president will sign the document.
Discussions around raising the age have been going on since the beginning of the summer, and during this time our political elite very actively watched how the people would accept this reform and whether the World Championship would manage to stifle their interest in their own pensions. But even a football holiday could not hide the indignation of Russian citizens. Immediately after the end of the championship, meetings were held all over Russia, which were organized by both the systemic and non-systemic opposition. The apotheosis of outrage against pension reform was the All-Russian voting day, during which the authorities not only received unregistered rallies in the cities, but also the opposition electorate, which courageously manifested itself in many regions.
After such purposeful pressure in our country, the opinion began to take shape that there are certain lobbying groups that seek to push through change by any means. After a series of rallies, it was clear that the initiative for pension changes belongs not to ordinary officials and politicians, but to the bureaucratic stratum sitting in ministries and departments. They are historically the main lever of pressure of the Russian political elites.
It should be understood that in our country the formation of a higher political community that controls or influences the main political processes took place randomly and spontaneously. The first stage begins in the post-Soviet period in the time of Yeltsin, and then the elite was created mainly by immigrants from the nomenclature. The formation of the highest strata of society according to this principle was inherent in the Soviet state, the features of which still prevail in our country. Also this elite during this period formed a certain national tradition of fraternities. Under Yeltsin, 13% of his entourage were his countrymen, and under Putin, more than 20%.
The second stage, which developed in 2000-x, is associated with the tendency for the “people in uniform” to come to power. Initially, they were demanded by an unstable situation in the country, but later a certain pleiad of higher personalities was created, which the president trusts to this day. It is this segment of the population that is considered to be the political elite.
The main features of the modern political elite: unconditional submission to the first person, commitment to planned interests. Now the bureaucracy suffers greatly due to the lack of new personnel, since the social elevator was almost completely destroyed by political clans. And it turns out that any official, public service can either go up sharply, if you are loyal to the current political union (Sechin, Volodin), or vice versa, you can’t develop in any way.
Also in the modern political system one can see the influence of the raw material monopolists, who sometimes even represent the modern political elite. Such a merging of intellectuals, businessmen and politicians gives rise to a special category of people who are a fairly cohesive and closed group. The tendency of abstraction of the elite from the rest of society was also in the Soviet Union, and it was precisely because of this reluctance to share influence within this closed system that wild corruption arose.
Now for the government stability is most important in the country, and it is impossible when the elite is in a state of division. And so until it is possible to achieve a compromise between the political elites, the government headed by the president and society will most of all get the people in this situation. The political elite in its ideal form should act as a subject of modernization, and in principle the top 2000-s managed to preserve territorial integrity, strengthen the army, but now they only contribute to the destruction of the last trusting ties between the people and those who represent the interests of citizens in politics.
If you find it important that we publish such material, support the authors