Russia's President Vladimir Putin raised the issue of changing the political system in his address to the people in early September. Since then, he has presented his arguments at numerous meetings with politicians, businessmen and journalists. But the debates on the issue, far from abating, have reached new heights. Less than a week ago, Mr. Putin appeared on a live broadcast to answer questions about the political reforms posed by the heads of three leading Russian television channels.

The president's ideas of strengthening the state are both hailed and denounced as "treacherous" designs to concentrate power.

The debates have exposed one crucial thing. The president's opponents regard his ideas outside any historical context and compare the situation that would be created by the reforms with the ideal structure in modern consolidated democracies.

Liberals and Communists in Russia want to have everything now. They refuse to admit that the creation of a democratic system, like the one in Britain, the US or other Western countries, entails long and difficult work to harmonize the interests of different social, national and religious groups and institutions of power. Democratic change in Britain began with the Magna Carta in the 13th century.

As a professor who has been studying the theory of democracy for 30 years, I am surprised that the critics of the president's reforms completely ignore this fact. They should know - or probably they do know but keep silent about it - that liberal democracy is the only form of power that cannot be forced on society if the conditions for this are not ripe.

During the era of perestroika in 1988-1989, I often wrote and said - and I am proud of this - that authoritarianism is a dream system for Russia, because there was a big distance between the totalitarianism and authoritarianism. It seemed to me then that the main task was to break free from the domination of one party and ideology and to create at least the foundations for private property and elements of party/political and ideological plurality. I thought then - and still do - that it was an unprecedented achievement for such a historically short period.

The discussions of the political reforms have highlighted one more point. The opponents of the president's initiatives are trying to prove that federalism is the only admissible form of democratic system. But there is a gulf between such claims and the political theory and practice of modern democracies. The first democratic political system in Europe appeared in a unitary state (France). The nations that lived in France and had their own states could have demanded not only a federative but even a confederate structure. However, they proceeded from the firm belief that the Bretons, Normans and other ethnic groups are above all French.

Russia may abolish national-state entities in the future, because it is not very effective to have 89 constituent members of the Federation. The state should be most probably divided into entities on principles of economic practicality. A large state can preserve its integrity if there are several factors, of varying proportions, that keep together the national territory and people as an integral whole.

These factors are common values, the market, a vertically integrated administration, and law enforcement and security structures. The market is not sufficiently developed so far, while the new market and democratic values have not taken root deeply. Accordingly, the administrative and law enforcement/security factors may be crucial for the preservation of integrity in the transition period.

Many debates were provoked by Vladimir Putin's initiative for electing governors on the recommendation of the president. But the critics of this initiative forget that the most important Russian governors (such as Yuri Luzhkov and Boris Nemtsov) were appointed in their time. At the same time, some of the elected governors turned out to be completely uncontrollable. The central authorities failed to encourage them to work in their regions in the interests of the state and society. So, the appointment of governors is not so clear-cut.

There is one aspect of the president's political reforms that is almost never discussed. It is their influence on Russia's economic development. They can have both a positive and negative influence in the short and long term.

In the short term, their implementation will create conditions for the authorities to more effectively to regain control of the economy, but not as the Communists did. The objective is to establish strict rules and procedures to prevent tax evasion, to make business a responsible partner of the state, and to develop normal relations between the state and business. I remember the Yeltsin era, when business controlled the state. The reforms must not result in total state control of the economy and interference in the internal affairs of business.

Strategically, Mr. Putin's initiatives will help improve the economic situation and give the state a chance to mobilize resources for a breakthrough in the hi-tech industries, which we cannot achieve no matter how hard we try.

However, not everyone views the attempts of the state to discipline business and to make it pay taxes in full as a normal measure taken by democratic countries everywhere in the world. Tax evaders are imprisoned there and business is responsible to society and the state.

There is a degree of fear, which may have been provoked by the campaign against Mr. Putin's reforms. Businessmen are told that the state will take away their property and no owner can be protected from the arbitrariness of the authorities, because the judicial system does the bidding of the presidential administration.

The international community may come to see Russia as a country where the authorities cannot be trusted, where private property is not respected, and so on. Much will depend on the ability of the Russian leaders to explain effectively the goal of the reforms. They must convince the Russian and international business communities that our achievements - private property and democratic rights and freedoms - are inviolable and will not be revised under any conditions.

http://en.rian.ru/rian/index.cfm?msg_id=5132836