Russia has to formulate a new national and state identity, a foundation for its development that can fit different and sometimes contradictory criteria. Every country has its own historical myth or political interpretation of its history. And Russia’s future identity should reflect its thousand years of incredibly rich, tragic and, most important, very diverse history.
I remember the huge poster outside my window as a child – “All in the name of man, all for the benefit of man.” Alas, this omnipresent Soviet slogan remained just words.
The decline of the USSR began when its people – for whose benefit everything was ostensibly being done – started to feel increasingly alienated from their own country. When the country was on the brink of disappearing in 1991, nobody rose to its defense. The uniform Soviet identity that seemed to have been forged collapsed like a house of cards the moment the bonds of ideology and national security weakened.
True, the old ideology lasted for a long time. Russia lived with the aftertaste for more than 20 years, during which time the Soviet Union’s disintegration remained the main topic of political debate. The Soviet legacy was coming to an end in the ideological, economic and technological spheres. Now the potential has been exhausted and the agenda linked with the Soviet and post-Soviet era engenders nothing but idle talk. What next? How is the new Russia going to build its future?
This is a daunting challenge. Russia has to formulate a new national and state identity, a foundation for its development that can fit different and sometimes contradictory criteria. Every country has its own historical myth or political interpretation of its history. And Russia’s future identity should reflect its thousand years of incredibly rich, tragic and, most important, very diverse history.
It is possible to use Russia’s history as the foundation of a narrative that offers the nation signposts for the future, without being too loose with the truth. That said, this desire to anchor Russia in its past should not become an obsession. We should not look to the past for inspiration for everything. Russia’s new mindset should primarily meet the demands of the future, which are just starting to take shape on the horizon.
This brings me back to that old Soviet slogan. Strange as it may seem, it captures well the challenge Russia will have to meet in the second decade of the 21st century.
Russia’s eternal dilemma is the contradiction between the goals of the state (whether a monarch, the ruling party’s central committee or a group of reformers) and those of its people. In Russian history, the interests of national development, as defined by the government, almost always take precedence over the wishes and needs of the individual. This formula worked in some periods, resulting in social and technological breakthroughs, geopolitical expansion and global status. But such mobilization projects carried out for the sake of the nation won’t produce the desired result anymore.
At issue here is not even the morality of treating people like they are expendable. Rather this simply doesn’t work in the 21st century. Globalization and openness have put an end to the era of iron curtains and fists. It is no longer possible to force people to serve the state or even society. People can only be encouraged to be active and realize their potential in different fields. Victory in the global competition will go to those countries that create conditions that allow people to thrive. These are the countries that attract the best workers.
Let’s not forget that Russia will have to make a breakthrough and become a new kind of country in spite of an unprecedented population shortage. Russia will no longer be a country of unlimited demographic potential. This will require more efficient social performance – taking care of its available human capital and multiplying it by attracting, if possible, the kinds of workers it needs in order to develop.
Why is human capital so important? Competition for workers is becoming the most important form of competition between countries. National security and the interests of the state rely on the ability to afford people the best opportunities for self-realization and the most comfortable environment for life and work. Russia’s traditional dilemma between the state and the individual is being obliterated by global realities.
In the past the hierarchy of nations was determined by wars. Now large armed conflicts between great powers are no longer possible, primarily because nuclear weapons have made the cost of using force unacceptable. Wars are becoming the domain of less powerful countries who take part in local conflicts that may influence but do not determine global policy. Second, economic interdependence makes severing ties too costly and dangerous. Only a true emergency can justify this, and even then it may prove counterproductive.
Economic competition is moving to the fore, with intellectual and technological leadership playing a key role. The emergence of a new world order has coincided with the transition to the next (sixth) technological mode. The most valuable commodity in this mode is people capable of achieving intellectual breakthroughs and developing next-generation production methods. The fight for brains and talent is intensifying just as the fight for mineral resources once did (the latter is still important, though it is lower on the list of priorities).
The appeal of the United States and European countries as the most comfortable places to live and work is their competitive advantage, and this is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. You can expect the immigration policies of leading Western countries to adapt to create even more incentives to attract the necessary workers.
The quality of life and opportunities for creative self-realization available in these countries are becoming tools to extract human capital from countries with worse conditions – political conflicts, economic instability, environmental issues and inconsistent rules of the game.
Although the West has an advantage, it won’t be able to rest on its laurels. Developing Asian countries with large resource bases are creating the conditions for retaining and attracting human capital. China and Singapore have made strides in this direction.
The ability to produce ideas and images and to offer (or impose) them to the rest of the world is also becoming an element of this intensifying global competition. As such, the role of the active segment of society – those who can produce and disseminate images – is growing. If a state fails to find a common language with the most advanced segment of its own society, this is tantamount to laying delayed-action (and maybe a quick-action) mines on the road to the future. If a country fails to use the potential of its own citizens, it will be used by other countries, possibly against that country.
Momentary measures won’t do much. Budget priorities must be reoriented toward science, education and healthcare, although this won’t result in fundamental changes. It is essential to adopt an entirely different approach to achieving development goals and to change Russia’s traditional approach to people.
Russia’s position in the new international context has its advantages and disadvantages. It will be difficult to overcome a tradition that is ill-suited for the demands of the day. However, Russia is used to recovering after disasters, and the country is clearly entering a new period in its history in which it will have to formulate everything in a new way, whether it wants it or not. Concern for people as the country’s main asset must become a foundation of Russian identity, not for moral or ethical reasons, but for purely pragmatic considerations. The interests and needs of the state and the people may be aligning for the first time in Russian history. Both need a strong, confident and comfortable country.
Views expressed are of individual Members and Contributors, rather than the Club's, unless explicitly stated otherwise.