So far Russian protesters are not anti-systemic – they are just counterrevolutionary (if what we saw in Russia from 1991 - 2012 was a revolution). They are nationalistic and do not think about the restoration of the past, rather about the replacement of the current ruling group. That will be the main challenge for Russia next electoral cycle.

       “The Working Class Can Kiss my Ass” [1] (and the middle class as well): the roots of the current social protests.

       Why is so many making their - and their close ones’ - lives more difficult, sometimes-risking danger or prison, sometimes death?

       Is those frivolous questions? After all, the answer seems to be so simple: they are disappointed, frustrated, and want change. They want change so much that they are making a serious personal decision that can influence their whole lives.

       Why are there more protests than we have seen in more than a quarter of a century? Why do people more and more opt not to use the standard methods, known and practiced in democratic regimes, to transmit their views to the political system? Why not rely, for instance, on elections, petitions, lobbying their political representatives?

       Let me offer three explanations. The first is that democratic process is being transformed into a political spectacle for those who can afford it, rather than a process that guarantees important rights (both political and economic) to a majority of citizens. The second is a crisis of authority and a growing lack of trust in the democratic process and both local and global leadership. The third is a lack of ideas that guide appropriate responses to the main challenges we all face, such as inequality, poverty, ecological threats, power shifts, and social and economic uncertainty.

       Economic and political elites (de facto the same social-interest-based stratum) missed the point during the last twenty five golden years as they were virtually overdosed on an anesthesia created by their own unquestionable success. As the Berlin Wall collapsed and with it the fear of an anti-systemic alternative, the triumph of the global market and of one-size-fits-all recipes around the globe made them less vigilant, and their enormous power combine with even bigger capital made them almost blind (or simply ambivalent) to the fact that they lost, en masse, the moral title to rule. They failed to realize that simply winning elections – democratically in a few and semi-democratically in most cases – is no longer enough to justify of their policies. There are two intertwined issues involved here. One is practical and related to the double process of a decomposition of the traditional middle class in most industrialized countries (in the US during just the last three years, the middle class has shrunk by 11% and its wealth plummeted by 40%) and the rise of the middle class in so-called emerging economies. Those of the middle class who are losing their position (generally in the “west”) are deeply disappointed by an almost universal lack of accountability for their predicament. Those in emerging economies demand less rhetoric about democracy and more tangible proof of measureable success (or failure). Both groups are impatient for results and when they do not see them, they – naturally - protest.

       The other, related facet of this issue is as disturbing as first, but located in a different political dimension. That is the commodification of democracy. Those living in the US are witnessing the most expensive elections in the history of democracy. What they are also witnessing is a democratic process where those who can are buying their un-proportional access to the results of elections (in simplest terms, this is the move from one person, one vote to one dollar, one vote). The majority of people who would see themselves as active subjects in the democratic system are being steadily reminded that they are mere objects of processes that are beyond their influence, even if they are still asked to participate in them. This hypocrisy and powerlessness makes them angry and they, again – naturally - protest.

       The second major reason for the wave of protests is a global crisis of authority. Politicians and bankers are paraded in front of judges in jurisdictions around the globe and, perhaps tellingly, Goldman Sachs recently donated millions of dollars to make US prisons more comfortable, probably subconsciously knowing some of their own may end up there. As Ivan Krastev has remarked, there is a growing tendency to blur the borders between democracy and authoritarianism and thus a growing distrust of both political and business elites and a deepening crisis of governability of modern societies in a global scale. Another renowned macro-sociologist, Zygmunt Bauman, has argued that elected parliaments and the governments that the parliaments are constitutionally obliged to direct monitor and supervise, are incapable of doing their jobs. No more capable of performing their jobs – he asserts - are the established political parties, notorious as they are to retreat on their poetic electoral promises the moment their leaders enter ministerial offices and find themselves confronted with the prose of overwhelming while untouchable market forces and stock exchanges, well beyond the reach of the “sovereign” nation-states. Not only experts, but people from cultures and system as different as China, the US, and Russia are expressing the deep and deepening crisis of trust. It seems that people are becoming massively aware that a systemic benchmark of political success or failure is located no longer in such complex processes as industrial output or employment creation or welfare, but in a single number of stock market indexes.

       Economic, social and political turbulences usually create new ideas as people try – more desperately than in times of stability and prosperity – to find the answers to the questions: “why this is happening?”, “who is to blame?” and “where to from here?” They are calling for a re-think of the basics of the political and economic agenda. But we have few truly new ideas that can guide our individual or collective behavior. It seems that - collectively - we are intellectually incapacitated and, as economists Shimshon Bichler and Jonathan Nitzan have remarked, the ideas that have guided our economic and social policies during the last years are focused on the world of yesterday not of tomorrow. So policy makers sing the same old song regardless of the continuing systemic instability. Still there are same taboos and “no go” areas (most glaringly ongoing opposition to serious international regulations of derivatives and speculative investment).

       In general, Russia is not an exception from the patterns outline above but – obviously – has its own "specificities". To explain we shall go back to the year 2000 when Vladimir Putin and his team of liberal minded – yes indeed – liberal minded economists saved Russia from a double collapse (further territorial disintegration and looming economic catastrophe). Then, they proceeded with a hybrid of liberal market policies lead by heavily state-minded bureaucracy. Between 2000-2007, thanks to a longer-term high prices for commodities, this "developmental state" strategy allowed Putin's Russia to regain economic and social stability that fertilized its current main contender (if not an enemy) – a highly mobile, educated, wealthy, upper middle urban class.

       So – paradoxically – Putin's success might be his main nemesis since the current "developmental state" can not provide this class with rule of law it requires for safety of its wealth, strong institutions and political dynamism to fulfill the emerging social aspirations of this new class. So far Russian protesters are not anti-systemic – they are just counterrevolutionary (if what we saw in Russia from 1991 - 2012 was a revolution). They are nationalistic and do not think about the restoration of the past, rather about the replacement of the current ruling group. That will be the main challenge for Russia next electoral cycle.

       So we should prepare for more social turbulence across the globe and since this does not bring (regardless of “open” or “closed” societies) real change, we shall see more violence on and beyond our streets. To avoid a worst-case scenario there are some – well-known – pragmatic solutions. The problem is that few are willing to take political risks to apply them! The first is to avoid radicalism – serious, gradual adjustment will do the job. Second, politicians need to do their homework, start to listen to the people and the experts, and adjust their policies. Third, new ideas shall be promoted for public debate by the media, academia, and come from different cultures and intellectual traditions.

       New “Decade of rebellions” just started. Those in power shall listen and adjust. Those without power shall learn from previous successes and failures.

       [1] Joe Glazer “version” of Jim’s Connell 1889 song “Red Flag”.

       Views expressed are of individual Members and Contributors, rather than the Club's, unless explicitly stated otherwise.