So, as we found out in the previous article, effective management of something is based on three “must”:
1. The manager must be professional in the field that is taken to manage - knowledge of the nuances of the profession / industry will help him to make the right decisions;
2. The manager must be well versed in people - it is necessary for the selection of the team. Today, the amount of human knowledge is so great that a manager cannot be equally competent in all areas of activity even of a small enterprise. Accordingly, he has to trust the management of individual processes to those who are more professional in these processes. Thus, the manager is forced to select and manage the activities of people who are more professional in their specialization than he, and only the ability to understand people well can help him in this;
3. The manager should be motivated to "work feats" in the field of management, because in the absence of incentives to do his job well, you can just relax and let the process take its course.
Without any doubt, in any country she herself is the most difficult object of management. Therefore, the ability to understand people is a key ability of the president, because he is forced to manage the most complex branches of human activity, having the most superficial understanding of most of them (there is no person who would be somewhat professional in medicine, military affairs, foreign policy, economics, science, education, etc. simultaneously).
At the same time, neither professionalism nor the ability to understand people is the prerogative of elites. Accordingly, to ensure the best governance of the country, “social lifts” are very important - “the road to power” (up to the supreme) talented people from non-elite classes of society. Today, democracy offers the best opportunities for social elevators, but not everywhere, but only in countries that have a multi-party system. Why?
Because where there are two (or more) political forces that will never unite into one, but are not strong enough to destroy their opponents, a kind of competition arises where the parties mutually control each other, preventing them from cheating. with the election procedure or to provide the public with an “election” of one candidate (when the rest are deliberately incapable of taking an elected office).
In the Russian Federation, alas, democracy does not work too well: as has been said before, even among those who unconditionally support the current president of the country, there are few who would be completely satisfied with the situation in the economy, medicine, education, etc. V.V. Putin is supported by many, but, for example, Dmitry Anatolyevich Medvedev, the Chairman of the Government of the Russian Federation, does not have such a level of national trust, his rating falls - even according to Levada Center, this is something that says so.
All this testifies to the fact that not the most capable people in the management are in the hierarchy of power, which means that our “social elevators” do not work as well as we would like. Accordingly, we have two options - either to bring the country's political system into a state in which democracy would be effective, or else completely abandon democracy in favor of a different political regime that would ensure the best quality of governing the country.
Let's look at both options.
Unfortunately, or fortunately (although the latter is unlikely), today there is one ruling party in the Russian Federation, and this party is United Russia. No, no doubt, there are Communists, the Liberal Democratic Party, and so on, but the point is that even brought together, they do not have even a quarter of the possibilities and influence of United Russia. These parties have no political, personnel, administrative resources, which very well characterize the election results both to the State Duma in 2016 and to the presidents of the Russian Federation in 2018. In the first case, the most significant party after the “United Russia” (KPRF) received 42 seats from 450, and its presidential candidate (P. Grudinin) scored 11,8%. Someone will say (to himself, or in the comments) that, they say, the election results were falsified, but the fact is that the fact of falsification (if it had the place to be) characterizes the weakness of our party system, since I would say that the Communist Party, the Liberal Democratic Party and so on. do not have sufficient resources to ensure fair elections.
So what is there to do? To order members of the United Russia party to pay for the “first-second”, all the “second” parties to allocate to the new party, say, “Great Russia”, and order them to compete with each other? So after all, nothing will come of it. The whole question is in the absence of the subject of competition - it is possible to divide the "United Russia" even into two, at least twenty-two parties, but the fact is that after that it will be much more common and easier for them to agree among themselves.
Indeed, in order to compete, parties must have different goals and the will to achieve them. Where did the irreconcilable enmity of the Democrats and the Republicans in the United States come from? Recall that the democratic party grew out of the elite of the South of the country, while the Republicans are the party of the North. Between these elites is the blood of the US civil war. Let us imagine for a moment that after our civil war in Russia, we would miraculously establish democracy and parliament, and half of the parliament would come from the white movement and sympathizers, and the second half would be communists ... That would be something similar But even this analogy is far from fully reflecting the depth of the watershed between Democrats and US Republicans, because the American South, by and large, remained agrarian, the North was inclined towards technical development, that is, apart from politics, there were also serious economic contradictions between them. And social, because the ideas of equality have always been close to the North, while the South has always had racial inequality.
Well, for all the years of its existence, United Russia was unable to formulate a program of goals for its existence, not to mention (at least for themselves) about their implementation ... Members of United Russia and Great Russia ”will simply not have grounds for competition and, alas, will not create their directives.
Thus, it is bad or good, but we do not have a multiparty system on the model and likeness of the United States or England and in the foreseeable future will not. But ... theoretically, we can build something that can completely replace it. For this, it is necessary to find powerful and roughly equivalent forces that would have obviously opposite interests - and give them political weight. And we have such strength in general.
If we do not have parties competing with each other, then we have competing departments fighting for budgetary preferences and funding. Accordingly, it would be possible to try to build a system of public administration on the sectoral principle. Let's try to clarify the idea on a comic example.
What is the ministry of health today? The state structure, accustomed to take under the hood, after listening to the instructions of the leadership. But let's try to imagine medicine, which has become an independent political force. She has her own program, based on clear, measurable indicators that look like this: “Today, the mortality rate on 1000 people we have is this, and funding per year is this. Give us so much and so much, and we will be able to open such and such a number of clinics, increase the number of existing doctors by that, order and finance such research in the field of medicine, etc. “And as a result, by the end of the year, we guarantee a reduction in mortality by so many and so many.” And no less politicized scientists oppose them: “Today we receive such and such financing and solve such and such problems, they will be solved in such a certain period. Give us more so much so that we build a tar collider in addition to the hadron one, and then in a year we will create a gravitapup for a route taxi to Mars! ” Farmers echo them: “Today, in all stores, domestic watermelons are sold year-round. Reduce the income tax for us on 1%, and in a year we will be able to cross a watermelon with cockroaches, so that when cutting watermelon, the seeds themselves would run into the trash can! ”
Dear reader, of course, can say that they say all of the above (I would like to believe!) And so it happens at the stages of the formation and approval of the budget of the Russian Federation. And what can give publicity here?
And that's what. Imagine that the ministries and departments submitted their wishes and proposals, the president chose, the budget was formed, and within the framework of this formed budget, each ministry and department assumed certain obligations. In our example, medicine received the requested amounts, but science and agriculture did not. A year has passed, the money has been spent, the ministries report. Medicine reports that the goals were not just achieved, but over-fulfilled - hospitals were built, as much as they had promised, and the death rate was reduced even more than the promised. Well done! The scientists did not receive the money, they did not build the tar collider, they did not open the gravitapup. But those tasks that were taken to solve at the current level of financing were solved. Not bad either - they fulfilled their plan, albeit without overfulfilment. But the farmers did not get the money, they didn’t cross the watermelon with the cockroaches, and even watermelons didn’t have to be reared, so they had to buy them abroad. Poor fellow farmers worked! And it can be seen all over Russia.
In other words, it is not so difficult to set the basic tasks for each industry (ten, not more) so that they are understandable to the general population. We accepted the budget, received the assignments, a year has passed - we reported on the implementation and it is already clearly visible who worked well and who did not. But why all this is necessary? In the end, it’s like it’s like the case of the president and the government to figure out who worked and how, to punish the innocent, to encourage the uncomplicated ... or vice versa?
But let us imagine that when the next presidential elections come, each industry nominates its own candidate. And we choose from them. That is, over the course of 6 years, we see which industry has fulfilled its obligations, and which is not, we evaluate the weight of words of certain leaders ... And we make our choice.
But what about the military, the police, diplomats, etc.? After all, no one bothers them to act in the same way - to coordinate their tasks with the current president and then report back on their execution. And nominate presidential candidates from their ranks. Of course, here at every step there are a lot of difficulties (well, for example, but what about secrecy?), But all this can be foreseen - besides this, it should be understood that in the format of a small article it is in principle impossible to paint all the nuances of the state administration, therefore The author is limited only to key, fundamental differences from existing systems.
Another variant. It is no secret that society is always in a stratification - it consists of various social classes. And we, probably, could build our political structure not on a party basis, but, say, on estate representation. Whatever one may say, but the interests of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie are “slightly” different, the being and values of “office plankton” “a little” do not coincide with the lives of military officers, etc. You can try to turn the class in an organized force, and choose the president and the representatives of the State Duma from the candidates nominated class. Or some kind of combination is possible when the State Duma is formed according to the estate principle (with an equal number of votes from each class), and the administration of the country — according to the “sectoral” method.
It is clear that all this is not easy and controversial, but the essence is that if we want democracy to work in our country, we must find within the country such forces whose interests are in conflict, but which cannot destroy or devour each other the bourgeoisie devour the working class, or doctors cannot devour scientists). Then it is necessary to give them political weight and make them compete with each other, even under conditions when the results of this competition would be measurable and understandable to the majority of the population. They need to be given the right and the duty to nominate a presidential candidate from their environment and it is clear that such an opportunity will strongly motivate the industry’s leadership or the representation of the estate for competition. Then democracy in our country will work quite well.
And if we don’t want democracy at all and want to build state governance without it?
Then everything is much more complicated. To begin with, none of the previously existing political systems of the state worked better than the modern democratic one. We will not seriously disassemble the shortcomings of the primitive communal and slaveholding system (I suppose that none of the respected readers would like to go there, although ... someone might not have refused a village of fifty souls). Feudalism? This is fragmentation, remember the axiom: “My vassal's vassal is not my vassal”? These are internal squabbles and civil strife, and in today's world it is a direct road to the landfill. Stories. Recall that all the “orange revolutions” and other “Arab springs” are based on the use of “blind” protest masses who are ready to put a saucepan on their heads for the sake of “a better world” —but under feudalism such masses are always in abundance. Maybe absolute monarchy? Generally speaking, this form of government is very powerful ... if at the head of the state is a really strong and energetic monarch. The problem is that “monarchical power”, alas, is not inherited, and therefore one strong sovereign had a lot of average or weak. The Russian Empire was ruled by 14 emperors and empresses (before Peter the Great were kings, earlier - princes, but we do not consider them), and those of them whose actions crashed into the people's memory, those who are considered real leaders, are only three: Peter the Great, Catherine II and Alexander III - and that, about Peter I argue a lot today. Although I would add to this list also Alexander I, under whom Napoleon was defeated, but there will be even more disputes over him. Total, at best, four out of fourteen: for one strong sovereign there are two and a half “so-so” monarchs. Is it any wonder that after almost two hundred years of imperialism, Russia had, in comparison with other countries, only the fifth most powerful industry and not the most outstanding scientific potential? In general, there is not a single reason why we could assume that autocracy will give our society better social elevators than those we have now, and historical parallels do not inspire optimism. So autocracy disappears as well.
A constitutional monarchy? The same problems as with the absolute - it is absolutely incomprehensible that it will give us the best social elevators in this system. In addition, a constitutional monarchy is of two kinds - it is a parliamentary monarchy, when a country, in fact, is ruled not by the king, but by the prime minister. But in this case it is not too clear, why do we need a monarch?
In theory, such a monarch could play the role of a counterweight to the too great powers of the one elected prime minister, but ... the problem is that two bears do not get along in a den. Never anywhere else. And therefore, in modern parliamentary monarchies (England!), The role of the Sovereign is reduced to purely nominal and representative - he "reigns but does not rule." Of course, in theory, it would be nice to create some kind of alternative to the current prime minister, president, secretary general, etc., in order to motivate the latter for more efficient management. But in practice such a dualism is extremely dangerous - in the army they know very well that one bad commander is better than two good ones, and this is where a system comes in where the highest executive power turns out to be distributed between two strong people.
There is still a dualistic monarchy - when the monarch has executive power, and the legislature - the parliament, but the problem is that usually the century of such monarchies is very short. This is Germany (1871 — 1918) and Japan (1890 — 1947) —in general, not the best ideal role model, is it? At the same time, as in the case of absolute monarchy, the effectiveness of such a system will strongly depend on the personality of the monarch, while, as we see, among monarchs, truly worthy leaders are an infrequent phenomenon.
What else? Anarchy? Brrr, 90-e remember well, thank you, but not in this life. And not in the next one. Dictatorship? Well, the one-party system is so very close to that. Aristocracy? So we already have a ruling class - the bourgeoisie, "the aristocrats of the 90's." Under Yeltsin, this "nobility" almost led to the disintegration of the country.
Something completely new that has never happened before? Alas, the author is not so brilliant as to come up with a new social system, which has no analogues in history, but he will be grateful for any comments on this subject.
So where should Russia go? The answer, in fact, is very simple and lies on the surface. In what period of its development has the country achieved its greatest success? What state system made us a superpower? Under what political regime two such simple words: “Moscow says!” Performed by Yuri Levitan could make entire continents flinch?
USSR and socialism
But you need to remember something else - yes, socialism really led us to the scientific, political, economic heights, but he also threw us from there into the dirt and game of 90's. Socialism raised our state as high as we never rose under princes and kings - but it turned out to be the shortest political system in the history of our state. And therefore we should carefully study the experience of the USSR and understand what moved us forward and up, and what led to stagnation and death. But if there is a state structure that could be more effective for our country than the existing forms of Western democracies, then this will be a certain, improved form of socialism, it is possible, by the way, that it is mixed with democratic methods.
To be continued?
I do not know. Let's look at the response that this article will trigger. If the continuation of this topic will be interesting to the VO community, then why not?