Dmitry Medvedev has presented an Honorary Certificate of the Russian Government and responded to questions from RG General Director Pavel Negoitsa, Editor-in-Chief Vladislav Fronin and correspondent Vladimir Kuzmin.
Dmitry Medvedev’s interview with Rossiyskaya Gazeta journalists. With Rossiyskaya Gazeta Editor-in-Chief Vladislav Fronin, General Director Pavel Negoitsa and journalist Vladimir Kuzmin
Question: Mr Medvedev,
on 3 November the State Duma will start reviewing the draft budget for 2016 in
the first reading. You have described it as tough more than once. That said,
what merits does the budget have in addition to the required balance between
revenues and expenses? And the second question: do we need an anti-recession
plan? Ministries and experts have expressed their opinion on this score many
times.
Dmitry Medvedev: Our merits are always the continuation of our drawbacks and the other way around. When a budget is tough, this is like two sides of the same coin: both its merits and its problem.
This budget’s asset is that it is balanced, with a small deficit of three percent. This is important because when we stick to this firm macroeconomic approach, we understand that we are living within our means, that we can balance revenues with expenses, that we are not spending too much and as a result do not have unjustified costs or rampant inflation. In the final count, this budget does not hurt the interests of many citizens and economic entities. So, balance is a major element of government economic policy.
This is required not by the Finance Minister, who is firmly upholding these positions in the State Duma, nor by government meetings, but by all of us. If the budget is falling apart, as was the case when your newspaper had just been launched, the economy is upset by hyperinflation and devaluation of incomes and salaries, and people are doomed to poverty.
Importantly, this budget, with a three percent deficit, allows us to resolve all main tasks, above all, to fulfil the social obligations that we have assumed. In speaking about social obligations, we forget for some reason what they are like in 2015 as compared to a decade ago. I’m not even talking about the 1990s, when everything was difficult.
My point is that we have many more social commitments now. This is an achievement. However, to comply with them, we should create enough income, reduce inefficient spending and streamline budgetary items. Indicatively, even this tough budget retains its social orientation. It is enough to compare the budgets of 2016 and 2006. It is easy to see that the scale of social commitments, the number of various payments and measures for the support of the economy and the social sphere are still much higher than they were in 2006, although we consider 2006 and especially 2007 as the last pre-crisis years, when the country lived relatively well.
However, our expenses have also increased. To sum up, it would be a mistake to think that many government-protected interests suffer as the result of a tough budget. This budget provides for social commitments, industrial development and agricultural support. Expenses on agriculture are not decreased by an iota. Quite the contrary, they are continuously on the rise.
Question: What about spending on research and education?
Dmitry Medvedev: Most of it has been preserved, including on the key elements such as universities, vocational and general education and the teaching staff, as well as allocations for raising school and university salaries. There will be money for all of this, in accordance with previous decisions, including the President’s executive orders and the Government’s Policy Priorities.
Were it not for the [economic] challenges, we would have launched several new programmes, but we can’t do this in the current situation. Overall, the new budget is realistic and socially focused, because we will preserve our achievements from the past 15 years and especially the past few years. This is what I meant when I said that the budget’s drawbacks are the continuation of its merits.
Question: Do we need special measures such as an anti-recession plan for 2016, or have they been incorporated in the budget?
Dmitry Medvedev: A lot will depend on the situation. It’s no secret that this year we lived under an anti-recession plan. Actually, living under an anti-recession plan is simple, because you have a certain amount of money and cannot expect more. In the past, we expected new revenues in the future, for example additional funds in the second half-year, which we would redistribute among priority or underresourced areas. We can’t expect this now. There will be no new revenues, in conditions of low hydrocarbon prices and sanctions.
The anti-recession plan worked quite well, on the whole. Its criticism was to be expected, as no one loves crises, but the plan was effective if only because we didn’t have to introduce certain restrictions. The crisis was slightly easier than expected, and some other measures helped too.
Do we need a similar plan for next year? We’ll see. If conditions deteriorate – and as reasonable people who are responsible for the national economy, we must consider all scenarios, even worst-case ones – we’ll have to draft an anti-recession plan for 2016. Otherwise – and we believe that inflation will decrease to 7 percent and economic growth will resume next year – we’ll work under a regular plan.
Question: The next question is based on a headline from Rossiyskaya Gazeta. It goes like this: "The Pentagon blows the dust off its military plans." In recent years we have heard increasingly often, unfortunately, that the West is on the brink of conflict with Russia, that the majority of the world's leaders were born after World War II and have not experienced all the hardships and horrors of war. What do you think is the possibility of a tragic scenario?
Dmitry Medvedev: I do not want to recognise this possibility at all. It has nothing to do with when they were born. Very few of the current heads of state actually remember that period. This does not change our attitude in the slightest toward the tragedy of military events, to the disasters of war. The planet has survived two world wars. It is obvious that we should not allow ourselves even to think about the possibility of something like that.
True, the international situation is not clear and simple these days, but, strictly speaking, when was it ever nice and easy? If we talk about Russia’s relations with certain Western states, they are indeed far from ideal, as they are going through a difficult period, leading to this talk of a second Cold War. But never mind the terminology; what counts is the knowledge that any leader of any state, any commander-in-chief – the president or prime minister of a parliamentary republic – is well aware of the responsibility for such decisions. I think that in the 21st century, this scenario is simply impossible.
Allow me to cite a well-known quote of Albert Einstein. When asked which weapons would be used in a third world war, he said: "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." He was suggesting that mankind would be unlikely to survive a third global nuclear war, and in this sense, his assessments are still quite relevant.
Question: Mr Medvedev, could you explain this paradox? Government officials are often criticised in public. There are plans to stop indexing their wages and a bill has been submitted whereby they will retire at a later age than others. A lot of other reasons could be cited that make a government official’s job less than attractive. Nevertheless, the line to join the civil service is not getting shorter. In fact, the impression is that it is growing. What is the reason for that?
Dmitry Medvedev: There is an array of reasons. If the state is weak, then, as a general rule, nobody wants to be a civil servant; that is, if we speak about normal not criminal motivations. I recall that, in the 1990s, the state was far weaker and the profession of a civil servant was not much in demand. I socialised with all sorts of people at the time, and, by the way, also with students who I taught back then. Only a small proportion wanted to make a career in the civil service, even though everyone understood that no state can do without officials, no matter how they are criticised.
Now, over the past decade, there has been a revaluation of values because the state has become stronger precisely as a political institution. Naturally, this kind of state needs a large number of officials. To reiterate, the state needs civil servants. They must not be compared with careerists, let alone bribe-takers who have joined the civil service to get rich. Like any other profession, civil service varies greatly. It is one thing to work as a journalist for a small rural or neighbourhood newspaper but quite a different thing to work for Rossiiskaya Gazeta or especially be its editor-in-chief.
The same goes for civil servants. The majority are people who work for very little money from dawn to dusk. This is hard work. There are many women there, and it is wrong to suggest that they have built a career for decades to come. In all likelihood, they will remain in their modest positions, but this does not make their work any less valuable. Of course, some people join the civil service to make a career. I see nothing wrong with that either. This is the normal motivation for a modern person.
Indeed, we have decided not to index civil servant wages. This is explicable. After all, their wages are not the highest in the country, but, objectively, they are not the lowest either, especially regarding a certain level of state administration. We believe that civil servants can do without indexation for now, although I do not think that this is to the liking of all civil servants.
Regarding pensions, this issue was proposed to me as leader of the United Russia party and prime minister during my report in the State Duma. My party colleagues said: Maybe this issue should be addressed and we should start off with ourselves.
Understandably, sooner or later, we will have to make the decision to raise the retirement age. Life expectancy increases throughout the world and so does the retirement age. This is an objective process. However, we should not jump the gun. This is why we have not taken decisions yet. However, when we do, we should start with those who are morally prepared. Our assumption was that civil servants are prepared to work longer than some other categories of people.
A bill was drafted and submitted [to parliament]. It provides for a phased transition to a new retirement age of 65 years for civil servants. If you think that all civil servants were overjoyed you are wrong. Again, everything depends on the position a person holds. For some, it is important to work as long as possible, while professionally in demand, and these are not necessarily some big shots. These may be people holding modest positions, but they want to work for a long time and make money and simply feel wanted. Other people have built their lives differently. They want to retire at 55 or 60, spend quality time with their grandchildren and go to the dacha. This position should be respected.
Dmitry Medvedev’s interview with Rossiyskaya Gazeta journalists. With the newspaper’s General Director Pavel Negoitsa and its Editor-in-Chief Vladislav Fronin
Question: In 25 years, our newspaper has gone all the way from lead press and linotype to the Internet. You are well-known as a web user. The number of your subscribers could make any newspaper envious. Do you or any of your family read print newspapers? And what do you think of them?
Dmitry Medvedev: I read print newspapers and I do not doubt that they are here to stay in this form. There's a definite convenience to unfolding a print newspaper and reading it. I read newspapers, including Rossiiskaya Gazeta, for example, at breakfast. I always have fresh newspapers lying on my table, so I unfold them and read. It’s convenient. Second, it’s very convenient, for me at any rate, to read newspapers on the road. I read them in a car, a helicopter or a train. That’s one plus. And secondly, as you are well aware as newspapermen and experts in this field: when you pick up a newspaper you get a tactile sensation, the same as when you are holding a book, the feeling that this is embodied labour, embodied information.
When you look at a digital version, it’s also labour, only it feels slightly different. And in this sense I believe print newspapers will definitely survive. True, for reasons easy to understand there will not be the kind of circulation that we remember from the 80s or the early 90s, but it is nevertheless necessary to preserve print versions within certain limits.
Remark: It's premature to bury them.
Dmitry Medvedev: I believe so.
Remark: We are definitely not the ones who are burying print media.
Dmitry Medvedev: And the last point. Some people simply don’t like and don't use electronic versions. And we must respect their interests. There have been endless debates on when we should fully switch to digital TV broadcasting in our country. We can do it only when people stop using analogue TV sets, and they still use them. It’s the same in this case. If people want to read a newspaper in a paper version, we must respect their choice.
Question: Mr Medvedev, mass media have always been and will probably remain a feedback mechanism between the government and the public. Have you, as a statesman, ever made a decision under the influence of the press or after sharp criticism from a newspaper? Has this ever led you to make a particular decision?
Dmitry Medvedev: Naturally, like any person, when I receive information, the more so if it’s acute, I react to it. This is probably correct. What kind of leader would I have been, if I had concealed all that, saying: “We will return to this problem later this week!”
Therefore, very often after looking through newspapers or upon reading the comments I receive on the Internet, or after watching some programme, or the news, or anything else on TV, I, truth to be told, simply pick up the phone and say: “This is what has just been written or said about this or that person. Is it true?” They begin telling me whether it is true or not true and come up with their own version. If it’s a question of some special circumstances requiring immediate intervention, then after such a phone call I instruct my staff to prepare a directive and this directive is published, and it’s all done fairly quickly. In this sense, the work of the main government bodies and officials is also directly linked with the work of mass media.
Question: You are a photography buff. Why photography? What role does it play in your life?
Dmitry Medvedev: Everyone follows his own path. When I took up photography, it was still a craft because it required certain technical skills. I think I started when I was 11 or 12 at the Leningrad Palace of Young Pioneers where I took my first lessons. An entire floor was dedicated to the photography class to store all the negatives and chemicals. I owned a Smena-8M camera. Anyone who could shoot using a Smena-8M was guaranteed to be able to use any other camera because Smena was a bottom-of-the-line camera available on the market back then, meaning that getting the exposure right and taking a decent picture was a challenge. So, for me, photography has become part of my life.
I took a fairly long time away from photography, 20 years or so. Video cameras came around and everyone started to shoot videos, including me. But after I moved to Moscow, I felt I wanted to resume taking photos. I bought my first Canon film camera, which, of course, took me to the next level in terms of technology.
Then, the digital revolution happened, and now everyone is taking pictures of everything. I’m not a professional photographer. For me, it’s a recreational activity, a chance to capture an exciting moment; all the more so as I’m privileged to meet interesting people and visit interesting places. It’s just that taking pictures is not always convenient because I’m not comfortable carrying around a camera all the time. So, I have to take pictures through car or plane windows.
Remark: You can take more panoramic shots that way.
Dmitry Medvedev: That's right. I can take pictures from a helicopter. It’s fun to be able to capture a moment in my life.
Question: Your son Ilya is 20. Does he agree with you about everything, or do you sometimes disagree about things? If so, can you share what you disagree about?
Dmitry Medvedev: He is part of a new generation. By new I mean new habits. We are used to reading newspapers in hard copy, while they are born with a tablet in hand. This doesn’t mean that they don’t read print newspapers, but their world is entirely different from ours. It took me a while to get used to computers in the mid-1990s, while they are born with it all. Otherwise, they are just like us. So, I don’t think that the current generation is very different from ours. This is a favourite topic of discussion between fathers and son – what we were like, and what they are like… This goes from generation to generation. In fact, people stay the same, and youngsters will always be youngsters.
My son argues with me about all kinds of issues. He does so for two reasons. First, young people tend to be stubborn in general. I remember well myself – I always argued with my parents on things that I wouldn’t even think to argue about now. Back then, I thought that I must uphold my point of view. Second, sometimes he tries to argue about issues of substance, which is probably a good idea, as everyone must learn to defend their position and sharpen their arguments. He is studying to be a lawyer, so sometimes he even argues with me about legal matters, and provides arguments of his own, which is good.
Question: Mr Medvedev, people know you as a rock music fan, but what do you like to read? Who are your favourite authors? What books do you keep on your shelves?
Dmitry Medvedev: This interview is about the anniversary of a newspaper and various forms of reading, including various sources of information. When people ask what’s on your shelf, I can say honestly…
Question: The budget book?
Dmitry Medvedev: No, no. It’s not that bad. Of course, here in my office, I deal exclusively with documents. Every day, I sieve through kilogrammes, tonnes of documents. But your question was about reading. Of course, it’s not only official materials. I don’t consider them reading. It’s my job.
With regard to the bookshelf, I read books in electronic form, and I’m quite comfortable doing so. The good part is that I can have access to several books at a time. If I get tired reading one, I don’t have to start frantically searching for another, especially if I’m on the road. All I need to do is just click another title in my tablet and start reading another book. I have many different books, and I re-read some of them occasionally.
I always have some classics, our Russian classics, on my bookshelf. I have liked Chekhov since I was a teenager. I still read Chekhov, and do so quite regularly. Each time, I find something new for myself in his books. Although it is believed that Chekhov wrote sad stories, his books are a source of inspiration for me. I enjoyed reading Chekhov so much that, surprisingly, by the time I was 14 or 15, I had read everything written by him, including his correspondence.
I also like Gogol, who, of course, is a brilliant writer with a style that is unique to our country. I now read more of Tolstoy than I did when I was a school kid or a student.
Dmitry Medvedev’s interview with Rossiyskaya Gazeta journalists
Second, modern literature. I also read it occasionally. This may be a detective story, or something more serious. I read my first book by Haruki Murakami in the 1990s. He wrote several interesting books. The last one I read was 1Q84. I also read Goldfinch by Donna Tartt, and some contemporary Russian writers, including Translation from an Interlinear Translation by Yevgeny Chizhov.
I also like to read nonfiction. I can’t say that I can focus on it for a long time, but sometimes I do read it, including books by Stephen Hawking. Normally, I don’t last long, but I do nonetheless read a certain number of pages. Of course, I read books on economics and modern research on political science.
So, I have a fairly large bookshelf, but, unfortunately, I don’t have enough time to read.
