In relation to the financial crisis affecting the country’s economy, the Russian authorities are sending amazingly contradicting messages to the society. Some officials say confidently that this is the crisis beyond the sea that is to be blamed, as the government there, having belief into “invisible hand of the market”, has led the economy of the most powerful state in the world to the financial crash, and now is trying to drive other peoples to the bottom of the chasm.    

Other officials and commentators, close to authority, say that there is no serious danger for the Russian economy, as thanks to the accumulated resources the country will stay “the island of stability” in the ocean of crisis, and maybe even will give a help to others, Americans, for example, in case they ask for it.     

Well, that does not add up. If that’s Americans to be blamed, what about our country that has got off her knees and that is planning to become one of the world financial centers? And if nothing serious is going on, then why biddings get closed again and again after falls happening in Moscow stock exchanges?     

All that may be of different origin. One cannot deny that this is about mistakes by our ideological bloc that has failed to be on time with a consistent propagandist-explanatory strategy about the financial troubles and possible consequences for the domestic economy and for the citizens. Possibly, there is no unanimous position towards all those topics, at the top of our authority.    

Let us assume that some consider it that the situation is serious, while some think that it is not. Or maybe the authority does not want to admit that the nature of our rapid economic growth of recent years has not been exactly that explained to us. That means that along with going up oil and gas – the main articles of our export – the foreign money inflows were another important source, widely used by domestic private and state companies and banks. And now when those capitals began to leave our market, while it is getting more and more difficult attracting new credits, the growth of economy began to stop abruptly.       

However, admitting that would mean an ideological stroke on the “sovereign democracy” conception and related to it “sovereign policy”. It would have to be admitted that despite all the efforts by the authorities, some important sources of her development are situated beyond her borders and cannot be controlled by the Russian government. And then another conception would have to be invented, which has not been done so far. Or maybe the state does not want to traumatize the citizens with negative information, so that they did not rush to the banks to get their savings back, which would be ruining the economy. Well, that would be quite a sensible position, as politicians must be aware of their responsibility for their words and actions, especially when it comes about such a delicate sphere as finance.          

The current situation is not quite ordinary either for Russian or for the global financial system. Traditional methods, applied by the authority in similar situations – replacement of ministers-losers or invitation of anti-crisis managers - may not secure the desired effect. Under conditions of closed political system the risk is higher that the “wrong” person might be commissioned to struggle with the crisis, the person capable of controlling the financial flows, but not presenting any new ideas or approaches. In one word, the risk of a wrong decision is higher in a non-transparent environment.  

Lessening that risk takes a discussion. Maybe that’s not about holding it on the national TV, but anyway it cannot be just a circle of highbrowed economists. That must be discussion not only with participation of deputies from the party in power, who have to voice the rapidly changing propagandist guidelines. The discussion must involve all the public structures, including political parties and non-government organizations. I shall remind that in a much more dramatic situation of the default of 1998 the right economic decisions were found due to flexible political system. Some managed to propose candidates to play the role of anti-crisis managers, others found advisers for them, others changed the structure of power so that to increase the trust from the society. That time, the process of talks and searching for compromise helped finding the way out of the crisis, and half a year after that the country began to get out of the difficulty. So taking lesson from our recent history may prove to be quite useful.