Modernization: by word and action,

Already before the second round of presidential elections the candidate Viktor Yanukovych stated in Odesa that he had “a strategic program of Ukraine’s development by 2020,” which mainly focused on modernization. During our relatively new history of state-building every self-respecting politician in Ukraine has offered his/her own development program for many years ahead. It seems to me that the first one to do so was the then speaker of the parliament, Oleksandr Tkachenko, who in the late 1990s had big ideas about 2015. A debate has taken place on who stole the “Ukrainian breakthrough” label. A short while ago, the young politician Arsenii Ya­tseniuk came up with “new industrialization.” It remains unclear, however, how this will be done, all the more so that the candidate started as an obstinate liberal and finished in Hugo Chavez’s red shirt.

One may notice that in Russia modernization is a recurring topic in Medvedev’s speeches and contemplations. In September 2009 he published an article under the heading “Russia, go ahead!” Two months later, in his appeal to the Federal Assembly, he publicly announced his strategic plan. Significantly, Medvedev did not even mentioned that his predecessor and tandem partner, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin had announced his own program of development by 2020 a year before that, which was called “Putin’s plan.” The plan’s main feature was increasing the middle class to 60-70 percent of the population. It was in the same time that the RF Ministry of Economic Development made a fantastic prediction, according to which the country would become one of the world’s top five economies by 2020. Russia at the time was still receiving immense profits from oil, therefore the patriotic journalists were boiling with righteous rage over government’s unwillingness to share the income with underprivileged categories (which represented a bigger share of the population than in Belarus), and stubbornly putting the money into the stabilization fund instead, which is used by the same government for buying American stocks. In spring 2008 the Russian government put 101 billion dollars into the notorious American mortgage companies, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, even though everyone was speaking about their inevitable bankruptcy.

Whereas “Putin’s plan” sank happily in oblivion (though there are striking resemblances with Yanukovych’s plan), Medvedev’s modernization program is still on the table. So, the authors from the National Strategy Institute offer to create a sort of “presidential oprichnina (a special administrative elite)” as a lever for its realization, to function in parallel to the executive power. There is indeed a great problem. Whereas liberals speak about the “velvet” character of Medvedev’s modernization, the patriots insist on the “Stalinist model” that would combine strategic vision, ideology, and tough will for execution. Another question is at whose expense this modernization will be implemented. Hardly anything more can be squeezed from the population, even in splash of enthusiasm, which is anything but likely. Neither should one depend on oligarchs. Whatever Yeltsin’s daughter, Tetiana Diachenko-Yumasheva, says in her blog about the entrepreneurial talents of her friend Roman Abramovych (he is so good that while serving in the army, he came up with an idea of selling state forest plots to peasants who cut them for firewood), his interests and “strategic vision” hardly go beyond the new yacht and football club. Nobody can even define what part of the Russian economy is now part of the state sector. At the same time, Finance says that oligarchs, in spite of the crisis, have doubled their incomes by exporting, mostly to China, raw materials and metals. It is now apparent whose modernization and development they support. Incidentally, last year’s Chinese demand brought nearly 2.5 billion hryvnias profit to Rinat Akhmetov’s ore-dressing and processing enterprise.

The United Arab Emirates has also made its vision public in the six-page document entitled “Vision of UAE in 2021,” following a discussion that lasted for several days with breaks being made for sport and hobbies. “To be among the best countries in the world in 2021,” “the best,” “world level,” “first class” are the key words in the document. Everything should become the best by that year that will mark 50th anniversary of the federation of seven emirates. Above all, it refers to the social sphere: education, health protection, infrastructure etc.

The program may seem paternalistic, like similar declarations made in Russia and Ukraine, but ours promise “worthy wages” (which begs the question of how worthy we are), while theirs – to be “the best.” The UAE program charges the citizens with a whole list of obligations in response. Above all, they should keep in mind the moral responsibility within society, devotion to social welfare, unity, national culture, and “moderate Islam.” A citizen who is successful in business should show solidarity with others. Already in folkways, an enlightened resident of the emirates should know that the family’s role is to be the “nucleus of the society.” The citizen should make his/her concrete contribution by not allowing divorce or choosing a spouse among fellow citizens. Young people should care about their elders, who in their turn should pass on the traditions and values to the younger generation. Everyone should take part in charity and carry out volunteer work in their communities. The opportunities provided by the state to receive higher standards of education should be used by the residents of the emirates for developing their own talents and entrepreneurial success; the best system of health protection – for long-life and dedicated work for their own welfare and that of the entire society. The program underlines the course on further “emiratization” of the economy and guarantees a leading role to citizens.

Again, the question of political will, proper governance, and resources for the realization of the announced ambitious goals arises. Despite the young history of the state, the UAE has already proved that it is able to turn fairytale into reality. Today hardly anyone will believe that at the moment the federation was being established, the population was living in great poverty, surviving only thanks to fishing and handicraft. The will of the rulers, and above all that of the architect and first president of the UAE, Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan, was the foundation for its future success. Interestingly, he developed a feeling of duty and longing for justice through personal suffering. Back in his childhood he had to hide in the desert oases from the revenge of his uncle, who came to power after killing his brother. An elder brother, who later became the emir of Abu-Dhabi did not have the qualities of a leader: the discovered oil went for export, while nationals continue to live in great poverty. Then the Nahyan family counsel overthrew the incapable ruler and elected Zayed as emir. In 1996, he declared that all natural wealth that was granted to him will be used for transformation of society, to provide housing, medicine, and education to the populace. Zayed has passed on these principles to his sons, who are now governing the federation. Namely the feeling of duty and deep piousness lay the foundation of proper governing. And it has been working better than, say, the presence of an opposition, elective offices, and so on. Besides, public opinion, presented by the family clans, has great sway. Perhaps somebody will come up with the mistaken opinion that oil is the source of the country’s wealth. In reality, economy has long been diversified. Only 10 percent of the country’s GDP comes from oil. The engine of the economy has been, and remains, the state sector that covers nearly 65 percent of GDP. It seems that they are truly making “the best” use of their resources.