Political analyst Alexei Chesnakov — the order, safety and feasibility of the interests of the majority.
Criticism of “Putin’s stability”, which is increasingly possible to hear from the opponents of the government, and sometimes looks bright. However, this brightness does not make it more convincing. Especially in the case of claims to this stability look like a collection of banal cliches.
That reaction to this criticism is necessary, no doubt. There is a question: which is preferable — to show the vacuity of these cliches or not to spend time on “defense” and immediately offer an alternative explanation? However, there are both.
Let’s start with the fact that traditionally turns out in Russia best. With a critique of the critics. With criticism inaccurate and extremely harmful opposition to the stability of the development. All the more so among ready to bite on this propaganda bait are consistent supporters of the incumbent President.
For an educated man, the antithesis of “stability vs development” looks illiterate. These words are not antonyms. The development of contrast degradation and stagnation. Stability is the opposite of instability and impermanence. Although, as you would say a modern classic, “we are not doing philological circle”, we have to remind you that without the clarity of judgments is neither clear intention nor clarity of action. It is not necessary to substitute concepts.
As for the substitution of the concept of “stability” with the word “stagnation” — we’ll leave that trick to the conscience of ideological gamblers.
Much more difficult to deal with those critics who believe that the government is not able to choose between stability and development, because they do not know how to do it, and had to be weighed on the fine balance the numerous pros and cons of this decision, losing time. Here again it is necessary to resort to analysis of words. This time the statements of Vladimir Putin (and whose opinion we can be interpreted as the official position?): “Stability should be mandatory, indispensable condition for development.” Here we see an attempt to link two concepts. The government must find a compromise between the objectives of stability and development of the country. This is not a trivial dichotomy and one can hardly hope that there is a choice in favor of “a more valuable history of mother”.