The third part of the Public
Chamber of the city begun to work. There
are old-timers and newcomers. The
journalist Leo Koscheev
became one of the neophytes. We found out his opinion about how he sees the
Public Chamber’s role today, when the public life in the big cities of
What is your opinion is the Public Chamber’s main task?
To be another bridge between the government and
society.
One more?
Yes, because there are lot of channels of
communication between the Ekaterinburg’s authorities
and society. The citizens have the possibility of personal contact with the
first faces of the City Hall – at the field meetings at the districts. I’m the
witness myself there is no “filters” or queues over there. Internet also gives even more possibilities.
So another question
arises in this case: what for is the Public Chamber?
The Public Chamber is urgently necessary in
this dialog as a mediator, at least till some time. The society and the power
are speaking different languages, there is too much of mutual prejudice.
Maybe it’s because of the lack of democracy?
It’s an eternal illusion that if the person was
popularly elected, so he’d be always flesh of the people’s flesh. Social being determines
consciousness. You give a faulty DVD to the master to repair: and you and him see the device in the different eyes: for you it’s a
thing which shows the movies, for him it’s a technical puzzle “find the trouble”, intellectual game. So if
he’d try different ways of solving the problem you won’t watch the movies for a
long time, sure.
Such professional conscientious deformations
can be among the officials also: so the Head of Department of Housing and Communal sees the water
supply system by the absolutely different eyes rather than the citizen-consumer. Even if
this head was popularly elected, even if he continues to live in very ordinary
home. Simply the psycology of the professional would inevitably differ from the
psycology of the ordinary service customer.
From another side the fact that the
functionaries are appointed doesn’t mean automatically they don’t care about
the people, they’re corrupted and etc. At least we here in Ekaterinburg have
the strong management structure, laid down back in Soviet time of the city
council. These traditions were continued during Chernetsky’s time, he was a
native of the defence industry. In city council they understand clearly their
work and the municipal services are for the people.
However here the professional managers
some time loose their ability to look at things by the eyes of a “simple grandmother”. And those grandmother alas is too simple yet. The vast majority
of the citizens do not have even elementary level of the competence in the
questions of the city’s life. So the main problem of the dialog between the
government and society is the different languages this dialog is being hold.
But people mostly unhappy not with the manner of speaking to them, but
because their expectations are not being implemented…
This is one more consequence of the limited
competence of the people. We’ve got a stereotype for regret that a good
government is the government that performs everything what the citizens want. I’ve
once met online complaint against a member of the City Council. It was written
that we, the residents of such street, applied to him about constructing the
shopping center there. We thought he’d help. But he, a villain (негодяй), looked at the papers and said
that all is legal. Feel the logic? People are sure that what is against their
wish can’t be legal by definition. And even if it’s legal, the member of the
City Council can strike at any alarm, gather the press, write the blog – and voila – the law will be transformed as the
complainers want.
We’ve got the opinion that the requirement of 30-50 people is above any law. And this requirement must be
satisfied no matter how much it’d cost to the budjet. “We pay our taxes so just
spend our money”. By the way I almost haven’t met among these people anybody
who would calculate, how much tax have they paid to
the municipal budjet last year and what amount of money have they comsumed the
municipal service for. Nobody is burden himself by the ariphmetic. It’s an unfashionable
science.
As for the budjet resourses, there are not many suggestions are being made.
Maybe there would be enough money?
Let’s take for example discussed currently topic
of the bicycle paths. It’s possible to make an estimate of the project. And then to estimate the number of actual users of these paths.
From the social portrait of the “typical active bicycle’s user” to estimate,
how much tax has he paid, subtsract out the
cost of those services of the the urban environment,
which he uses. And there is lack of money indeed. It turned out
the city Concil has to spend on the bicycle paths the taxes of those citizens
who don’t even approach the bicycle. So the enthusiasts answer that the bicycle
paths are for everybody to start ride the bicycke as that’s the only correct
way of living. It’s interesting: we begun from the ask
of the social group and finished by the pretency for the claim to “world
leadership”. The enthusiasts of all stripes do not realize their demands are
contrary not to the wishes of the authorities, but to other citizens’s
interests. Our people live in such picture of the world where the monolithic
society opposes to the power. Even when the conflict between the social groups
arises they quickly reconcil (примиряются) on the idea that
“it’s a government’s fault, it didn’t find the decision satisfying for all of
us”.
- But nevertheless if we take the
system with the shopping centers – don’t see those who’re ready to fight for their construction…
It’s a pure psychology: people are sharper experiencing the expected damage to themself than the expected improvement. There is paradox. Only few people would suffer from the
shoping center construction – and they protest. But the life quality of a much larger number
of people would be improved. They would get the new shopping centers, extended
range of products, lower prices. However the meetings and petitions under the banner "We demand the construction of new shopping center"
are difficult to imagine. Even when in the end of 90-th people were unsatisfied with the trade
and entertainment’s level in the city, this discontent was unaddressed. Even more difficult to imagine the slogans like “We want
the creation of the new working places” or “Hands away from sources
of revenue budget”. The
society is not yet ripe for such
a formulation of the problem. Authorities have to think about the welfare of the citizens in splendid isolation.
But the process of the social groups realizing
their interests will take place inevitably. The ability to understand indirect and delayed effects of that or those
steps will develope also. Shortsighted solidarity with the people of antagonistic interests and goals will leave. Today the
active users or businessmen complacently
support the "environmentalists" or defenders of ancient monuments. Tomorrow they
will say: “Yes, these guys do not need the new shops, they don’t have money…
But we do need them!”
This is happening today already: the motorists are struggling with the rest for the streets expansion,
for the new interchanges, for constructing the new parkings in
the yards. There is argument between the little children’s parents who vote for
constructing the new kindergartens and those who consider the kindergarten
under the windows as worrisome obstacle. Yes it’s a pity the erstwhile solidarity of
society is going in the past, but what’s more
important the fruitless
illusion of
the happiness for all is leaving too.
But we have to consider all the opinions…
Taken into account – yes, but not follow them
blindly. In this regard is very significant
experience of the European cities. The fashion on the
“searching for consensus” leads to a complete paralysis of the development there some time. Say there is an old
interchange at Sodermalm in
What is exactly its role in the dialogue of society and government?
The “passions
absorber”. And a translator from the
“public” language to the bureaucratic language and vice versa.
But while the urban community anchor more hopes on the other structures…
Yes as said the society is still infant, it
believes in the existence of good magicians. The society goes to one who promise the miracle: we’ll loudly shout and collect a large
meeting and we’ll achieve the most ambitious targets. But the candidates to
the magicians get burned one after another. They don’t give what they promised,
moreover in some cases it appears that the banal fraud stood behind the noble intentions. The confrontational script like “We’ll put the
government to its knees now” – is absolutely dead-end. And not because our
government is so unaccountable to the people and
non-elected. It’s elected, but if it falls to its knees in front of 1 percent of the voters, it turns out that it has betrayed
the other 99 percent. That’s why the path
of dialog is much more promising (prospective). And the society would realize
it very soon. Someone is happy
with mindless hysterics, but the Public Chamber
really grinds (шлифует) details of the new order of receiving
first-graders in the school.
One of the Public Chamber’s commissions, you work for, is the Commission
on the formation of the urban patriotism and the information environment of the city. What
are the problems and what are the solutions?
The city patriotism is really one of the
weakest places of our city: it significantly hinders its development. There are
a lot of reasons: the historical traditions, the shift to the global era, when
the man feels like a “World citizen”, and attachment to a small home could look like an anachronism. What could the
Public Chamber do about that? First of all support effective projects of the social consciousness modification. Not to slip into a formal
work activities "in
the forehead".
If about the development of information
environment, and mass media, the biggest problem here is the nightmarish loss of quality associated
with the transition to the Internet. The
fraud, outright lies,
banal rudeness blossomed. Alas mass media are like that because the audience is
satisfied with that. It’s only left to “appeal and explain”, to respond to some egregious situations.
But today thanks to Internet the information
space has become much broader than actual media. This is huge and not really
exploited potential. The number of people connected to Internet in Ekaterinburg is very impressive, but most of these people
use Internet very little and timid. Internet has not yet become the source of
information about city life for the mass audience. And moreover the mass
audience doesn’t take
part in the discussions on important topics which deprives the discussion on the Internet of the representativeness
(presentability). Obviously we need not the measures to facilitate access to
the Internet for those who use it actively already, but the outreach,
educational programs for those who have not yet connected to the Internet.
