Интервью

The Foundation of Civil Society Development (FCSD) was created a year ago under the auspices of the Kremlin. Its Director, KONSTANTIN KOSTIN was the former Head of the Department of Internal Policy in the Presidential Administration. In an interview with our correspondent, IRINA NAGORNIKH he said that he takes pride in their ties with the Kremlin; that he doesn’t claim ownership of the phrase ‘nationalisation of the elite’ and that he doesn’t mind being called a ‘Surkovite’.

 

‘You are soon to publish the results of your research on the mass media. Why do you joke that once published, journalists you know may refuse to say hello to you? Are you going to give journalism a hard time?’

 

‘The report will be called “Russian Mass Media in 2020”. In it we analyze trends in this market, which we are seeing today and make forecasts on how various technological changes in the near future will affect the structure of media consumption and content. Many of my comrades –especially those in the media business - might not like our some of our conclusions. And some radically-minded internet voices will not like the fact that the role of the major national TV channels will continue to be very significant. The Big Three – First Channel, NTV and Russia – will maintain their dominant position throughout the third decade of the 21^stCentury though they will also undergo many changes. We are also seeing the rapid growth of a number of niche, specialist TV channels but it is only the giant channels which will be able to provide quality information and entertainment.’

 

‘In your research on the internet you say that the internet has very good prospects?’

 

‘We said that the role of the internet will grow more powerful, particularly as a means of communication. The demand for surfing the internet through the television will also grow, but not through a cable nor antenna. But so far we have not found an economic model of online media programmes which can compete with the leading TV channels.’

 

‘It reminds me a bit of the party system. There are Parliamentary Parties who are small players unable to compete with the big Parties. Is that the same in the media?’

 

‘In my opinion, competition in the media market is much greater, especially in television where there is a constant battle for viewing share figures and rating. That competition won’t subside. The spending of big advertisers on adverts (especially on TV and the internet) will grow. The media is trying to be more accurate and every piece of information can be rapidly monetised.’

 

‘How does the Foundation decide on what to focus research on when faced with a whole realm of possible themes: the internet, protests, NGOs, the media etc.? And what reaction do you envisage following publication of your research?’

 

We have an expert council, which decides on what themes we pursue. First of all we look at what themes are relevant and important. As for what reaction we get, let me give you an example. The Federal Committee sent us a letter in response to our report on NGOs saying that they would take into account our conclusions when reviewing the appropriate legislation on NGOs. And Roskomnadzor (the Federal Service to Regulate Communications and IT) issued a recommendation to block internet sites which breached the law, by the site address rather than by their IP address which is exactly what we suggested in the report about problems censoring the internet. It’s hard to say exactly to what extent the experts influence these matters but we do know there is some influence. For example, our report on protests was intended to document the state of public opinion. We were the first people to do this.’

 

‘The opposition read your report and claimed that you didn’t so much document public opinion as actively work to change it.’

 

‘The arguments about objectivity are never-ending. And what does it say about the opposition if our report – even if it is very good – can influence a decline in protest activity?’

 

‘It’s been a year since you started working at the Foundation, what products are you most proud of?’

 

‘I wouldn’t want to comment on our achievements in political technology right now although we are working on this at the moment. The most important things have been our reports on the protest movement, he so called ‘third sector’ and Runet.’

 

‘Sociologists have criticized you on your first attempts on researching sociology claiming that the FCSD doesn’t have the qualifications to do this. Does that annoy you?’

 

‘The snobbism of our sociological centres is understandable. Firstly, no-one likes competition and secondly no-one is prepared to criticize the current state of affairs in Russia’s sociological infrastructure. Russian sociological centres are peculiar in that even the very largest centres rely on the services of regional sociological structures. This is not the way it works in the rest of the world. For example Gallup in the US have branches in many different States but they have a unified method which has taken decades to perfect, and which is based on a tried and tested base of respondents. But unfortunately, in our country all national research is carried out by subcontractors.’

 

‘So it is one and the same set of people who provide the facts on which research is based, even if they come up with different conclusions? It’s all down to methods?’

 

‘Absolutely. Methods and sampling. There are one or two centres in the regions which work with a variety of customers. For example all the research involved around the Mayoral elections in Sochi was contracted by the Krasnodar Sociological Centre. When we held a meeting of the political science community in the regions it was attended by dozens of sociologists and representatives from various scientific schools of thought. They were in no way less qualified than those working in the big sociological centres. We carry out public opinion polls because we have to. On the whole we use pre-existing research. We are not the only ones to carry out our own opinion polls even though we do not specialize in this. I know that the Centre for Strategic Research also carried out their own polls. This is not some sort of breakthrough. The breakthrough will be when Russia has a major sociological centre with its own branches in the regions. Predicting election results is an easier matter. We conducted a study on the regional elections and it proved to be very media led. It only took a month for our specialists to correctly forecast the results.’

 

‘Perhaps you simply knew them in advance?’

 

‘We predicted them. We made the forecast based on public data and by monitoring the situation in the elective areas. An important factor was that we were not directly involved in the election campaign and were not connected with those who participated in the elections.’

 

‘Which brings to mind the time when Vladimir Churov, head of the Central Election Commission announced a competition amongst his staff to forecast the results of the Duma elections on the eve of those results coming in and his sociologists ‘guessed’ the results with such similarity that it was a bit of a photo finish. That incident gave rise to much cynicism concerning the purity of the experiment.’

 

‘That’s another story connected with elections to the State Duma. I remember anyway that it was Alexander Oslon who won the competition. After he had handed his forecast in to the CES I asked him what he had written and he answered “47%”. (For United Russia – Kommersant.) I told him it was more likely to be 50% and I was closer. (United Russia won a 49.3% majority in the Duma – Kommersant.) But incidentally I don’t agree with you – the forecasts all came in very differently.’

 

‘Are you proud of the fact that your seminar with regional political scientists was attended by representatives of the Presidential Administration including the First Deputy Head Vyacheslav Volodin and the head of the Department for Domestic Policy, Oleg Morozov?’

 

‘I’m proud of any job well done because this work was needed. The conference was interesting not only for the scientific community but also, I hope, to my former colleagues from the Administration.’

 

‘Is it true that the “hungry” political scientists from the regions put a lot of pressure on the reps from the Presidential Administration during the scientific debate?’

 

‘Any meeting with people who are responsible for the political process is going to be very valuable for regional political scientists. Moreover the feeling is mutual. During the conference we asked the participants to evaluate the speakers. Representatives from the Presidential Administration, the media and scientific and professional communities spoke out– including the most opposition-minded, unbiased people - and Vyacheslav Viktorovich Volodin received the highest praise. I believe that this is because people do value content, mutual interest and the desire to make full use of the intellectual potential of leading Russian scientific schools when making policies. Moreover, it is important to get the opinion of people well versed in politics on those who are leading the country.’

 

‘In your time with the Presidential Administration you worked under the direction of Vladislav Surkov. Now that it seems his political career is over and everyone is looking for the so called ‘Surkovites’ I’d like to ask if you consider yourself to be one of them?’

 

‘I worked for five years in the Department of Internal Policy (DIP) and Vladislav Yurievich and I have known each other for quite a long time. In this sense I can indeed be considered to be a ‘Surkovite’.However my work over the past few years has been associated with Vyacheslav Viktorovich Volodin. I worked under him at the DIP during the last Presidential election campaign. When the idea of creating this Foundation arose it was Vyacheslav Viktorovich who I went to for advice and he supported me. Without his support the Foundation would probably not exist in the form it now does.’

 

‘Dmitri Badovsky’s Institute of Socio-economic and Political Research was created at about the same time as your Foundation, in order to distribute Presidential grants in the field of social and political activities. Will you go to him for Presidential grants?’

 

‘That’s certainly an idea! I should give that some thought. We have a couple of projects which might well qualify for a presidential grant.’

‘The grant campaign has already started and people are applying. You won’t be too late then?’

 

‘It’s a question of the quality of the application. The problem with a lot of NGO’s applying for grants is that they are not able to articulate what they do although they may well be doing good and useful work. As for us, we are quite prepared to put forward an exemplary application.’

 

‘It’s been a year since the Foundation came into being. Isn’t it about time that you came out with a report on where your revenue actually comes from?’

 

‘We will make that report as required by the law. This will involve the structure of our sponsors and the programmes that we have carried out. The report will be made towards the end of this year and until then it’s not something I wish to discuss.’

 

‘And is the government one of your sponsors?’

 

‘No. Our sponsors are business organizations. Russian ones I might add. We do not take any foreign capital. We have some foreign partners in some of our research projects but our money is all Russian.’

 

‘There has been talk that with the support of the Presidential Administration other socio-political Foundations may be formed. Under, for example the sponsorship of the ‘United Russia’ Party. Do you know anything about this?’

 

‘No. I can’t comment.’

 

‘But in general, since the field of political expertise is still growing, do you believe there is a place for such centres?’

 

‘Of course - if one is talking about the quality of the product rather than the quantity of expert organizations of which there are many. But our expertise community still needs to work on the quality of their output. We still have no clear criteria by which one can determine how an expert report differs from a policy or publicity brief. Even the most minimal qualification requirements are sadly lacking, like for example in the academic community. “The Awakening of Russia” report from the Carnegie Foundation for example takes an interesting look at the state of political systems but it takes the form of an essay. Where are the quotes from sociologists, the statistics and the raw data? Our colleagues from the Centre for Strategic Studies concluded that optimism in society was on the wane and discovered a Russian syndrome of “learned helplessness” – all based on one single study. But in my opinion if one wants to make a serious commentary on such trends then one must take regular polls for a period of 5-6 months. I’m not saying that our products are perfect, but we try to work honestly. By the end of the year we plan to carry out our own research on the development of the political system. But prior to this we will have an index of development in the regions, predictions for the 8^th September elections and bring out a report on the state of the media in 2020. Apart from all this we plan to carry out research on how political language is changing, what new phrases and concepts are emerging and how they are used. For example we have seen how the phrase‘nationalisation of the elite’ has now come into common usage yet it was first used at our round table discussion a year ago.’

 

‘Patented?’

 

‘No. I support the theory that if you want your ideas to capture the imagination you must immediately relinquish your claim to it.’