MOSCOW, September 9 (Itar-Tass) —— Dmitry Medvedev opposed the policy of “tightening the screws”, the appeals to break up the protesters and against those, who want “to line up in one line and to go in a fair future with common ranks.” He has made a statement at the World Political Forum that is being held in Yaroslavl under his patronage without calling those, who “tighten the screws” and those who “lined up.”
The president did not make any important statements over the presidential elections as it was expected, Kommersant notes. Though he put forward his tough position over interethnic relations in the democratic multinational state.
“The state should understand its citizens regardless their culture, nationality and profession,” the newspaper quoted Medvedev as saying. “Today the temptation to get down to tightening the screws again is great as never before. There are always many reasons for this. Crime, separatism, poverty – what to do? It was said before to consolidate closer around the country’s leadership and tighten the screws,” Medvedev said. However, the president believes that “the rights of people cannot be restricted and, moreover, the criticism cannot be suppressed.” Meanwhile, according to him, the appeals to the expulsion of migrants and the suppression of minorities cannot be made. “There are enough people in our country, who believe that it is better to line in one line and to go in a fair future with common ranks. I believe that it is not just unnecessary, but is very harmful for our country,” Medvedev stated. On the contrary, the state “should follow public trends, keep in line with them, but not to drag the society behind,” he believes.
Chairman of the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurship Alexander Shokhin doubts that the presidential statements about “tightening the screws” and “closing the ranks” are addressed to United Russia and the All-Russian Popular Front. “Most likely it is the participants in the forum, who offered to pursue a tough policy and to give attention to multiculturalism. The president left the question open who he meant, but those, who make harsh statements, will consider them to be targeted against them,” the newspaper quoted Shokhin as saying. According to him, the presidential speech is “the instructions to the political forces, a hint that any political force, which can form new bodies of authorities, should proceed from the suppositions, which he voiced.”
The presidential speech contained nothing unexpected, Nezavisimaya Gazeta believes. Already on Thursday many analytical experts stated with confidence that the second presidential term will not be discussed. However, one can assume that Medvedev could have been more concrete in his position on the situation in Russia. Unfortunately, this did not happen. The debates between the president and his political opponents were targeted against anyone in particular as before.
Spelling out his vision of the present and the future of the country, Dmitry Medvedev did not name either United Russia or the All-Russian Popular Front, denounced the models of political consolidation, which these organizations offer, the newspaper notes. He stated that it is impossible “to line all people in one line and as it is said to build a fair future.” And “to tighten the screws” either. Though, “today the temptation” to do it again is great as never before. The president was speaking about poverty, xenophobia, the protection of private property. His speech was logic and correct, but there was nothing new in it. The president is still ready to change the political system, but gradually. In his view, this will be a true modernization.
It is regretful that the president even on the fourth year of his presidency does not dare to call spade the spade, Nezavisimaya Gazeta writes. He is speaking about the rhetoric of liberal intelligentsia, which is included in the authorities and seem to upset respected people. In fact, real problems in Russia are as such that the delicacy just harms the business. If the problems are so serious as the president is speaking about them, we have no reasons to think in the other way, though we realize that they are even more serious – why not to call spade the spade, giving a political assessment to people, ideology and slogans of concrete political movements?