This week Moscow hosted the World Editors Forum. Predictably, the prudish editors-in-chief of the world’s leading periodicals criticized the Russian authorities for violating freedom of speech. And, predictably, Vladimir Putin objected.

Things went very decently during the Forum. Criticisms on the part of the guests were polite, and the hosts’ response was respectful and correct. And, honestly, I wouldn’t pay much attention to it, had it not been for one circumstance: I had a feeling that Russian officials were sincere!

That’s what scares me.

So what did the Russian high officials have to say in response? Firstly, they presented statistics, as an evidence of the state share in the media sector ceaselessly falling. Therefore, hail the market relations, and liberty marching along! A weighty liberal argument, our Western colleagues had obviously nothing to have it topped with. Secondly, all officials, starting from the President and down to the minor bureaucrats kept reiterating that we have a lot of papers, with lots of pages in each of them, and even more articles printed on each of those pages. They mean: there’s much vodka in Russia to drink it all up, and too many articles to read through. We can’t waste human resources just to take care of these minor flaws.

And for dessert the TV showed us a Russian girl, who is studying journalism somewhere in Great Britain: she was complaining about the British, having completely distorted ideas about our country. It takes just mentioning Russia to have them say: “Cold winters, vodka, bears”.

The last point doesn’t have anything to do with the freedom of speech, but for some reason it was the one picked out by our propaganda pros as crucial. Right away came an intention to go on with the game. France – cheese, wine, and adultery; Italy – again wine, cheese, and adultery, but this time flavored with spaghetti and opera. Scotland – guys in kilts blowing pipes; England - you know, gentlemen, Royal Guards in fury hats. Germany – beer and sausages; Czech Republic – even more beer. And the ‘velvet revolution.’

The stereotypes work because they are actually a result of a true fact. We do have vodka and cold winters. And as for bears… Whose fault is it that the posters of the political party in power, featuring this beast, are being hang up all over the country?

The question is: Why did men in kilts have more freedom for their press than the country with vodka and bears?

Our officials, defending their stand, have thus demonstrated a clear political philosophy. It accounts for a lot. First of all, they are totally convinced partisans of economic liberalism and honestly think that the liberal economic institutions as they are constitute the core of the democracy. If the press is private, then there may be no censorship, just disputes between ‘economic entities’.

The fact, that in a true democratic society the public media may not just have freedom of speech, but have considerably more of it, than private media do, doesn’t even occur to our authorities. Meanwhile, for people who live in Western Europe, it is simply obvious. Public television, like, for example, Britain’s BBC, is obliged by law to observe certain rules. It should not refuse opposition the broadcasting time, it should not cover one viewpoint, without also covering another one. These basic rules of democratic existence are not compulsory for private publishing houses and TV channels, where, in compliance with the rule of private property, any policy may be pursued by the company’s owner. That’s the precedent with Silvio Berlusconi in Italy – having monopolized the private television networks, he acquired a tool to fight for power nationwide. But, even on becoming prime-minister, he could not to the fullest extent take over the rest of the public networks, where the opposition did have a chance to speak out.

The second thought of our officials was interesting too. For them the control over press is basically minor interventions on a daily basis. There is no need telling that such attitude is harmful. To gain full control of a newspaper, it takes just having the right to appoint and sack the editor-in-chief. No more censorship needed – everything will be done by self – censorship.

Some Western periodicals are protected from such intervention by means of contract, which deprives the owner of the right to just change management to their liking. In Russia, as far as I know, such pattern works only with “The Moscow Times”.

The Russian officials’ speculations drive up to two points. Firstly, they do not object to the minor intervention to the press under their control, even if they haven’t done it so far (exactly like Freud has it: the denial speaks more than a confirmation). Secondly, political control over staff decisions is thought to be so natural, that they don’t even mention it as a problem.

For our own comfort we can remember that in the West the problem with freedom of speech exists, especially in the States, where monopolization of the major networks and printed press has by far exceeded the limits, accepted in a properly functioning democracy. Well, this control is tougher in Russia - but that’s because our country is poorer. In a society where 80% of the population is under the poverty line, the news should be meticulously sorted out – for the sake of the social stability. So, don’t get angry with our officials – they do their best.

After all, we are neither worse, nor better than the others…

Maybe, a little more naive…

Boris Kagarlitsky is a Director of The Institute for Globalization Studies.

June 8, 2006