St. Petersburg Dialogue 2012: Revealing underlying contradictions?

The meeting with the leaders of the two countries at the end of the Dialogue (16th of November), however, left the dialogue in a rather serene and peaceful mode.

What went virtually unnoticed was the opening plenary session of the event with the two core presentations devoted to the key topic - the challenges of the information society. The Russian one was made by Mikhail Kovalchuk, a physicist and director of the famous Kurchatov Institute. It was concentrated on the technical part of the information society, on how a man negatively affects the nature but also on the progress from macro-science to nano-science and beyond. The German one was delivered by Wolfram Weimer, a journalist and a member of a public body overseeing mass media in Berlin and Brandenburg. This contribution was concentrated on ‘media democracy’, on how the politics was changed by the information age.

Why do I believe these two presentations are a litmus test of the frequently underestimated differences between the two sides? Firstly, they show the deep roots of the disagreement between Russia and Germany, Russia and Europe, Russia and West. The vision of the majority of the Russians is based on the prevalence of economics over politics. Hence, any reform is planned as starting from economics and as a result affecting politics. Russian partners in the West, in contrast, believe that politics should change first, that only democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights will provide the firm basis for economic reforms. 

This difference is well illustrated by the EU-Russian discussions on the nature of modernisation. Moscow insists on the prevalence of its economic track while the EU emphasizes the need for political reforms, their priority. Russian position can be viewed as the legacy of Marxism.This gulf between Germany (Europe, West) and Russia has also at time been presented as the difference between interest-focused Russia and its value-oriented partners. This distinction is wrong, however, because values and norms underlie all activities; nobody acts out of the blue. However, in some parts of the world their core is democracy, human rights and the rule of law; whereas in other countries economic pragmatism determines social realities and preferences (including various plans for reforms). In other words, the crux of the matter is not the absence of the norms in Russia but rather its different normativity.

Secondly, the two presentations made vivid the difference in the scientific and methodological approaches of the EU and Russia. Russian desire for tangible realities means preference for realism and materialism. The European / EU’s approach has been for decades rooted in post-positivism; in the research of thoughts, images and perceptions rather than objective realities. The way of these concepts to Russia is thorny, to say the least. This difference cannot but affect scientific concepts, methodological approaches but also day-to-day behavior and politics in Russia and the EU.

Summing it up, the opening session of St. Petersburg Dialogue revealed the key differences between Russia and its German and European partners: in normativity; in the scientific picture of the world. These differences are, in fact, responsible for the difficult and tense current relations between Russia and Germany / Europe / the West, in general, and for so contentious St. Petersburg Dialogue of this year. These differences are to be considered to improve the flow of communication between the two civil societies, they can only be dealt with through further dialogues between Russian and German (and possibly other) civil societies.

Dr. Tatiana Romanova is Associate Professor, Jean Monnet Chair, St. Petersburg State University