“People should be proud with their rich fellow-countrymen, regardless of the way they earned their money”

— What is the attitude of Kazakhstan’s society towards large and medium business?
— I think, the attitude is still negative. I don’t know who should initiate changes of social perception, especially its attitude towards bourgeoisie. Most likely, it should be done by the state power itself. The state power should learn to trust the business. The business is perceived negatively not because it is bad, but because the state power has lead to this. After all, the main channels of delivering public information are in the hands of the state power. It is natural for the population to feel the distrust of the state power towards the business. Together we should teach the society to be proud of our rich people, just like they are proud of our scientists, writers and sportsmen. It is good, if a rich person has legally earned his money, but what about the rest? It seems, that people should be proud of their rich men regardless of the way they earned their money; otherwise we’ll come to a dead-end, and property redistribution.

— What mission should currently the business implement in economic and social life?
— Create jobs and pay taxes.

— What would you say about the relations with the government?
— The government still considers us as speculators. Thus it doesn’t trust us. Many officials sincerely believe that if you are a businessman, you don’t serve your country. They don’t take into account that business forms country’s GDP. The same situation is in the reversed order, business doesn’t trust the state authority. In all of the government’s actions we seek for a trick and an attempt to worsen the conditions of our existence. Even in Russian movies a rich person is usually portrayed as a bad guy; it’s like rich person is a synonym to bad person. The same happens in Kazakhstan. We will not make it to top 50 competitive countries of the works if we keep this attitude towards business. However, now business is less dependent on the control of the state authority. Some time ago any large company depended on government contractual work. Now the leaders of business sphere don’t have this preference. It shows that the government has lost control over the business. Thus, the business will still grow, regardless of where the oil revenue will be directed to. In my opinion, it scared the state power a little bit.

— What are the main problems in Kazakhstan’s business society?
— Today the business has not identified itself. Our oligarchs are not divided into those who grew due to administrative resources and those who grew due to their own efforts.

— All right, the current situation regarding the relations between the business and the government is somewhat clear. Trying to make a forecast, what do you think will change in the relations in 5-10 years?
— Now we are at the point where the relations will change either to one or the opposite direction. Either the state power will become stronger, or the bourgeoisie will understand that they are active participants of the events in the country. They will understand that they are not only responsible for the future of the country, but they also have the right to influence the future, not necessarily through political opposition. I mean economic opposition and cooperation. In fact, we don’t have any politics, we have the Parliament and separate institutions, but not the politics as a whole.

— Who does determination of future relations between the business and state power depend on? Are they equal or is the state authority the main player?
— There is parity already; however, the bourgeoisie will blame the government for all problems until they understand own rights. The next presidential elections may become a trigger. Now is the time to take necessary actions. We need to create economic rather than political opposition. Today representatives of the business need to learn to work as a team, at least, to defend their economic positions. Moreover, there no rigid political chain of command in the country now. For example, consider the introduction of limitations on the banks’ activities. The banks work as before, and the government doesn’t have instruments to fight the business.

— Can you be in an economic opposition without participating in the political life?
— I think it is possible. On the basic level economic opposition is the skill to listen and understand each other. Then the business people should recognise themselves as bourgeoisie not only with social responsibility, also with their rights. And only then they can act on the political stage. If the business society is uncoordinated, it will be left out of the political activity. Business people, who are based on their administrative opportunities, understand it and try to influence the situation. Others may be afraid to do so, because of a negative experience of dealing with politics. However, none of the above will happen, unless those business people, who have honestly earned their money, not through the administrative opportunities, agree among themselves.

— If we take the examples of changes of the state power in Ukraine, Georgia and Russia, which one would be preferable to you?
— I’d be happy if we experience the Georgian scenario. Though, I’m against revolutions, I support evolutional development. Frankly speaking, I don’t care for the democracy as a personal freedom, I care for the democracy as the condition for liberal market. I’d like every person in the country to serve the country, not its President. I’d like the people to stop pleasing the President, because that’s what they do now instead of serving him. Actually, many of the young specialists, who have received Western or Russian education, want to serve the country. Of course, they are in prostration now, but it doesn’t mean that they stand idle.

— Are there people in the business, who can become the core for unification of other entrepreneurs?
— I think, there are such people, but I don’t know why they don’t act. My point of view is as follows. Such person has to be outside the business, at least, on this stage, within the nearest 20 years. This person cannot be a shareholder until our mentality changes. In this case there is nothing to take away from him. However, he can be physically taken out. This person should have humanitarian features, for example, he should be a national hero, writer or literary man. The person’s history is not important, it just must be a person who says that he is ready to do everything to make people believe him and his wish to serve the country. And when people see than, especially more active part of the population, they will follow him.

— What stages will it consist of?
— First, consolidation should take place. Second, social roles should be determined. And after that, the leader must be chosen.

• 72
• 66