• NOVEMBER 20, 2009
DISPATCH PRINT  |   TEXT SIZE        |  EMAIL  |  SINGLE PAGE

Russia's Staged State of the Nation

Medvedev's supposed break from Putinism? It turned out to be just more political theater.

BY JULIA IOFFE | NOVEMBER 13, 2009

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev delivered his second state-of-the-nation address before the Russian parliament on Thursday. The speech's sternness and substance sounded like a sharp break with Russia's political and economic stagnation under President-turned-Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, who was seated in the front row as Medvedev spoke. No longer could the country continue its "humiliating" resource dependency, Medvedev said; no longer could business make a living simply by trading in foreign goods; no longer could the crisis -- which, Medvedev admitted, hit Russia especially hard -- be blamed on others.

For an hour and 40 minutes, Medvedev went on in front of an increasingly fidgety audience, spotlighting with admirable candor the things that are slowing Russia's progress into modernity. Some of his proposals -- like reducing the number of Russian time zones and introducing dance instruction in schools -- were bizarre. But the vast majority was amazingly spot-on, tough-love material more often heard in Western think tanks and opposition papers. Medvedev was telling Russians what they needed to hear: sink or swim. And, to the untrained ear, it sounded like a definitive break with the reign of Putinism, a legacy of corruption and autocracy to which Medvedev seemed to be setting himself up as a liberal foil.

Don't Miss

Vova and Dima 4eva?

Does Russia's tandem still get along?

By Joshua Keating

But like many Kremlin initiatives, Medvedev's new "openness" was a show, carefully staged and tested and re-tested. Two months ago, the president published an article titled "Onward, Russia!" in the online liberal newspaper, Gazeta.ru. It was a strange -- and strangely critical -- editorial, asking Russians why they clung to the past, to the addiction to natural resources, to corruption. It asked them, in an almost Obama-like way, to stop looking for blame abroad and to look for solutions at home, to move forward, to modernize. Medvedev even gave readers an email address where anyone could send their "practical plans for the development of our state." "Modernization," the editorial's leitmotif, instantly monopolized Russian political discourse.

Over the next two months some 30,000 people responded -- including one much-publicized futorologist. This was a signal from the Kremlin, a trial balloon for the November presidential address (much of which is generally passed quickly into law by the rubber-stamp Duma), and so there was daily speculation about what Medvedev would mention, and what he'd relegate to the radioactive bin. The essay's unprecedented openness -- or at least seeming openness -- piqued the interests of the chattering classes.

By the time the speech came, there was a twin feeling of suspense -- what will he say? -- and absolute apathy - we already know what he'll say.

The speech, when it came, was both surprisingly forthright and familiarly false-bottomed.

Modernity was the word of the day, as expected: Just as Russia once forged ahead through great sacrifice to become a major 20th-century power, Medvedev said, "in the 21st-century, our country again cannot do without all-encompassing modernization." And modernization à la Medvedev means technological innovation and the establishment of a Silicon-Valley-type center of ingenuity; making sure that at least 50 percent of medicines are manufactured in Russia; tossing up more satellites into space; cleaning out the ranks of the corrupted police force; jailing corrupt bureaucrats and covering the country in a blanket of broadband Internet; raising pensions; supporting NGOs and opening the electoral system; strengthening civil society and improving the education system; getting a handle on the hurly-burly of the North Caucasus and putting an end to "puffing out our cheeks" in foreign policy.

And Medvedev had the courage to talk of reforming Russia's essentially one-party, Kremlin-controlled political system, and even made a meaningful gesture -- eliminating signature-gathering as a prerequisite for participating in elections (this is the main tool to disqualify unfriendlies). But all pretense fell away as soon as he said, "On the whole we can say that the multi-party system in the Russian Federation has come together."

12NEXT
Save over 50% when you subscribe to FP.

DMITRY ASTAKHOV/AFP/Getty Images

 

Julia Ioffe is a writer living in Moscow.

SHARE THIS ARTICLE: Facebook|Twitter|Digg
  • The Al Qaeda Diaries

  • Boring Summits Are Better for Everyone

  • D.C.'s New Game: Who's Paying Your Pundit?

  • Lowering the Bar: The ABA's Ties to Despots

 (4)

HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE

GRANT

8:46 PM ET

November 13, 2009

Reform? In Russia? An

Reform? In Russia? An unlikely idea at best. Of all the problems in the world, corruption is among the most difficult to root out, yet this is one Russia desperately needs to fix. Also, as was pointed out by Mr. Resnik, words are very cheap.

  REPLY
 

HAIRYSTEVE20

6:33 PM ET

November 15, 2009

Reform

Yet reform in the US has also foundered on the rocks of special interest groups and trough feeding politicians. Whether in health care or foreign policy the media, lobbying groups, the banking sector and the military industrial complex have done their best to stifle it.

Sneer at Russia all you want but vital reforms in the good old US of A may yet fail for much the same reasons.

  REPLY
 

GRANT

10:12 AM ET

November 18, 2009

I'll grant you that, but

I'll grant you that, but remember that corruption in Russia and the United States are worlds apart. In the U.S the majority of the population hasn't given bribes to police officers, and courts have repeatedly shown their willingness to make their own decisions (though a tragic matter in North East U.S proves involving the courts proves that there are always exceptions).

  REPLY
 

DAVE R

7:16 AM ET

November 16, 2009

USA a Multi-party State?

I just love when people like you have done here, throw stones at glass houses.
Medvedev has the same pretense our own establishment does, pretend that that a plural party system flourishes when we only have “one coin with two faces” that is pro big government and interventionist, designed to minimize pluralism and enhance corporatism.
At least he addressed issues, ours do not see the light of day.

  REPLY
 
TODAY | PAST WEEK

MOST
READ

MOST
COMMENTED

  1. The Terrorists Among Us
  2. Is There a Palin Doctrine?
  3. The Real Shock of Fort Hood
  4. 5 Things to Be Thankful For This Year
  5. Planet Slum
TODAY | PAST WEEK

MOST
READ

MOST
COMMENTED

  1. Nobel Peace Prize Also-Rans
  2. Edward Burtynsky's Oil
  3. Think Again: God
  4. Bolivia's Lithium-Powered Future
  5. Planet Slum
TODAY | PAST WEEK

MOST
READ

MOST
COMMENTED

  1. Is There a Palin Doctrine?
  2. Afghanistan Is Not Making Americans Safer
  3. The Real Shock of Fort Hood
  4. Planet Slum
  5. Zardari in the Crosshairs
TODAY | PAST WEEK

MOST
READ

MOST
COMMENTED

  1. The President, the Professor, and the Wide Receiver
  2. Is There a Palin Doctrine?
  3. The Real Shock of Fort Hood
  4. The Only Hope Left?
  5. The Terrorists Among Us
  • NET EFFECT

    Why are people creating Facebook profiles for Holocaust victims?

    BY EVGENY MOROZOV

  • PASSPORT

    North Africa's escalating soccer war

    BY JOSHUA KEATING

  • ARGUMENT

    How the Chinese media covered Obama's visit

    BY WILLIAM MOSS

  • SMALL WARS

    The U.S. and Pakistan are heading for a bad breakup

    BY ROBERT HADDICK

  • DANIEL DREZNER

    Time's not-so-shocking Obamaland expose

  • BEST DEFENSE

    What would George Marshall think of today's generals?

    BY THOMAS E. RICKS

  • SHADOW GOVT.

    What does containing North Korea actually mean?

    BY JAMIE FLY

  • THE CABLE

    How the Chinese government censored Obama's visit

    BY JOSH ROGIN



  • 1. Aligning on Afghanistan? President Obama and PM Brown Turn Focus on Exit Strategy
  • 2. R.I.P.: Russia to Continue Ban on the Death Penalty
  • 3. All for One: Jailed Fatah Leader Implores Palestinian Unity
  • 4. Global Warming Time Out: Stagnating Temperatures Baffle Climate Experts
 See All Photo Essays
  • Planet slum: From Nairobi to Caracas, Mumbai, and Jakarta

  • Falling Like It's 1989

November/December 2009
  • Feature

    Revolution in a Box

  • Feature

    Plague, by Robin Cook

  • Opening Gambit

    My Plan to Overthrow the Mullahs

  •  See Entire Issue

     Preview Digital Edition

  • Why Sarah Palin is unlikely to be the future of the Republican Party.
  • What to drink on Thanksgiving: Napa cabernet.
  • How to score chicks on the Disney Channel.
  • GM Customers Give Back
  • Ron Paul Wins Lifelong Fight, Now May Be Forced To Vote Against Everything He Believes
  • Wonk Watch 11.20.09
  • What Would the Pilgrims Say About Tofu?
  • What Kobe, LeBron and Dwyane Owe Spencer Haywood
  • What Kobe, LeBron and Dwyane Owe Spencer Haywood

About FP: Meet the Staff | Foreign Editions | Reprint Permissions | Advertising | Corporate Programs | Writers’ Guidelines | Press Room | Work at FP

Services: Subscription Services | Academic Program | FP Archive | Reprint Permissions | FP Reports and Merchandise | Special Reports | Buy Back Issues

Subscribe to FP | Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | RSS Feeds | Contact Us

FP Logo


1899 L Street NW, Suite 550 | Washington, DC 20036 | Phone: 202-728-7300 | Fax: 202-728-7342
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the Slate Group, a division of Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC
All contents ©2009 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC. All rights reserved.