Putin Without Putinism

Everyone assumes that Vladimir Putin will win Russia's presidential election next month. But can his iron fist survive his victory?

BY ANDERS ÅSLUND | FEBRUARY 8, 2012

The mood in Moscow has changed profoundly in the last two months as a critical mass of Russians has come to believe that Vladimir Putin's regime is approaching its end. People are not tense and angry, but humorous and excited.

Paradoxically, the opposition thinks it has won and lives in a free country, while the government believes its rule persists. These two contradictory perceptions of reality are soon bound to clash, however, and Russia's system of government will be changed beyond recognition in the process.

The general assumption remains that Putin will win the presidential election on March 4. But Russians' expectations about the aftermath vary greatly. Five alternative scenarios are floating around Moscow these days.

The dominant liberal view is that Russia's economy and society have outgrown the country's obsolete political system and will experience a peaceful and gradual democratic breakthrough -- evolution rather than revolution. Although Prime Minister Putin will return as president, his power will dwindle away, and a full democratic transition will occur within two to three years. As the modernization theory laid out by the late political scientists Seymour Martin Lipset and Samuel Huntington holds, Russia is simply too wealthy, too well educated, and too open to be so authoritarian and corrupt.

An alternative liberal view, expressed by political scientist Lilia Shevtsova, argues that Putin will tighten the screws after the election and that his new presidency will be more repressive than his current rule. "The Putin era is ending, but the authorities are doing everything possible to make it a dramatic finale," she writes.

A third view, mostly limited to pro-Putin Western businessmen, is that Putin has understood his precarious position and will now return to the reform program he adopted in 2000, which emphasized market deregulation and judicial reform. As the skillful politician he is, this line of thinking goes, Putin will take the air out of the protests by carrying out the necessary liberal economic and legal reforms while maintaining authoritarian power.

Some liberals also fear that an alliance between the far-left and far-right opposition in the Duma will come to the fore if the officially market-friendly regime falters. This red-brown alliance would be made up of Gennady Zyuganov's Communist Party, Vladimir Zhirinovsky's Liberal Democratic Party, and Sergey Mironov's A Just Russia. It would favor mass confiscation of private enterprises, much higher public expenditures, higher taxes, and price controls. Putin's regime has often stoked fears of this scenario to advance an "après nous le déluge" argument -- which has yet to prove true.

The fifth view, which is the dominant view among regime loyalists, is that nothing has really happened -- the pampered elites have just let off some steam. After all, Russia's economy grew 7 percent a year from 1999 to 2008. As British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan said in 1957: "Let us be frank about it: Most of our people have never had it so good." These officials and businessmen claim that political stability is paramount, and they call for 12 more years of Putin without much change to the status quo.

Although it is hard to predict how change will come to Russia, the accelerating pace of events has made a political transformation in Moscow all but inevitable. Now-despised President Dmitry Medvedev preached a sensible program for Russia's modernization for the last four years, and though he never did much to implement it, his program has achieved a broad public consensus. The middle class may have abandoned Medvedev after he nominated Putin as a presidential candidate on Sept. 24, but it is still searching for other means to implement his agenda.

At the same time, the blend of authority and coercion that Putin has successfully wielded for 12 years has seemingly lost its magic. The watershed moment came on Nov. 20, when the audience at a wrestling event booed him on state television. A dictator has to be feared -- otherwise, he just becomes ridiculous.

Putin's position declined further when his United Russia party stole the State Duma elections on Dec. 4. The fabrication of the vote was so crude that the independent election monitoring organization Golos assessed that 15 to 20 percent of the United Russia votes were stolen. Even so, United Russia could only claim 49.5 percent of the votes, a decline of 15 percentage points from 2007. Putin's dictatorship has never looked so weak.

The opposition may be multifaceted and poorly organized, but it has proved its ability to bring people to the streets and has united around a surprisingly cohesive agenda. The three mass demonstrations held on Dec. 10, Dec. 24, and Feb. 4 were the largest Russia has seen since 1991, and they broke the barrier of fear. The demonstrations were orderly, offering no excuse for violence by the police, who no longer seem capable of suppressing the opposition. As liberal opposition activist Andrei Piontkovsky writes, "Any resort to brute force to suppress demonstrations would finalize the regime's loss of legitimacy." In line with Russia's post-Soviet history, the police would likely refuse to shoot unarmed demonstrators. So even if Putin aspires to be a stricter dictator, that option is probably closed.

ALEXEY DRUZHININ/AFP/Getty Images

 SUBJECTS: RUSSIA, EASTERN EUROPE
 

Anders Åslund is senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics.

COSSACK

6:10 PM ET

February 8, 2012

It was an MMA event, not a

It was an MMA event, not a wrestling event

 

LUCHIK

10:49 AM ET

February 9, 2012

Constitution And Democratic Majority

In the last couple of weeks the same idea has been proposed by Putin’s opponents and the Western Media – even if Putin will win 2012 presidential elections, he will not serve out his full 6-year term. Essentially, Putin’s opponents concede that the Prime Minster will likely win the upcoming elections and are advocating a revolution in Russia to overthrow him instead. Russian liberals and the Western media are naively hoping that this revolution would turn out liberal in nature, transforming Russia’s civil society into an “active democratic force“. Similar hopes were put on other countries during their civil unrest – Russian Empire in 1916-1917; Iraq in 1950s; and Egypt and Libya more recently. In all of these cases extremists came to power – communists in Russia; Islamists in Iraq and Libya; and military dictators in Egypt. It has been demonstrated repeatedly that a huge majority of revolutions in non-Western countries result in one form of authoritarian regimes being replaced by even more authoritarian regimes (as the Russian saying goes, ???? ?? ????).

Prime Minister’s liberal opponents and the Western media also concede there is no real alternative to Putin. Yes, there is no real liberal alternative, which opens the door for extremists even further. The only liberal candidate, Prokhorov, will likely get 4% in the elections. However, there is a strong extremist alternative – communists (Zyuganov) and nationalists (Zhirinovsky; see nzonemedia.com for more detail). United, they stand to receive more than 30% of the vote in the presidential elections. Extremists are the most “active minority” in the country. They are the ones who will likely replace Putin should he be ousted from the presidency. As a famous Russian extremist socialist Prokhanov recently said, “[after Russian presidential elections], the nationalists and communists will unite assuming the power in the country, punishing the liberals for their mistakes in the 1990s”.

Liberals and moderates, myself included, must be careful of saying that Putin will not serve out his full presidential term should he be re-elected. The fact is still the same as in the last 12 years – Putin is the most popular politician in Russia and will likely get more votes than any other candidate should the election happen today. Just as in the U.S. and most established democratic countries, citizens should RESPECT THE CONSTITUTION AND ELECTION RESULTS. They should also respect whom the majority supports today.

If, on the other hand, a miracle happens (they do happen) and somebody comes close to Putin in the presidential election, and there is clear EVIDENCE of electoral fraud, then the matter should go to the supreme court and possibly to the streets. However, that doesn’t seem likely that somebody will come even within 20% of Putin’s vote.

Once elected, the president has a constitutionally guaranteed right to stay in that role for the full duration of his term. The constitution decides this and some “active minority” such as communists, nationalists and divided liberals. The only way for Putin to leave his presidential post is through an impeachment. Even an impeachment must follow strict constitutional procedures.

Putin is popular for a reason – he is an alternative Russian “middle” candidate between divided liberals and fanatic extremists. Without him there will be a vacuum of power that will likely be replaced by extremists. He is serving a similar function that Mubarak served in Egypt or Gadaffi seved in Libya or even Saddam Hussein served in Iraq. Once removed, those countries went into civil wars and disorder.

If Putin is elected, liberals should use the six years he will be in power to unite under strong leadership in order to learn how to fill in that power vacuum when Vladimir Vladimirovich leaves. They should then present their case to the people. This has been getting increasingly easier as Putin’s government have been decreasing their control of the media. It should also be easier due to increasing growth and lack of censorship of Internet in Russia. The liberals must prove to the people that they are the best alternative to communists and nationalists. Then the liberals must simply get a clear majority of votes in the next Russian parliamentary and presidential elections in 2018 if they want to replace Putin. (Even if elections will be rigged, everyone will know from polls and from popular opinion that the liberals have won. If the courts will not support that obvious fact, then Putin and his regime will lose their legitimacy and power completely. But that’s a potential case in the future; not a reality at the moment as Putin is still the most popular politician in Russia.)

Blind support of any protest movement in an semi-authoritarian regime such as in Russia is short-sighted and naive. These protests can result in an unconstitutional, undemocratic bloody revolution and even civil war. In the end, extremists are most likely to fill in the power vacuum that Putin will leave. That wouldn’t be good for anyone. Fair elections are the only solution. If Putin wins; the opposition must respect it and go back to work, building their case for future elections and organizing civil society. If Putin loses; he must step down. Everyone must follow the constitution.

 

PHILLIP F.

6:02 PM ET

February 22, 2012

Wrong, Naive

"Critical mass of Russians believe Putin's regime is approaching its end" What are you talking about?!? "System of govt. will be changed beyond recognition" This is so divorced from reality, I'm astonished FP would publish such baseless nonsense. Scenarios #2 and #5 are both correct. Putin is a product of the Stalinist Brezhnev era which ended only b/c Gorbachev allowed it. Fear works. Brutal repression works. Facebook, Twitter, VKontakte can't change that. The regime is not worried about its Western-perceived legitimacy in the slightest, and certainly won't be after the elections which will produce the desired result, that's for sure. Like Occupy Wall Street, the Russian protests won't even be an asterisk in the history books a year from now. The Russian people are docile, and have repeatedly proven they prefer a strongman in charge (no matter the downside of corruption preventing Russia from reaching its full potential) who brings stability. They don't expect the elections to be legitimate and are fully convinced it's useless to "fight he machine". Kak i bilo, tak i budet. After Yeltsin's prixvatizatsia, the overwhelming majority prefer the 00s to the 90s. The governors had better all fall in line if they know what's good for them, and they will. Mr. Aslund writes as though in the regime's inner circle, there is even the slightest regard for the contitution, rule of law and legitimacy. How naive. Putin will be president as long as he chooses. The most basic understanding of Russian history clearly points to this. If Mr. Prokhorov doesn't shut up real soon, he won't even get a cell as nice as Khodorkovsky's, Navalny's and Nemtsov's certainly won't be.

 

RUNNER

12:07 AM ET

February 26, 2012

Misconceptions abound

I think Putin's time is nearing. This talk of 'no real alternative' is misleading. There are always alternatives in a country of 140 million people. The only reason that an alternative is currently not in sight is a direct result of the political system Putin has put in place. I just read a decent article on the matter:
http://riskneutral.net/?p=44