Part of the openDemocracy Network

Syndicate content

Join the Russia Mailing list

Enter your name
Please enter email address to join our mailing list & become a member of openDemocracy
 

oD facebook

Join openDemocracy on facebook

delicious | digg | reddit | newsvine | furl | google | yahoo | technorati | diigolet

Will Citizen Putin learn to bark?

The curious incidents surrounding Vladimir Putin's Ostankino broadcast 3 days before the election were just the latest in a number of Russian dogs that have failed to bark in the night. His mysterious decision to record the speech at an outside television studio, instead of in the Kremlin, as usual, sparked feverish speculation that he was finally about to answer the so-called "2008 question". Will Putin stay in power or will he go? A bit of both was the preferred option of Sergei Mironov, the leader of Russia's upper house, the Federation Chamber. Mironov was the leading proponent of a "leave and stay" option whereby Putin could exploit a loophole in Russia's constitution, which prohibits three "consecutive" terms, by quitting before the presidential campaign got under way and then - hey, presto! - emerging from his mini-break to run again. Conspiracy theorists saw the Ostankino connection as a clear signal that Citizen Putin would use the broadcast to show he was no longer the Kremlin's incumbent.

Well, it didn't quite pan out that way. Not only was the speech a relatively dull affair, urging voters to get out and vote, in Sunday's parliamentary elections, for United Russia, whose number one candidate on the party list is the non-partisan president himself. The speech also followed an announcement in the official newspaper Rossiskaya Gazeta that the Federation Council had nominated March 2 next year as the date of the presidential poll. In other words, "leave and stay" is now officially scuppered, because the presidential campaign effectively begins with the naming of election day. (Just while we're on the subject of Putin's lack of involvement with a party that attracts, in his own words, "all kinds of crooks", it's amusing to note that the link to his speech on Kremlin.ru takes you directly to the United Russia website.)

The Western media has portrayed Sunday's election to the Russian Duma as mostly a product of the Kremlin's machinations, and it's clear that the vote is being manipulated by the siloviki in Putin's inner circle to ensure a landslide victory for United Russia. Other parties, with the exception of the moribund Communists, will struggle to reach the controversial new 7% barrier you need to get candidates into the 450-seat lower house. A significant impact on the results will have come from are known as "administrative resources" a set of assets (including the state-controlled national television networks) that are open to abuse by officeholders. But the Kremlin is also planning to rig the results by means of fraud, intimidation and bribery, according to a report in today's Guardian.

Local administration officials have called in thousands of staff on their day off in an attempt to engineer a massive and inflated victory for President Vladimir Putin and his United Russia party. Voters are being pressured to vote for United Russia or risk losing their jobs, their accommodation or bonuses, the Guardian has been told in numerous interviews with byudzhetniki (public sector workers), students and ordinary citizens," write the paper correspondents Luke Harding and Tom Parfitt in Moscow.

The same concerns are highlighted in this week's New Statesman, which has a Russian election special. Here Lilia Shevtsova points out that Sunday's vote isn't really an election at all; it's just a referendum on the outgoing president.

She writes, "The authorities openly admit that manifestos and policies have no meaning at all and Russians have only to say "Yes" or "No" to Putin ( better "Yes"), as he heads the party list of the Kremlin's United Russia. At the same time, Putin has refused to join United Russia and declared that his party lacks ideology and attracts "all kinds of crooks". It would be hard to find a more effective way to discredit the parliament and multiparty system."

Yet, in a way, all this talk of Russia's democratic deficit misses the point, as does the Western media's obsession with the Putin personality cult. The president himself is well aware that the period between now and March will probably see the culmination of his eight-year plan to claw back Kremlin control of Russia's regions, economy and media after the katastroika of the Yeltsin years. "In the next several months, a complete renewal of Russia's highest state power will take place," Putin said in a sphinx-like speech last week, but nobody knows exactly what he meant.

Russia's great achievement over the past eight years has been to increase gross domestic product sixfold from $200 billion in 1999 to $1.2 trillion this
year, but if you take away the rocketing prices of oil and gas, the actual growth rate is less impressive, at only 6.7%, annually compared to 11% in some of the Eurasian tigers from China to Estonia. Putin and his old comrades from the KGB era have seized oil and gas assets on behalf of the state, but they haven't really done very much to invest the money in improving Russia's education, health or transport infrastructure or building a knowledge-based society. Now it seems that Putin may be spectacularly implicated in the self-enrichment of this small Kremlin elite. According the pundit and Kremlin insider Stanislav Belkovsky, in an article with Die Welt, Putin owns 37% of Surgutneftegaz (worth $18 billion), 4.5% of the giant gas monopoly Gazprom ($13 billion) and half of a company called Gunvor through a proxy Gennady Timchenko' (possibly $10 billion). Do the math, and you end up with Putin's personal fortune totalling more than $40 billion, easily securing him a place in the Top Ten of the world's Rich List.

I like the point made by Anders Aslund in his article on Wednesday in the Moscow Times

He writes: "If these numbers contain any truth, Putin would be the most corrupt
political leader in world history, easily surpassing Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines and Zaire's Mobutu. The elites presaged economic ruin. Within the next few years, the Russians will face declining oil and natural gas outputs and will need help from the outside to preserve their current economic growth - which, of course, is also preserving public support for the Kremlin."

But corruption on such a grand scale will only exacerbate the difficulty of preserving Russia's current economic growth, particularly if a plunge in the oil price triggers collapse as happened under Gorbachev in 1986 and under Yeltsin in 1998. Does Putin know this? Certainly it would explain yesterday's Ostankino coup that wasn't. Sometimes, as most Sherlockians know, a non-barking dog is actually the clue that helps you solve the case.

intermedusa | Tue, 2007-12-04 05:59
Putin is not only corrupt but a murder There can be no doubt that President Putin is behind the recent assassinations in Moscow and London. His is the mind that is directing these evil acts with total deniability, of course. What Putin has established in the Kremlin is a Murder Inc. mafia controlling total political and economic power. Death squads are roaming out from the Kremlin. Anyone who threatens – this power – is eliminated. Just as Russia was about to emerge from 1000 years of darkness, into the light of democratic freedom - Putin and his KGB gang has plunged his people back into the abyss. Quoting the famous Russian writer Vladimir Sorokin “Germans, Frenchmen and Englishmen can say of themselves: "I am the state." I cannot say that. In Russia only the people in the Kremlin can say that. All other citizens are nothing more than human material with which they can do all kinds of things.” This is the Russia, Putin has created. An immoral, lawless wasteland. He is a traitor to his country. He is a traitor to his people. Written By, Larry Houle E-mail: intermedusa@yahoo.com
ianniscarras | Wed, 2007-12-05 09:52
But is it all about Putin? A number of features of the current situation suggest otherwise. * One of the characteristics of Russia's ruling elite is their self-perceived vulnerability. The wealth of a significant percentage of Russia's elite depends on their ability to receive what are in effect rents from the export of raw materials, above all gas and oil, and on their access to government contracts. * Rent dependency however has consequences: elite groups have to play the patronage game, passing wealth up and down the political and social ladder in order to maintain their privileged position. And they have to be careful. There are dangers in amassing too much personal wealth and running foul of other patronage groups eager to usurp key positions. * Patronage networks thus hold the ruling elite together in a precarious embrace. In this context the ruling elite's self perceived vulnerability is not in itself surprising, especially given the vast and frequent transfers of wealth that have characterised the transition from Soviet to Russian realities over the last two decades. This vulnerability (or should we say fear) provides ample explanation for continued elite support for the Putin status quo, smothering all the possible alternatives. * The fascinating, and thus far largely unanswered question in all of this, is the role of the FSB. To what extent can one speak of the FSB as a unitary organisation promoting its members to key positions of patronage and power where they can usefully access rents? Or is the FSB itself subject to the same sort of patronage politics and internal competition for key positions as the rest of society? The answer is probably some combination of the above. * Though Putin would seem to be the clear victor in the last election (fraud or no fraud), the emphasis must be on "seem". Constraints on his power come not so much from the institutions of the Russian state, and certainly not from opposition parties, as from the patronage networks of which he is a part and which he too has to cultivate to maintain his precarious position. Patronage (like corruption) cuts both ways. In the absence of functioning institutions, it provides the ruling elite with its power base but also forces that same elite to address the needs of considerable segments of society. * If this analysis is accepted, it might be wiser not to concentrate on the person of Putin alone. The power structures that support his continued control of high office would not seem to be to be those of a personal dictatorship, but rather those of an loose and flexible oligarchy, struggling to maintain its privileged position. * Oligarchic government and not dictatorship then? The oligarchic model, with all its negatives, might permit a clearer explanation as to why, despite considerable limitations, Russian citizens under the current regime enjoy many of the freedoms that they have been denied in the past. * Iannis Carras, Athens, Greece.
cseniornyc | Fri, 2007-12-07 10:00
This piece by Barnes is standard boring CIA paid Putin/ Russia hater article. His two major references are very telling :the sold out well paid Belkovsky and the atrociously dumb Anders Aslund. Mr Barne's anti Putin propaganda is an abuse of Open Democracy which is place supposed to be dedicated to serious intelligent analysis and not to PR pro Bush non sense.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd><b> <i> <br> <p> <div> <img>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • You may quote other posts using [quote] tags.
More information about formatting options