Russia after Putin

Although practically everyone believes Vladimir Putin will be the next President of the Russian Federation, the political intrigue is still there, focusing on the election round, considering that Putin and Medvedev’s ratings have been on a noticeable downward curve, with Russia’s self-asserted political stability showing cracks during opposition rallies in December when tens of thousands of disillusioned Russian citizens took to the street. There is no critical mass for cardinal reforms as yet, but there is the example of the Ukraine without Kuchma campaign and Orange Revolution, despite disillusioning the outcome.

Small as it is, the intrigue of the upcoming presidential elections in Russia has caused a variety of views and forecasts. The Left Front leader, Sergei Udaltsov, wrote on his Moscow Echo website that one ought to consider the ratings and cast one’s ballot for Putin’s most popular opponent, simply because no one else could be worse than Putin.

The Day asked its contributors and experts for comment.

Sergei Navalny, a noted Russian lawyer and blogger, wrote to the noted Russian author, Boris Akunin (http://borisakunin.livejournal.com: “Victory in the first round is impossible; Putin’s key rival presidential candidate will be the one who will say loud and clear that he will order the Duma disbanded and assign an early parliamentary election, once elected as Russia’s next president.”

Akunin, in turn, describes Navalny as a most spectacular political figure: “This man is the only actual politician in today’s Russia, the target of countless admiring, hateful, critical, and wondering expectations.” Navalny was an active participant in the December rallies. The big question is what the man actually means besides his public statements.

Akunin asked him how he felt about Stalin. Navalny replied: “Hitler and Stalin are two number-one hangmen of the Russian people. Stalin ordered his fellow countrymen killed by [the NKVD], by famine, and otherwise; I have a perfectly clear picture, although I can’t see this as a lasting de-Stalinization issue because it should be left in the hands of historians, not politicians.”

Akunin replied: “I disagree. [Putin’s] assumption that [Stalin] was an ‘effective manager’ should be buried like a vampire, with his heart pierced by an aspen stake, lest he crawl out of his grave during the night.”

Navalny is often criticized for having taken part in the Russian March and for his idea of Russia as a nation state. Akunin adds that he supports his idea about Russia being a nation state, “in the context of Khodorkovsky’s statement about this status being the only alternative to Russia as a 19th-century empire. The source of power in a nation state is in the hands of its people, rather than those of the existing political elite with their slogans about winning half of the planet and global dominion, robbing a population marching in the direction of the Indian Ocean… A nation state opens up European horizons for Russia, offering an opportunity to build our own cozy and reliable European home.”

Navalny further wrote: “It is impossible to rule a country that doesn’t want you as head of state [e.g., Vladimir Putin]. It is impossible to live and work in a capital city which hates and scorns you. You can have yourself re-elected as president a thousand of times, yet you will end up on the losing side.” Assuming that Putin won’t last long, what will Russia look like without him? Someone said Russia would be without Putin after these authors would be long on old-age retirement payroll. Any chance of normal reforms in Russia? How about Ukraine and such reforms in Russia?

RUSSIA MAY FACE ANOTHER TIME OF TROUBLE

Alexander J. MOTYL, Ph.D. (History, Politics), Rutgers University, expert of Soviet and post-Soviet regimes, New Jersy, US:

In your opinion, what will Russia be like after Putin? What will it mean for Ukraine?

“Should this post-Putin transformation be peaceful, Russia would become another democracy. An aggressive transformation would imply rampant dictatorship. A democratic Russia would want better relations with Ukraine to enhance its legitimacy within Russia. A dictatorial Russia would launch a neo-imperial offensive on Ukraine. In any case Russia will stamp its foot in gas relations with Ukraine.”

How would you explain the notion of nation state being allegedly built in Russia?

“There are three possible answers to your question: (a) a nation state may indicate a normal sovereign country which is satisfied with its national frontiers – this being a liberal interpretation of the notion; (b) Russia as a nation state, struggling to deal with the Islamic threat, using Russification – this being an intolerant understanding approach; (c) a nation state as a hypernationalistic regime based on the good old Russland ueber alles basis.”

What kind of change in Russia can Ukraine expect in the nearest future?

“Another Time of Trouble that may well cause the Russian regime’s quick or slow collapse. This may cause the Ukrainian political elite to embark on a road leading to reform. Russia’s political instability may pose a clear and present danger, as well as offer a unique opportunity to Ukraine.”

“RUSSIA WON’T BECOME A DEMOCRACY AFTER PUTIN”

Dr. Shigeki HAKAMADA, political scientist, Tokyo University:

“Frankly speaking, I don’t expect Putin to step down before long; even if he does, Russia will take its time becoming a democracy. Russia hasn’t cardinally changed over the past decades, as evidenced by recent democratic projects and their practical failures. Medvedev, who looks sufficiently liberal, has hardly waged a sufficiently liberal policy during his presidency, and he wouldn’t wage one even if re-elected. It is impossible to change a society over a short period of time. Russia is Russia, with its inherent traits. Russia won’t become a democracy after Putin, although much depends on who will become another president. Hard to say. I see no possible contenders. Well, this isn’t a matter to be decided by the government… Russia has its specifics that are difficult to change over a short period of time.”

“THERE WILL BE ANOTHER PUTIN”

Mykhailo POHREBYNSKY, director, Kyiv Center of Political and Conflict Studies:

“Navalny makes his notion of nation state stand a chance of electoral support. Something akin to the slogans ‘Russia for Russians!’, ‘Stop Feeding the Peoples of the Caucasus!’, and so on. Russia has never been a nation state. Any attempt to do so would be extremely dangerous for an empire, in the absence of historical reasons. Russia has remained an empire with its ingrained traditions, so that if you are a member of an ethnic minority, a Tatar for instance, and if you recognize Moscow as your capital city, you stand a chance of having equal civic rights compared to the titular nation. This is the only thing that can keep Russia within its current borders. Navalny’s idea is actually a nationalistic one and very dangerous to the Russian state.

“Russia after Putin? I think there will be another Putin. His successor will adopt the ideology of a strong and sovereign state, and his stand will meet public support, even if the new head of state cuts a different figure and represents an outwardly different kind of ideology. The end result will be Russia under another Putin.

“Russia is very different from Ukraine. Ukrainians should build their national identity and their own state. Ukraine is standing a bigger chance of building a nation state rather than empire. In fact, Ukraine has never attempted to create an empire. On the other hand, it is important for Ukraine to have Russia as a prospering and stable body politic, so Ukraine-Russia relations could be maintained on a basis allowing for all similarities and chances of independent progress.”

RUSSIA FACING TWO THREATS

Lilia SHEVTSOVA, political scientist, leading expert at the Moscow Carnegie Center:

“Aleksei Navalny is a spectacular representative of the new generation. Thank God, we have such individuals who do not belong to the 1990s, who want to become political leaders. However, his approach to de-Stalinization and a number of other issues, including the ethnic ones, are evidence of his political immaturity or ill consideration. The man apparently fails to realize that a new political system in Russia will depend on the manner in which the de-Stalinization issue will be resolved. This issue belongs to our politicians, our society. This is a problem of Russia and its way out of its past. Too bad if the man doesn’t understand this.

“Twenty years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia has failed to solve the problem of its legitimacy and statehood. Russia is at the crossroads, facing in two dangerous directions. A nation state, with the North Caucasus, Bashkortostan, millions of Russia’s non-Russian nationals; with the very nation state idea being inherently accompanied by ethnic purges – a very bad scenario for Russia; by the way, the option of European nationalism that existed in Eastern Europe and exists in Ukraine as a road leading to Europe is practically impossible in Russia. Russia’s nationalism is very dangerous. Another option is Russia with the North Caucasus and its vague status, along with the dissatisfied ethnic minorities and [Moscow’s] imperial ambitions (many believe that Russia is an empire to be finally ruined).

“Russia will grope in the dark until it can solve the problem of its national identity.”

RUSSIA WILL SUFFER LOTS OF ORDEALS

Igor CHUBAIS, director, Friendship of Nations University’s Russian Study Center:

“Russia’s political, economic, and population status is in such disrepair that this country stands a slim, illusory chance of quick revival. We are living under a Lenin-Putin regime that has existed for the past 90 years. Once this regime steps down, Russia will find itself in a cul-de-sac. This country will suffer lots of ordeals before it adopts a different political system. The main thing is to find a way to conduct a dialog, achieve public accord, and choose a different system rather than accept one ordered from ‘upstairs.’ Russia needs public political debate, considering that what we’ve had before were carefully edited one-man shows starring Vladimir Putin, with edited questions and answers.

“Russia started heading for this cul-de-sac twenty years ago. I hate the KGB, but its head, Yuri Andropov, made a clever statement: “This country doesn’t know in which direction it is headed.” This is precisely the current situation; Russia has no genuine statistics, no uncensored media. Correcting this situation requires a team effort. Russia has never lacked thinking individuals, yet it will take years – less than 90 years, God be praised – to recover from our post-Soviet disease. Today’s current eventful political life is further proof of this disease. There are no political debates in Russia while something new is discovered here on a daily basis. I can hardly visualize Russia as a nation state. This issue is perhaps the only one Russia has never resolved since the early 20th century. Russia is still gripped by a crisis that began in 1917. There is no ideal solution to this problem, whereas Ukraine has the right idea about it as a ‘political nation.’ I think Russia should follow suit, considering that a ‘political nation’ means a solid body politic, people being members of a single nation. Russia is a multiethnic country and its nationals can be referred to as Russians or otherwise, as determined by this nation. At present, there is no unifying concept. The Soviets came up with the concept of the Soviet people. It is no longer valid and all that keeps Russia in one piece is a series of forceful, authoritarian measures. Most likely this will be one of the problems the new regime will face, if and when, considering that there is actually no Russian Federation. Russia’s regions continue taking orders from Moscow simply because they depend on central budget appropriations. This country is kept solid using the good old nomenklatura means, whereas a genuine unity is achieved by sharing social values.”