Putinism: what are its true consequences for Russia?

One of the polls on this site about Medvedev vs Putin showed that, in spite of Putin’s great power many people still think that Medvedev is ruling Russia. However, the margin is not clearly favoring the current President, and rumors about Medvedev’s true authority are strong as much as recently an American tele-journalist had to bluntly ask Medvedev in an interview who is leading Russia in reality. 

Putin is undoubtedly a strong, charismatic and clever leader and largely has been credited with saving Russia from collapsing when he came to power in 2000. But after his two mandates of the President ended, he chose basically to impose himself to stay in power as Prime-Minister of Russia. Putin’s way of grasping the power not only evolved into a “Putinism” phenomena, but also provoked a lot of jokes about it. 

This phenomena is actually quite widely spread in the FSU, which has never been burdened with democratic traditions: Lukashenko in Byelorussia seems to stay there as President for life, President Voronin in Moldova tried to apply the same scheme but failed, and Asian states are ruled by family clans for eternity.   

Is holding to power by all means good for a country? Aren’t there other capable leaders? Where are the limitations of authoritarianism? 

To answer these complex questions scientifically someone might do a good PhD thesis. But in simple terms the true answers to such questions tend to be on the surface, and results are easily compared for proof. 

It is a well known fact that the former Soviet Union, though badly hurt and devastated was  nevertheless a victor in the WWII, whereas Germany and Japan capitulated, were also  ruined and paid contributions. Why then after more than 60 years the FSU is still felt like it is at war, especially in the countryside, while Japan seems like a country from futuristic movies, and Germany and Europe as a whole are prospering with villages and small towns like little paradises? 

Wrong ideology? Not exactly true. Some modern European states have probably more socialism in them than Soviet Union at its peak.  

To my mind, the reason is authoritarianism and lack of democratic traditions.  

Democracy is not ideal, but so far mankind has not invented anything better. Exactly democracy is the main reason (among others) that the WWII losers have recovered much faster and are far ahead. Even if the next leader is not so strong and capable, there is always something new in a new team, which means change and movement ahead, while authoritarianism tends not only to corrupt, but also sooner or later leads to self-containment. Any state system, which closes itself and reduces two-way communication with the rapidly changing “outer” world will sooner or later trigger an internal self-destruction mechanism that will collapse the system. Monopolies and absence of free market competition lead to deformed non-competitive economies, while monopoly of power and absence of true political competition inevitably lead to regression. 

Russia and former Soviet Union have had no democratic traditions for a century, and this is the main cause of their retrograding. Some of the countries now are slowly and painfully stepping into the democratic environment. Transition from a chaotic democracy to a consolidated strong democratic society may take a while, but it can happen within one generation, with all citizens ultimately garnering its positive effects.  Opposing or profaning democracy is only procrastinating good changes for the people. 

Thus, unless we assume that Putin remained in power to help younger friend Medvedev to stay in power (I never heard such an explanation, but it has its right to existence!), “putinism” may become a bad service for Russia. because:

1. First of all, the very existence of rumors and jokes about who is really leading Russia is actually ridiculing and damaging Russia’s image and creates uncertainty about the right counterpart in the state’s hierarchy and affairs.




2. Secondly, I understand that such a huge country as Russia may be governed only through a strong and efficient vertical of power, but it should be a system based structure, and not person based. One may notice that some leaders haven’t changed from early Yeltsin era and are just swapping portfolios. Volens-nolens such a situation impedes ascension of new blood and breakthrough of new ideas, creates political stagnation, facilitates state corruption, absence of accountability and impunity of leading clans.




3. Thirdly, President Dmitry Medvedev has already proved that he is a capable leader from another generation with new ideas and vision, who doesn’t need a guide looking over his shoulder. President has formally changed, but the team remained the same and hardly revamped. Can one truly promote new ideas and needed transformations in a rapidly changing and extremely challenging world with same people, who are forever in power, and whose main instinct is probably their own self-preservation? 

Thus, the greatness of Putin, who had saved Russia from collapsing, may easily turn into a tragic ironic fate of a man, whose clinging to power by all means will in the end cross all his historic achievements. In politics there is a very thin line between people’s adoration and people’s disapproval. 

In most advanced nations of today (US, UK, Japan, Germany, Canada, France, Italy) the political elite is changing every 4-8 years. Leaders come and go and quite often leave when they are still full of energy and popularity. Obviously, they do not disappear and continue their deeds for positive change and support of the new teams in power from different positions through various funds, organizations, international “power clubs” and companies.  

The greatness of a true leader consists not only in his ability to promote social and economic progress, but also in his ability to lay a strong foundation for his successors and leave in time.