Russian President Vladimir Putin has shown his regime’s real intentions.
By changing the constitution to allow him to remain in office until 2036 and incorporating conservative new language, it has cast off its teetering mask of democratic legitimacy.
However, just as Putin has sought to entrench his rule, his regime is looking weaker than ever.
In the city of Khabarovsk, tens of thousands of protesters have taken to the streets in recent weeks, chanting, “Putin resign!”
They are not alone. While Putin’s approval rating might seem high, it is low by Russian standards.
His 59 to 60 percent approval rating in recent months is his lowest since October 1999, when he was prime minister, and it is unlikely to improve significantly for a simple reason: Putin’s tried-and-tested methods to win support have lost their firepower.
The COVID-19 pandemic has hit Russia hard, in terms of public health and economic fallout.
With oil exports, the mainstay of Russia’s economy, down sharply, the government’s budget revenues have cratered.
As a result, the Kremlin’s tacit pact with the public — we ensure your basic wellbeing, and you do not complain — is unraveling.
Putin’s regime has long sought to divert public attention from domestic problems by touting its foreign-policy victories and its unrelenting battle against a domestic “fifth column.”
Putin’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 embodied what have long been his most effective tactics for securing support: xenophobia, anti-Western hysteria and the invocation of a glorious past.
His approval rating skyrocketed to more than 85 percent.
IMAGE IS EVERYTHING
However, for Putin, the impression of broad public support is arguably more important than the support itself.
The July 1 plebiscite on the constitutional amendments meant little in practice. The changes had been ratified by the Duma and regional legislatures months before.
However, the popular vote gave the Kremlin the opportunity to claim that nearly 78 percent of Russia’s citizens supported the changes.
It could cite the 21 percent who, according to official figures, voted against the changes to refute the many accusations — including from the EU — that the vote was rigged.
High voter turnout enhanced the facade, but the fact that so many people participated under duress — they often had to report to their employers that they had voted — could end up hurting Putin in regional elections this year and next year, when federal parliamentary elections will also be held.
Unlike in a plebiscite, people will be able to cast protest votes.
The Kremlin’s heavy use of another favorite tactic — firing, arresting or otherwise removing ideological opponents — could also backfire.
Early last month, the authorities detained two activists — including Andrei Pivovarov, the executive director of exiled oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky’s Open Russia pro-democracy movement — who were campaigning against Putin’s plans to prolong his rule. Four others had their homes searched.
Several journalists have also been targeted in recent weeks, including Svetlana Prokopyeva (fined for supposedly inciting terrorism) and Ivan Safronov (charged with treason).
Pyotr Verzilov, the publisher of Mediazona, a news site that chronicles abuse in Russia’s justice system, has had his home searched repeatedly.
Likewise, the historian Yuri Dmitriev, whose work exposing Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin’s crimes has cast doubt on Kremlin hagiography, received a prison sentence for sexual violence against a minor.
Last month, celebrated theater director Kirill Serebrennikov was convicted of embezzlement — part of an effort to crack down on independent theater.
PUSHING BACK
These are proven tactics, but they are also transparent. And, though a loyal segment of society approves, others — including formerly loyal constituencies — are pushing back.
The Khabarovsk protests were triggered by the sudden arrest of the popular governor, Sergei Furgal, for his alleged involvement in murders dating back to 2004 and 2005, when he worked in business.
Furgal is no liberal; he is a member of the nationalist Liberal Democratic Party, part of the “systemic opposition” in the Duma, but he won his position in 2018 by defeating a Kremlin-backed candidate. By arresting him, the Kremlin likely wanted to send a message to regional leaders who might try to capitalize on the national government’s failures during the COVID-19 crisis.
Instead, the arrest immediately tarnished the image of national unity that the plebiscite result was supposed to project.
To be sure, the Khabarovsk protests alone do not pose a threat to Putin’s rule. Their effects will be felt nationwide only if they spread to other cities, especially Moscow.
However, they should worry the Kremlin nonetheless. In Khabarovsk, it is not just professionals who are protesting, as has usually been the case.
Many protesters can hardly be considered politicized intelligentsia from Moscow or Saint Petersburg. Those in the streets previously would have been part of Putin’s social base — and they are setting an example for other regions.
Yet Putin’s sclerotic regime has little choice but to continue relying on the same approaches.
The line between those the Kremlin supports (the millions of law-enforcement and security officers, bureaucrats and other state employees, not to mention loyal oligarchs) and those it does not (virtually everyone else) is growing sharper.
Still, there is no clear political or social force in place that would hasten the regime’s erosion. If a fatal blow comes, it will be dealt by an unlikely source.
However, as the Khabarovsk protests have shown, unexpected surges of resistance are hardly beyond the realm of possibility.
In any case, Putin’s strategy of preserving power by any means necessary will not solve Russia’s many problems — and there remains the question of what will happen to the system after him.
‘FRANCOIZATION’
What we are witnessing is a further “Francoization” of the Russian political regime: Putin is laying the groundwork to remain head of state for life, as Spain’s Francisco Franco did with the 1947 Law of Succession.
However, as Europe grew wealthy in the postwar era, Spain atrophied decade after decade under Franco’s increasingly dozy regime.
Putin seems set on achieving the same level of inertia — in politics, the economy and society.
Franco at least had a successor in mind. By having the monarchy restored on Franco’s death, Spanish King Juan Carlos could ascend the throne.
However, Putin is leading Russia into a dead end. After all, he cannot bring back the czar. So he has simply postponed the problem of succession.
Apres lui, le deluge [After us, the flood].
Andrei Kolesnikov is a senior fellow and chair of the Russian domestic politics and political institutions program at the Carnegie Moscow Center.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
US$18.278 billion is a simple dollar figure; one that’s illustrative of the first Trump administration’s defense commitment to Taiwan. But what does Donald Trump care for money? During President Trump’s first term, the US defense department approved gross sales of “defense articles and services” to Taiwan of over US$18 billion. In September, the US-Taiwan Business Council compared Trump’s figure to the other four presidential administrations since 1993: President Clinton approved a total of US$8.702 billion from 1993 through 2000. President George W. Bush approved US$15.614 billion in eight years. This total would have been significantly greater had Taiwan’s Kuomintang-controlled Legislative Yuan been cooperative. During
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) in recent days was the focus of the media due to his role in arranging a Chinese “student” group to visit Taiwan. While his team defends the visit as friendly, civilized and apolitical, the general impression is that it was a political stunt orchestrated as part of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) propaganda, as its members were mainly young communists or university graduates who speak of a future of a unified country. While Ma lived in Taiwan almost his entire life — except during his early childhood in Hong Kong and student years in the US —
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers on Monday unilaterally passed a preliminary review of proposed amendments to the Public Officers Election and Recall Act (公職人員選罷法) in just one minute, while Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators, government officials and the media were locked out. The hasty and discourteous move — the doors of the Internal Administration Committee chamber were locked and sealed with plastic wrap before the preliminary review meeting began — was a great setback for Taiwan’s democracy. Without any legislative discussion or public witnesses, KMT Legislator Hsu Hsin-ying (徐欣瑩), the committee’s convener, began the meeting at 9am and announced passage of the
In response to a failure to understand the “good intentions” behind the use of the term “motherland,” a professor from China’s Fudan University recklessly claimed that Taiwan used to be a colony, so all it needs is a “good beating.” Such logic is risible. The Central Plains people in China were once colonized by the Mongolians, the Manchus and other foreign peoples — does that mean they also deserve a “good beating?” According to the professor, having been ruled by the Cheng Dynasty — named after its founder, Ming-loyalist Cheng Cheng-kung (鄭成功, also known as Koxinga) — as the Kingdom of Tungning,
RSS