untimely-thoughts.com: Dale Herspring - Insight - Putin's course Herspring is a Professor at Kansas State University, former distinguished diplomat, and retired U.S. Navy Captain.
I think it premature to assume that Putin is out to establish a personal dictatorship as some in the media have suggested. I say that for a number of reasons.
To begin with, Putin is doing exactly what he said he would do in his Millennium Speech -- re-create the Russian state. Let us face it, when he came into power the country was in a decentralized mess. Local regions were often not paying taxes and frequently passed laws in opposition to the Russian constitution. Moscow's control over the country was often in question.
Putin has systematically worked to regain control over the 89 regions - bit by bit. We all know the story -- the Upper House, then the 7 regional "supervisors" followed by other steps. The Kremlin's control over these regions was still far from complete -- many had created personal fiefdoms (and were about as democratic as Saddam Hussein), and were models of corruption (a problem throughout Russian society).
If there was anything that brought home to Putin just how "screwed" up the system was, it was the recent spate of terrorist acts, highlighted by the horrific attack on Beslan with more than 300 casualties, half of whom were children. As in every political system, the primary task of the government is to provide security. Without security, the other governmental services are meaningless. This is especially true of a country like Russia where security has also been a primary concern among the populace for centuries.
The message that Putin received from Beslan, in particular, was that the system was not working. How could such a calamity happen? How could so many terrorists sneak into the school, and how was it possible that the cache of weapons was already there? Someone was not doing his or her job. The system was broken.
Given his KGB background and his tendency to rely on bureaucratic solutions, the pragmatic Putin moved to strengthen central control by undercutting local autonomy in the 89 regions. Assuming his proposals are adopted by the Duma -- and there is no reason to think they won't be -- Moscow will have much greater control over local politics and security throughout the country.
As far as I am concerned, the real question on the table is what will Putin do with this new power? Will he try to turn it into a personal dictatorship, and remain in power after this term expires? Will he use it to crack down on the corruption that is destroying the fabric of Russian society? Will he back Sergei Ivanov's efforts to force a major reform in the military? And then there are the country's security forces. While I do not wish to make light of a tragedy like Beslan, at times, the actions by Russia's security/military forces in Beslan resembled an old Abbott and Costello movie. The kind of control that one would expect such authorities to exert in such a situation was absent. How was it possible for local inhabitants to bring their guns and get involved? Indeed, where were the local security authorities when this plot was being hatched and implemented?
A number of analysts have made much of the recent poll that showed that 50% of the Russian population is opposed to Putin's latest moves against local autonomy. What many fail to note, however, is that VTsIOM was careful to point out that "A large percentage of respondents found it difficult to answer the question.
This indicates a split in society over the initiative rather than society's disapproval of it." We will have to wait and see how public attitudes develop over time.
I think public reaction will depend heavily on whether or not Putin is successful in combating terrorism. I have no doubt that many in the Russian elite will be opposed -- and one can understand their concerns. On the other hand, nothing succeeds like success.
There are some who argue that Russians have adopted -- or are in the process of adopting -- what Western political scientists call a "participatory political culture," one in which they believe they have been empowered to make policy from the bottom up. There is a civil society in which the majority of groups/organizations are not government controlled.
If this were to happen, it would be a major reverse of more than a thousand years of "subject political culture," the attitude that it is the citizen's job to carry out orders rather than to influence policy. In my own mind, I think those who argue that Russia is on the verge of adopting a participatory political culture -- however desirable -- may be far ahead of events. I suspect there is a lot more of the subjective version that some Western analysts suspect -- or want to believe.
Then, there is the question -- what should the West do? Should we agree with Putin that the Chechen terorists and Osama bin Laden are cut from the same cloth? Should we pound on the table reminding Putin that he needs to become more democratic or insist that he find a diplomatic solution to the Chechen problem? I spent many years as a diplomat working in communist countries. The one thing I learned was that publicly beating up on the Soviets or the Poles or whomever rarely had the desired effect. It made us feel good, but had little impact on internal politics in the countries in question. Secretary of State Colin Powell and President George W. Bush, went about as far as one could expect -- expressed concern over developments in Russia.
In deciding what the West should or should not do, there is another factor at play. We and the Russians are at war with international terrorism. We may have differences, but we also have common interests. I may be wrong, but I suspect that behind the scenes we are moving closer and closer to the Putin regime. Intelligence sharing played a major role in our operations in Afghanistan, and I have do doubt that both sides want to do everything possible to avoid new terrorist attacks. If sharing information with the "devil" helps, I have no doubt that the US government (regardless of whether Bush or Kerry wins) will go out of its way to work with the Russians. It serves both of our interests.
Finally, to return to the question -- what will Putin do? Will he move the country closer to a dictatorship? I don't know. The most I can say is that after carefully following the man during his first, and now his second term, he does not appear to have an agenda. He is a problem solver. He has a problem -- terrorism -- an he believes centralization is the key to solving it. Let us hope that in the process of trying to solve that problem he remembers the old dictum, "Absolute power corrupts absolutely."
_______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com