Commentary
Nikolay Petrov
{
"authors": [
"Nikolay Petrov"
],
"type": "legacyinthemedia",
"centerAffiliationAll": "",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center",
"programAffiliation": "",
"programs": [],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"Caucasus",
"Russia"
],
"topics": [
"Political Reform",
"Economy"
]
}
Source: Getty
In The Media
For Whom the Kremlin Bell Tolls
Newly-released survey results show that Russians are holding regional leaders, rather than the federal government, responsible for the economic crisis in their regions. But federal authorities won't be able to get away with this forever.
Published on May 26, 2009
Source: The Moscow Times
The latter survey reported that for the first time in six years, only 36 percent of those questioned held a favorable opinion of their regional leaders, while 37 percent held a negative opinion. Similarly, 38 percent of respondents nationwide felt that the government is doing a good job, and 36 percent thought just the opposite. Only in the three regions where the leaders enjoy broad popular support -- Tatarstan, Khanty-Mansiisk and Tomsk -- were more people satisfied than dissatisfied with the state of affairs.
The survey revealed a direct correlation between a region's economic condition and the popularity of its leader, with the Voronezh region and its governor faring the worst and the republic of Tatarstan and its president at the top of the list. It turns out that people hold their regional leaders to be more directly responsible for the situation in the region then they do the federal government.
Although respondents in some regions gave similar ratings to both their regional heads and the federal government -- with high marks given in Tatarstan and Khanty-Mansiisk and a more critical assessment in the Tver and Saratov regions -- the results in a number of other regions were mixed. For example, people questioned in the Udmurtia and Tambov regions gave a relatively positive appraisal of the federal government but a more negative evaluation of their regional leaders.
The survey revealed that a number of major gubernatorial figures had suffered a serious blow to their authority, with popularity ratings falling by an average of 20 percent for Valentina Matviyenko of St. Petersburg, Valery Shantsev of Nizhny Novgorod, Eduard Rossel of Sverdlovsk, Alexander Tkachyov of Krasnodar and many others.
It appears that the governors of the urbanized and industrialized regions that suffered the worst by the crisis fell furthest in their ratings. Among the few regional heads whose popularity actually increased, the most notable are the recently installed governors of Kirov, Orlov and Khakasia. But this is not so much a vote of confidence in their performance as it is hope that things might improve.
Respondents gave their lowest evaluations to governors Dmitry Zelenin of Tver, Alexander Mikhailov of Kursk, Pavel Ipatov of Saratov, Sergei Katanandov of Karelia and to the governors of Voronezh and Pskov.
Overall, the governors of the Urals and Siberia received above-average ratings, even though their regions did not escape the effects of the crisis, while the heads of the northwest and southern regions were seen as below average.
It would be incorrect to interpret the survey results as necessarily a negative appraisal of any particular governor, although it seems that was precisely the intention of the Kremlin in releasing the data. First, the findings show an overall decrease in people's faith in the authorities and not in any particular public official. Second, governors are seen as Moscow strongholds or "ambassadors" appointed by the Kremlin. They are like a fence between the federal government and citizens, and this protects Prime Minister Vladimir Putin from negative fallout during the crisis.
But even if the federal authorities manage to deflect some of the responsibility for the crisis onto regional leaders, they won't be able to get away with this forever.
This commentary first appeared in The Moscow Times
About the Author
Nikolay Petrov
Former Scholar-in-Residence, Society and Regions Program, Moscow Center
Nikolay Petrov was the chair of the Carnegie Moscow Center’s Society and Regions Program. Until 2006, he also worked at the Institute of Geography at the Russian Academy of Sciences, where he started to work in 1982.
- Moscow Elections: Winners and Losers
- September 8 Election As a New Phase of the Society and Authorities' CoevolutionCommentary
Nikolay Petrov
Recent Work
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
More Work from Carnegie Europe
- Can Europe Compete with the United States and China?Commentary
Between the United States’ market-driven approach and China's state-led industrial strategy, Europe is reckoning with how it can remain competitive in the global economy. But is Europe in danger of becoming a U.S. or China colony?
Noah Barkin, Anu Bradford
- EU Enlargement Forgets EuropeansCommentary
Preparing candidate countries for EU membership is no longer enough. As the enlargement process becomes a reality, the union must also prepare its own societies.
Iliriana Gjoni
- EU Integration Without Ratification?Article
Countries face several hurdles in joining the EU, including the final stage of ratifying their accession treaties. Procedural reforms and substantive adjustments could help move the process forward.
Stefan Lehne
- There Is No Shortcut for Europe in ArmeniaCommentary
Europe has an interest in supporting Armenian leader Nikol Pashinyan as he tries to make peace with neighbors and loosen ties with Russia. But it is depersonalized support in the long term, not quickfire flash, that will win the day.
Thomas de Waal
- How to Join the EU in Three Easy StepsCommentary
Montenegro and Albania are frontrunners for EU enlargement in the Western Balkans, but they can’t just sit back and wait. To meet their 2030 accession ambitions, they must make a strong positive case.
Dimitar Bechev, Iliriana Gjoni
