Inside Putin's Russia: Can There Be Reform Without Democracy?

"Inside Putin’s Russia: Can There Be Reform Without Democracy?"

A book launch with Andrew Jack

Andrew Jack began by characterizing the Russian leadership as liberal authoritarianism, with liberal economic policies juxtaposed over authoritarian political reforms. This trend has continued in the post-Beslan period, with a slight shift toward less liberalism and more authoritarianism. Although Jack acknowledged that there had been some attempts to raise accountability of judges and create a balance of power in Russia, he projected further democratic backsliding in this new era. He stressed that the biggest danger facing Russia today is the creation of a system that is based on personal loyalty, rather than competence of officials. The concept of managing by compromat (i.e. manipulation of individuals via blackmail) is another trend of concern. Although these tactics may have a strong tradition in the Russian governance, they are the direct antithesis of transparency and accountability of top officials.

Andrew Jack emphasized that the recent developments in Russia may be a product of Soviet and early post-Soviet years, with its identity crisis. The need for greater stability and a variety of vested interests in Russia have left little room for political maneuver for the head of the state. Jack cited the restrictions placed on media broadcasts, the decline of Aslan Maskhadov’s effectiveness in the Chechnya negotiations, and the Yukos case as examples where the outcomes of the Putin’s reforms did not necessarily correspond to the initially desired result. Yet, this does not excuse President Putin from not pushing through an agenda that is more democratically oriented. A comparison with Georgia shows that more can be done. Georgian Prewsident Mikheil Sakhashvili’s attempts at holding senior ministers accountable for their actions, as well as his appointment of younger and western educated ministers, should serve as a model for Russia.

Other worrying trends in Russia are the lack of diversification of the economy, the slowdown of structural reform caused by high oil prices, and the resurgence of nationalism. Despite the dynamicism of the Russian economy, has been lacking initiative to tackle key social problems, such as inadequate education and healthcare. As Russia approaches the end of Putin’s term in 2008, Jack predicted a period of reflection on missed opportunities that could have been seized in societal reform. Another legacy of Putin’s might be a bequeathal of a nation that is based on far too personal manifestations of power than a nation that looks able to progress on solid institutions which can be relied on, and used as a basis for, prediction. 

Anders Åslund compared Andrew Jack’s book to classic Moscow correspondents’ books such as Hedrick Smith’s The Russians, Robert Kaiser’s Russia: The People and the Power, David Remnick’s Lenin’s Tomb, Chrystia Freeland’s The Sale of a Century, and David Hoffman’s The Oligarchs. 

The two questions that Dr. Åslund raised addressed the degree of corruption that has permeated the Kremlin in the recent years and the level of stability that such a regime creates. Åslund outlined three preconditions of corruption: ample rents and their ease of transfer, lack of transparency, and the absence of a system of checks and balances. He suggested that since these conditions are interwoven into the fabric of the Russian political system that perhaps they could serve as a basis for analysis of corruption.

Åslund also addressed the stability of such a system, noting that Putin has created a very narrow power base of his KGB friends, as well as pursued a policy of negative selection. This is alarming because a similar policy under Leonid Brezhnev, contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union. The desire to concentrate power combined with the refusal to take decisive action, as well as the relocation of power away from formal institutions into the informal ones, have resulted in government paralysis. Thus, the President’s popularity is the only political capital, creating a very unstable system.

During the question and answer session Andrew Jack was asked if there is a contradiction between Putin’s style of rule and the cultivation of entrepreneurship in Russia. He replied that there is such a contradiction, and it is primarily reflected in Putin’s actions during the end of his first term and the beginning of his second, which have undermined the fiscal stability and predictability that he has achieved at the beginning of his first term.

The presenter was also asked if it is possible for the Russian leadership to resemble enlightened authoritarian rule, and if the Russian military is a possible player in the next conflict within the elites. Jack agreed with both points and cited Kazakhstan as an example of a somewhat successful coexistence of dynamic economic growth and authoritarian rule, as well as countries such as China and Singapore. He acknowledged the growth of the military’s influence in the Caucasus and their possible future role in the elite conflict.

Is there an individual today within Russia or in the West who is capable of challenging President Putin’s whole conceptualization of Russia? These issues are so intensely intertwined in Putin’s mind that it is impossible to effectively challenge individual components without attacking the whole picture. Jack replied that such an individual does not exist yet, nor has Putin allowed much room for the rise of such a person. He also noted that a regime change can only occur after a new generation emerges, free of post-soviet complexes.

To a question regarding Russia’s rising middle class and its means for political expression, Andrew Jack replied that although economic growth is contributing to the rise of this class, a direct relationship between a political conscious and monetary values is still lacking. Thus, the middle class has generated very little incentive for political change.

Summary prepared by Alina Tourkova, Junior Fellow with the Russian and Eurasian Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.