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"
]
}
Source: Getty
In The Media
The Kremlin's New Man in the Far East
By appointing Khabarovsk Governor Viktor Ishayev as the presidential envoy to the Far East Federal District the Kremlin is establishing a powerful and competent government lobbyist for the interests of the Far East.
Published on May 12, 2009
Source: The Moscow Times
What was the logic behind the Kremlin's decision to name Ishayev as presidential envoy to the Far East Federal District? More than one reason might apply here. Sometimes officials are appointed as presidential envoys in an effort to resolve problems affecting the whole region, but more often this assignment is meant as an "honorable discharge." The Far East is a tangled web of serious political and economic problems that have only deepened during the crisis. It is no coincidence that presidential envoys there have been switched with such frequency -- Ishayev is the fourth. Only the presidential envoys to Russia's southern district have been switched more often.
Ishayev is not only a successful manager who has served as the regional head for almost two decades, but also heads the Association for Economic Cooperation of the Far East and Zabaikalsky Regions and is a member of the Academy of Sciences in economics. In addition, Ishayev developed an alternative government program for the country's economic development and has successfully lobbied for more attention for the Far East.
It would seem that Ishayev has the necessary tools to help develop the Far East Federal District. What's more, Vladivostok is slated to host the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in 2012, but preparations for the event lag far behind schedule. The region needs a leader who can provide serious oversight of Primorye's political and economic elite. Who is better to fulfill that role than a local leader experienced with the rough and tumble of the region's competing groups?
But there is a more compelling reason why the Kremlin named Ishayev to the presidential envoy post. In 2004, Ishayev headed a movement against the government's plan for the monetization of benefits. That action greatly upset the Kremlin and became the deciding factor in then-President Vladimir Putin's decision -- announced shortly after the Beslan hostage crisis ended on Sept. 3, 2004 -- to switch from the direct elections of governors to a system of appointing them from Moscow. But the Kremlin was unwilling and unable to simply remove such a powerful and popular governor from his post.
There was a similar incident in February. The Khabarovsk parliamentary speaker was removed from his post for expressing an opinion to Moscow not in line with the Kremlin's position. Strangely enough, immediately after the speaker lost his position, Ishayev took him on as the deputy chairman of his government.
In moving Ishayev from the governor's post to the presidential envoy spot in the same region, the Kremlin sets a precedent and achieves several goals at once. The Kremlin creates a powerful and competent government lobbyist for the interests of the Far East, someone who is capable of preventing mistakes like the poorly designed decision to raise duties on used cars imported from Japan. In addition, the Kremlin will be able to apply pressure on Primorye with the goals of preparing for the APEC summit and preventing a situation like the mass protests in December.
The next Kremlin move could very well be the replacement of Primorye Governor Sergei Darkin.
This comment 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 Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center
- The Gulf Conflict and the South CaucasusCommentary
In an interview, Sergei Melkonian discusses Armenia’s and Azerbaijan’s careful balancing act among the United States, Israel, and Iran.
Armenak Tokmajyan
- Iran’s Woes Aren’t Only DomesticCommentary
The country’s leadership is increasingly uneasy about multiple challenges from the Levant to the South Caucasus.
Armenak Tokmajyan
- From Prague With a ShoveCommentary
In an interview, Daniela Richterova speaks about her book on Czechoslovakia’s Cold War ties to Palestinian groups and others.
Michael Young
- The Syria Fiasco As Seen From MoscowCommentary
The downfall of the Assad regime represented a setback, but Russia’s primary focus remains Ukraine.
Sergei Melkonian
- Anatomy of a Military FallCommentary
Why did Bashar al-Assad’s armed forces fail to act, unlike those in Egypt, Libya, Algeria, and Sudan?
Yezid Sayigh
