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
2-Way Dialogue Once A Year
Although Prime Minister Putin’s eighth annual call-in show was much livelier than the typical state television coverage of the government’s public policy, it will take much more than a yearly show to establish a genuine two-way dialogue between the government and the people.
Published on Dec 8, 2009
Source: The Moscow Times
This time Putin answered questions from a wider geographic spread than usual and revisited conversations that he had this year with ordinary citizens in areas hit hard by the crisis, including Pikalyovo, Magnitogorsk, Kuzbass, Tolyatti, Naberezhny Chelny and the Sayano-Shushenskaya hydroelectric plant.
Putin spoke at length about all of the great steps that the government is taking to help the people — everything from raising pensions to giving government allowances to mothers who give birth to more than one child. He even remarked offhandedly that he is not concerned with his popularity ratings, but this was hardly convincing. It was difficult not to see the event as a run-up to Putin’s presidential re-election campaign.
Putin addressed regional authorities without mentioning individuals by name. He described the governor of Krasnoyarsk as “young and energetic” and the Chelyabinsk governor as “an experienced and respected person, and generally an effective manager.” Putin mentioned that he would ask the Leningrad governor “to submit the regional and municipal governments’ plans for Pikalyovo’s development,” and reminded Rostov’s governor that “negligence on the part of officials should be punished.” All 2 million questions submitted for the program were broken down by region and analyzed after the call-in show. Governors from every region must report later on the work that they are doing to address those issues.
During the program, Putin demonstrated his knowledge of the names of factory directors and the technical complexities of different manufacturing processes. But despite all of this detail, the most important things were missing: an overall assessment of the country’s economic condition, the government’s strategy for dealing with it and a strategy to improve the effectiveness of government.
There were also two blatant contradictions in Putin’s answers. First, he criticized Russians for expecting the state to solve all of their problems. This, Putin believes, breeds governmental paternalism, which hampers the country’s development. At the same time, Putin cast himself as the ultimate and kind father figure, trying to convince Russians that the government — and he in particular — is concerned about each and every citizen.
Second, Putin mentioned several times that these televised call-in programs are an excellent way for the government to establish direct contact with the people. But as the number of bureaucrats exceeds 1 million people and continues to grow, the notion of “government” is much broader than Putin, and it will take much more than his yearly call-in show to establish a genuine two-way dialogue between the government and the people.
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 Russia Eurasia Center
- After Ilia II: What Will a New Patriarch Mean for Georgia?Commentary
The front-runner to succeed Ilia II, Metropolitan Shio, is prone to harsh anti-Western rhetoric and frequent criticism of “liberal ideologies” that he claims threaten the Georgian state. This raises fears that under his leadership the Georgian Orthodox Church will lose its unifying role and become an instrument of ultraconservative ideology.
Bashir Kitachaev
- What the Russian Energy Sector Stands to Gain From War in the Middle EastCommentary
The future trajectory of the U.S.-Iran war remains uncertain, but its impact on global energy trade flows and ties will be far-reaching. Moscow is likely to become a key beneficiary of these changes; the crisis in the Gulf also strengthens Russia’s hand in its relationships with China and India, where advantages might prove more durable.
Sergey Vakulenko
- Beyond Oil: Hormuz Closure Puts Russia in the Lead in the Fertilizer MarketCommentary
The Kremlin expects to not only profit from rising fertilizer prices but also exact revenge for the collapse of the 2023 grain deal.
Alexandra Prokopenko
- “Mr. Nobody Against Putin”: A Deep Dive Into Russian PropagandaCommentary
Talankin and Borenstein’s documentary is a unique inside look at a regime that threatens the world and has killed thousands of people in its neighboring country. And many critics and general viewers alike draw parallels between the Putin regime and their own governments.
Ekaterina Barabash
- A Tight Spot: Challenges Facing the Russian Oil Sector Through 2035Paper
Russian oil production is remarkably resilient to significant price changes, but significant political headwinds may lead to a drop regardless of economics.
Sergey Vakulenko
