Norman Stone
TimesOnline. |
Yet again President Putin’s fingers are being rapped: he has apparently been trying to hang on to power. Russia’s Constitution was written more or less to Western order, back in the days when free markets and democracy were supposed to reign. Models were consulted. The French one has a president with powers such that the prime minister is a glorified office-boy; but, in Russia, as in the American model, presidents are not supposed to run for office more than twice in case it goes to their heads.
Vladimir Putin may retire to run Gazprom but instead, quite astutely, he is finding a way to hang on to power. He can put himself forward as deputy for the reigning party, then become prime minister, and push forward, as nominal president, a man in his mid-sixties whom he can control. Such devices are not at all without precedent in Russia. Moving an older or even an aged man, without ambition, into a high office so that he can be controlled from behind has long origins, beyond even communist times. If Vladimir Putin is finding a way to hang on to power, then he is doing so within the tradition. And the very first thing to be said is that he has been a very successful leader of the country.
Not so long ago, Russia was being written off. Wise persons shook their heads. Moscow was like Berlin in the latter days of the Weimar Republic – Cabaret, complete with rampaging inflation, old women selling their husbands’ medals in the underpasses of the ring roads, prostitutes all over the place (every businessman had his story), a collapsing birthrate, gangster-capitalism raking it in and making whoopee in hotels in Monte Carlo. There was even a school of thought to the effect that the whole of Eurasia was turning into a Latin America: a Slavonic culture disintegrating as the overall Spanish culture of Latin America had done, into oil-rich turbulent Venezuelas on the one side, and weird, atmosphere-poor Bolivias on the other, while wars went ahead between assorted Hondurases and Nicaraguas.
Under Putin, Russia has not turned into Latin America. Quite the contrary. Reality on the ground in Russia nowadays is different, and this is not just to do with the recent rise in oil prices. If you go to the provincial towns east and south east of Moscow – Vladimir, say, or Saratov – you can see a successful change going ahead, as people set up businesses such as furniture factories to make up for that lack of consumer goods that marked the old Soviet Union. The university in Saratov has state-of-the-art computers; even agriculture is said to be improving. The horrors of Chechnya are receding into the past and the International Herald Tribune, not a lover of Putin, recently carried an article about the return of order there: the planes fly back and forth and Grozny is being restored after two decades of vicious nonsense including that horrible massacre of schoolchildren three years ago.
So if Putin thinks that he has done well by his country he is not wrong, and masses of ordinary Russians agree. Now, Russia is recovering, and is back on the world’s stage. Why should a successful president be held back by some constitutional formality?
There is no real reason for constitutions to be set in tablets of stone. Referendums were staged elsewhere in the old Soviet continent for successful and popular presidents to stay in office, and it is maybe a measure of Putin’s lack of self-confidence that he shrinks from that. Does he really have to fear the criticism of Europeans, let alone Americans, who now seem to be settling into their own pattern of dynastic politics? Of course his regime is not pure, in the approved Scandinavian manner. It has had to deal with horrible problems of terrorism, and no government can ever be entirely without sin in conditions of that sort.
But Putin has highlighted an aspect of Russia that anyone in London should recognise. Russia, like Britain, is a country with a capacity for tissue regeneration. In the Seventies, you would have written Britain off. And then, lo and behold, in the Eighties she struck back – many, many things wrong, of course, but back just the same.
It is an odd fact that English literature translates best into Russian, and vice versa. Two countries on the European edge, with the same diagonal approach, and very interested in each other. We should not be criticising Putin: rather, encouraging him to stage that referendum.
Norman Stone, former Professor of Modern History at Oxford, is now head of the international relations department at Bilkent University in Ankara
( , ):
Again and again I see the article in the US/UK/EU medias that justifies Putin and his regime. These articles expose only positive issues but not the negative ones. It make me think that it was paid by somebody - like it was in sixties and seventies. KGB spent a great deal of money for it. Am I too pessimistic?
Jseven777,
He's their Reagan.
charles, detroit,
is not going back to . Lugovoi has nothing to do with Kremlin, Litvinenko never was a spy. Politkovskaya has nothing to do with truth and justice.
Guys, you are cheated by your newspapers and TV. Come to and enjoy its freedom of life, share its coming prosperity.
In we have websites sponsored by Russian government with translation of all western articles about . These are the most popular websites. We enjoy reading all the false published about us.
And how often does your government present russian point of view on political events?
Maxim Belyanin,
Very-very interesting controversial point of view.
Should one agree with the growth of this (or any other) country's power by means of lives of people? By means of cutting people's right for free speech? By means of turning population against all the outside world? Should we close our eyes to the point that Putin is chosen by millions because they were not shown any other choice? Because they are heavily blinded and all active leaders are suppressed in media and public life?
Yes, is wealthier then before Putin.
No, if you /at least by a bit/ remember Soviet Union, you won't vote for Putin's .
Ganna Portyankina, Bern/Kyiv, Switzerland/Ukraine
Mr Timothy Naegele's criticism of Professor Stone's view of Putin's contains all the huffing and puffing coupled with excruciating lack of self-confidence that one might expect from an ill-informed American with his head buried in the past. The diatribe belittles the author by questioning Professor Stone's personal integrity. Its comparison of Putin to the mass-murderer Joseph Stalin is ignorant and puerile but, most of all, deeply insulting to the millions of Russians who died at Stalin's hands. Mr Naegele needs to decide whether he is afraid of Russians or not. If the former, does he propose to nuke 'em? If the latter, one would hope that he would wish to focus his energies on trying to engage constructively with a country with an infinitely richer culture and history than his own. He might also show a little respect to the large majority of Russians who would freely vote for Putin tomorrow if an election were called.
Patrick Robertson,
Incredible article and comments - what about murder on the streets of
MDHinton, sieradz, Poland
Putin really deserves the credit.Hi is the most popular leader in and abroad.Russia is ascending under Putin.Great leader for great country.I agree with Alon Kochavi.
Trayan,
Great article, one correction: the new Russian aircraft, Superjet 100, is a mid-range plane and competes against Embraer and Bombardier. Taking on Boeing and Airbus will have to wait a few years.
Some of the comments below though are hilarious:
"Putin may have his good points but he is no Gorbachev!
Andrew Wood, lecanto, Fl" - Andrew, that's EXACTLY what makes him a good president. Gorbachev was a disaster for the Russian people.
"It would be interesting to check Norman Stone's bona fides to determine when and exactly how he will benefiting personally from the rosy, star-gazing view that he has fashioned of that great Western democrat, Vladimir Putin. Timothy D. Naegele,
Michael,
Malibu - a known place of objective reality, democracy at its best and indeed... sand. Thimothy must know all about putting his head in and out of it.
Must be the heat that pointed his interests towards .
And of course, a profit motive as a reason for cudos to Putin - or, perhaps, a profit as a motive for a Russophobe?
I agree with
Mikhail Drabkin,
Tim from
Now as we see the Russian economy is picking up I would suggest that as the average Russian becomes wealthier and more financially secure you will see the population rise. How sensible is that.
Putin is perhaps the most popular democratic leader in the world and has not as yet started his own political dynasty like the Bushes (or the Kennedys)
Steve Byrne,
It would be interesting to check Norman Stone's bona fides to determine when and exactly how he will benefiting personally from the rosy, star-gazing view that he has fashioned of that great Western democrat, Vladimir Putin. Surely there was method to his madness; it cannot be altruistic.
As Putin was assuming power, I was told in Washington that he would become a modern day, smoother Joseph Stalin, and so far he has been living up to that expectation. Not only are term limits going by the boards which Stone seems to think are merely constitutional gibberish anyway but Putin has seized control and throttled most democratic organs, and set in motion increasingly despotic practices.
Also, he is in the process of trying to reignite Cold War military adventurism, as only a KGB puppeteer could do in a country that tasted true democracy very briefly before it was stamped unacceptable. He has accused the and NATO of threatening his country; and Stone whitewashes Putins scorched-earth campaign in . As Max Boot wrote in the Los Angeles Times on February 14th:
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Kremlin has gone from ruling 293 million people (not counting Eastern Europe) to 143 million, fewer than Bangladesh. Given 's low birth rate and life expectancy (on average, men die at 60), its population is projected to fall to just 109 million by 2050, making it about the same size as .
The once-mighty Red Army has been reduced to a shell of its Cold War self, falling from 5.2 million soldiers in 1988 to 1 million, most of whom have terrible morale and worse equipment. Even with oil prices high, 's GDP is just $763 billion, ranking No.
Stone needs to get his head out of the sand, and stop currying favor with the Russians.
Timothy D. Naegele,
As PM he wont last long. No Russian president, not even a Zubkov, is going to tolerate a uppity PM. Yeltsin never did, Putin never did and Zubkov wont. If he really pushes for the PM job he will be unpleasantly surprised. Putin wants a Duma seat to avoid prosecution, that I can understand, but the PM job is wishful thinking in his part. PM's in are blamed for every failing of the president. Putin wont be able to blame Zubkov for anything and at the first crisis he will be bounced out of the Kremlin like a Fradkov, a Kasyanov, a Stepashin or a Chermomydin. PM's in simply dont last long.
The constitution is working in if this is all he could come up with.
There is simply no way a PM in is going to have true presidential powers for long.
yuri samov,
Can't agree more with this article. A leader should be judged by the way he serves his country's best interests. And 's best interests are not
J.C,
This article is a breath of fresh air in a Western media climate that stifles the freedom of non-Western cultures to cope and prosper in ways that are best suited to their own particular conditions. Comparing the human rights record of Putin's with Bush's , who is the real tyrant? Who has the bigger domestic political mandate? Bush, with his pultry popularity ratings? Or Putin with three quarters of the Russian electorate behind him?
Allan Noble,
A great many native British people are so dismayed at the tide of immigration and what it bodes for the future that they have decided to seek their own futures elsewhere. Most have their eyes on the , , or . But the time has come when they should also consider . It is a country with great opportunities, and a thoroughly civilised population much more akin to them, more compatible - and better disposed - towards them than the populations of many cities in .
Herbert
One thing is clear, Putin is an astute politician, who would recognise the problems he has been unable to tackle:
Corruption that permeates every level of society. Even moneys allocated for regional improvement are paralysed as officials in
Chronic alcoholism and premature deaths for the male population (average 58). This is not partying, but extends to each and every village, where there are plentiful supplies of cheap, home-brewed vodka.
Poor regional investment, widening the gap between
An economy completely dependent on oil and minerals with low investment in industry.
If you were Putin what would you do? What would you do if the Russians wanted to establish a missile defence system in ? How would you get money to the regions, if you thought the local politicians were going to take their cut? How would you cure alholism if everyone knows how to make viodka at home?
Gary Hyams, London/Bryansk, UK/Russia
Don't count the Chechens out just yet, I'm afraid.
All they're doing is moving to neighbouring countries and starting the process of digging their heels in there.
RDS,
Good news? Great guy? This guy is still living in the Cold War. This can't be good for anyone.
Mike,
Very interesting view but what's with sending Russian bombers back out at everyone. I happen to be in
Andrew Wood, lecanto, Fl
Its nice to Know Putin is back into politics.He has brought back Russia into Power once again.And he is most favourite leader among the russians.He should stay and should set an example for other leaders...
He really deserves the credit.
Kasparov,
The author failed to mention how Putin has done precious little to stop nuclear proliferation particularly to and . Indeed he has supported it. Oh and he left out the bit about the Russian nuclear bombers that have started probing the sovereign air space of Great Britain and the US. It looks like someone wants to warm up the Cold War again. Hey, and constitutions ... well I guess they are just guidelines that are meant to be broken. I mean how important can a piece of paper be ? It's just the compact with people and basis for a government's sovereignty, authority, citizens rights/freedoms and all law.
G B,
I think Putin is going to back to . In my opinoin it is not really good idea.
Dryagin Valery,
I agree with this article. Thanks for your perspective, I wish it were heard more often in the ignorant and xenophobic USofA.
ESB,
The Prime Minister idea is constitutional and legitimate. Go for it Putin!
Alon Kochavi, Tel
Gal97rus
, 05 2007 . 11:18 ()
