Subject
Fw: forthcoming book on novelist Vladimir Nabokov. ...
From
Date
Body
EDNOTE. The charm of this item is not the story but that the correspondent for the Singapore paper, Nina Khrushcheva (!), is witing a book on Nabokov.
----- Original Message -----
From: Sandy P. Klein
To: spklein52@hotmail.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 4:06 AM
Subject: forthcoming book on novelist Vladimir Nabokov. ...
http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/commentary/story/0,4386,239309,00.html
Real flaw in Putin's rule: his power is personal
By NINA KHRUSHCHEVA
TWO practical questions can be asked of any political system: First, what distinguishes the political parties? Second, who is in charge?
For a while in post-communist Russia, the answers were blindingly clear: Parties were divided between those nostalgic for Soviet times and those who wanted reform. Who was in charge? The president.
After 12 years of transition, the answer to the first question has blurred. With the Communist Party in terminal decline, ideologies are vanishing. Indeed, anybody hoping for an obvious clash of left and right during the recent presidential election campaign was bound to be disappointed, because the answer to the second question is even more emphatic today: President Vladimir Putin's re-election was never in doubt. This president is very much in charge.
Mr Putin's all-encompassing popularity, which is genuine, and his blurring of all political dividing lines has given him an unassailable position. Many bemoan this state of affairs, but his ascendancy might be less malign than it seems.
Russia's size, the poverty of its infrastructure, and the disarray of its bureaucracy limit Mr Putin's power. Within those limits, he uses his power relentlessly. The impression Mr Putin's presidency creates is of autocracy punctuated by elections.
Autocracy, not dictatorship. After four years of a presidency supposedly devoted to forging a 'dictatorship of law', the rule of law in Russia remains weak and property rights ill-defined. A solid middle class and a resilient civil society are yet to emerge.
Privatisation of state assets has done much for the economy, but has also been used for patronage and empire building. The army does not appear to be reliably under civilian control, and the brutal war in Chechnya festers.
So Mr Putin's authoritarianism creeps along, but by Russian standards, it is far from being hideously creepy. In some things, indeed, he deserves the thanks of all Russians. He has consigned the communists to Trotsky's dustbin of history. Now splintering, some seem willing to stop pandering to Bolshevik ghosts. That is good for Russia. Welcome to the republic.
Mr Putin has also not turned the clock back on economic reform. Indeed, the economy has mostly boomed under his stewardship - another reason ordinary Russians like him.
Where he has failed is in fostering democratic governance. The question is not just whether he and his ex-KGB cronies muzzle the media and jail their opponents. No, the real flaw in his rule is that his power is personal, not based on the support of a political party.
The emergence of viable political parties requires a strong parliament. But, because Russia's presidency is so powerful, the Duma is largely a squabbling shop and a fixer's paradise. At best, it is a safety valve for democracy rather than an engine of it.
Of course, there is a big pro-presidential majority party in the Duma. But that is its flaw: It stands only for the President. What Russia needs is political parties that stand for something other than their boss' will. Because Mr Putin cannot stomach opposition, he stifles the growth of parties.
Here he gets a helping hand from party politicians, because the reformist parties inspire little confidence. The reformist Union of Right Forces (SPS), led by Mr Boris Nemtsov and Mr Anatoly Chubais, destroyed itself in the elections last December, failing to gain a seat in the Duma. The SPS leaders ran a campaign that seemed to revel in their distance from ordinary Russians. Instead of visiting Russians struggling to manage their difficult lives, the two touted themselves as modern men flying about in private jets and fiddling with laptops.
Tin political ears deserve defeat.
Mr Putin understands instinctively that Russia needs elements of democracy, if only to distinguish the new Russia from the old, and to let the odd gust of fresh air in. Unchallenged in his second and last term, will he retain even that slight democratic instinct?
The talk today in Russia is of 'Putinism', which professes democracy without as yet obliging the state to accept the disciplines of a truly democratic system. But the French have an older word for Putinism: etatisme, which holds that the state commands society rather than serves it.
The writer teaches international affairs at New School University and is the author of a forthcoming book on novelist Vladimir Nabokov.
http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/commentary/story/0,4386,239309,00.html
Copyright: Project Syndicate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frustrated with dial-up? Lightning-fast Internet access for as low as $29.95/month.
----- Original Message -----
From: Sandy P. Klein
To: spklein52@hotmail.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 4:06 AM
Subject: forthcoming book on novelist Vladimir Nabokov. ...
http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/commentary/story/0,4386,239309,00.html
Real flaw in Putin's rule: his power is personal
By NINA KHRUSHCHEVA
TWO practical questions can be asked of any political system: First, what distinguishes the political parties? Second, who is in charge?
For a while in post-communist Russia, the answers were blindingly clear: Parties were divided between those nostalgic for Soviet times and those who wanted reform. Who was in charge? The president.
After 12 years of transition, the answer to the first question has blurred. With the Communist Party in terminal decline, ideologies are vanishing. Indeed, anybody hoping for an obvious clash of left and right during the recent presidential election campaign was bound to be disappointed, because the answer to the second question is even more emphatic today: President Vladimir Putin's re-election was never in doubt. This president is very much in charge.
Mr Putin's all-encompassing popularity, which is genuine, and his blurring of all political dividing lines has given him an unassailable position. Many bemoan this state of affairs, but his ascendancy might be less malign than it seems.
Russia's size, the poverty of its infrastructure, and the disarray of its bureaucracy limit Mr Putin's power. Within those limits, he uses his power relentlessly. The impression Mr Putin's presidency creates is of autocracy punctuated by elections.
Autocracy, not dictatorship. After four years of a presidency supposedly devoted to forging a 'dictatorship of law', the rule of law in Russia remains weak and property rights ill-defined. A solid middle class and a resilient civil society are yet to emerge.
Privatisation of state assets has done much for the economy, but has also been used for patronage and empire building. The army does not appear to be reliably under civilian control, and the brutal war in Chechnya festers.
So Mr Putin's authoritarianism creeps along, but by Russian standards, it is far from being hideously creepy. In some things, indeed, he deserves the thanks of all Russians. He has consigned the communists to Trotsky's dustbin of history. Now splintering, some seem willing to stop pandering to Bolshevik ghosts. That is good for Russia. Welcome to the republic.
Mr Putin has also not turned the clock back on economic reform. Indeed, the economy has mostly boomed under his stewardship - another reason ordinary Russians like him.
Where he has failed is in fostering democratic governance. The question is not just whether he and his ex-KGB cronies muzzle the media and jail their opponents. No, the real flaw in his rule is that his power is personal, not based on the support of a political party.
The emergence of viable political parties requires a strong parliament. But, because Russia's presidency is so powerful, the Duma is largely a squabbling shop and a fixer's paradise. At best, it is a safety valve for democracy rather than an engine of it.
Of course, there is a big pro-presidential majority party in the Duma. But that is its flaw: It stands only for the President. What Russia needs is political parties that stand for something other than their boss' will. Because Mr Putin cannot stomach opposition, he stifles the growth of parties.
Here he gets a helping hand from party politicians, because the reformist parties inspire little confidence. The reformist Union of Right Forces (SPS), led by Mr Boris Nemtsov and Mr Anatoly Chubais, destroyed itself in the elections last December, failing to gain a seat in the Duma. The SPS leaders ran a campaign that seemed to revel in their distance from ordinary Russians. Instead of visiting Russians struggling to manage their difficult lives, the two touted themselves as modern men flying about in private jets and fiddling with laptops.
Tin political ears deserve defeat.
Mr Putin understands instinctively that Russia needs elements of democracy, if only to distinguish the new Russia from the old, and to let the odd gust of fresh air in. Unchallenged in his second and last term, will he retain even that slight democratic instinct?
The talk today in Russia is of 'Putinism', which professes democracy without as yet obliging the state to accept the disciplines of a truly democratic system. But the French have an older word for Putinism: etatisme, which holds that the state commands society rather than serves it.
The writer teaches international affairs at New School University and is the author of a forthcoming book on novelist Vladimir Nabokov.
http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/commentary/story/0,4386,239309,00.html
Copyright: Project Syndicate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frustrated with dial-up? Lightning-fast Internet access for as low as $29.95/month.