Alexandra Samarina
Medvedev and Putin are one political entity, experts say
The recent initiatives launched by President Dmitry Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin suggest that the country is drifting away from a presidential toward a parliamentary republic. Both leaders speak in unison on the main issues of the government structure. Meanwhile, if the President and the Prime Minister seem to see eye-to-eye on everything, the inference should not be made that there is no rivalry between ruling clans, NG experts point out.
The pluses and minuses of unity
It will be recalled that immediately after the Presidential Address was delivered, Mr Putin urged his party to support the President and work to implement Mr Medvedev's initiatives. The Duma hastily put the final seal on the constitutional amendments proposed by the head of state. Next in line is the endorsement of the President's anti-corruption package.
Some of the innovations proposed by the President show signs of leaning towards a parliamentary form of government, according to observers. It is an issue that engages the minds not only of the Russian experts; Mr Medvedev has to field questions of this kind when he goes abroad.
During his recent visit to Washington, he outlined the character of Russia's government structure in a talk with former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. The President praised the Constitution: on the whole it is "good, modern, and contains the set of rights and freedoms that are relevant". He also added, "It is the constitution of a presidential republic, and Russia can only exist as a presidential republic."
Yet Ms Albright's question was not accidental. Some features of the current system of government seem to dilute the idea of the rigid vertical power structure built up during Mr Putin's presidency. Experts are seriously discussing a shift towards a parliamentary republic, which would contradict the Constitution.
Mr Medvedev's initiative on strengthening parliament's powers vis-à-vis the Government seems to run counter to the principle of a presidential republic. However, any conclusions at this point would be premature. The President, after all, has not proposed anything fundamentally new. The ministers today regularly report to the Duma during the so-called Government hour. Furthermore, nothing was said to indicate that the Prime Minister himself would be dragged onto the Duma "carpet". This was stressed by United Russia MPs, with whom our correspondent managed to talk.
Analysts differ as to the nature of the current configuration of Russian power. Most of them deny that there is dual power in the country, and thus take a very guarded view of the Western suggestion that Russia is entering an era of parliamentarianism. In the opinion of Olga Kryshtanovskaya, head of the Centre for the Study of Elites at the RAS Sociology Institute, "today, Mr Medvedev and Mr Putin are one political face that has four arms and four legs". She notes the substantial "pluses of that process, while the minuses are not evident". Among the pluses is a dramatically increased dynamism of "dual government": "In addition to contacts with the West, the President and Prime Minister have engaged in frenetic activities to establish contacts in the East, with one of them going to China, and the other to Vietnam, one to Kazakhstan and the other to Armenia. If [French President Nicolas] Sarkozy comes here, he meets with both of them." Ms Kryshtanovskaya also notes that the team has become stronger. She stresses that there is no question of rivalry, if only because "Mr Medvedev remains a member, even if the key member, of Mr Putin's team."
Noting a shift toward a parliamentary republic, she also sees an opposite trend: "It is unlikely to be a parliamentary republic in the full sense of the word, because Mr Putin seems to play second fiddle on some matters. He might have started changing things even now, but he is not doing it. He may be pulling the strings, but he does not want to upstage President Medvedev."
The public at large has a controversial opinion about the current form of government, Ms Kryshtanovskaya notes. She cites the results of a focus group poll: "They say that things are bad, but Mr Medvedev and Mr Putin are great guys." She notes that so far, the President is not perceived as a politician separately from Mr Putin.
A free hand
The most likely course of further change in the country, according to the expert, is the formation of a mini-USSR: "As the Great Depression has shown, authoritarian regimes are better at coping with crises, because it is easier for them to take decisions. There is a chance that countries with either hybrid regimes or authoritarian regimes, like China and Russia, will cope with the crisis better. Look at how they (in the West) are tormented: they hold meetings, adopt anti-crisis plans and debate things... In this country, fingers are snapped and - presto! The Kremlin decides, and more money is printed. Money is given to big banks, which give it to small banks, which give it to enterprises, which give it to the people, and the people will put it under their mattresses. The population creates a situation conducive to inflation. The government will not take people's money away but will increase prices, which amounts to the same thing. This is nothing if not Sovietisation: administrative measures are taken automatically."
However, Gleb Pavlovsky, President of the Effective Policy Fund, denies that Russia is a presidential republic: "It is a peculiar model of a leader state. On the one hand, there is the President who is more than the head of state, but is a leader of the elites and the masses, but on the other hand, he has to interact with structures that exist independently from him. He acts as a moderator, a conductor. The republic is neither presidential nor parliamentary. It cannot be turned into one or the other. However, different systems of government can conveniently be built within that framework, depending on the time and the personalities. It encourages improvisation. We are a ‘jazz state'. The government is obliged to improvise all the time. If that process stops, government becomes wobbly."
Pavlovsky notes the dual nature of the Prime Minister, who is "the leader of elites, because he has consolidated the popular masses in a ‘Putin majority': Mr Medvedev is building a more classical, traditional model of leadership through institutions, through elites united around traditional institutions. He stands on Mr Putin's shoulders: he can go about his job calmly because the masses accept this status quo." This is a style of government, according to Mr Pavlovsky, that has "taken shape historically and cannot be bequeathed to anyone. It would be impossible to run the country without the Putin majority".
A nightmare for the elites
However, Mr Pavlovsky notes that important processes are underway within the system. He recalls the rule that elites always try to get rid of those who give them power and property. Mr Putin is "of course a restraining factor for the elites. They are trying to push him out of real politics simply because he is burdensome. He wields colossal power that cannot be touched. This is a horror for the elites. If Mr Putin's power stemmed from his being the leader of the parliamentary majority, there would have been many ways to replace him, for example, by bribing the deputies. That is no problem, especially given the morals of our political class. However, Mr Putin can at any moment appeal to the masses over the heads of the elite. This uncertainty cannot be endured. Who could oust Putin? Naturally, the stake was put on Mr Medvedev. We have seen this beginning from May. The elites immediately proceeded to try to turn Mr Medvedev into an instrument for squeezing Mr Putin out of politics."
For all that, the personal chemistry between Mr Putin and Mr Medvedev is excellent, "but only in certain political situations. Problems between them, if they arise, would arise not due to psychological causes, but due to changes in policy".
The social state, Mr Pavlovsky reminds us, may soon be dismantled. "The question is, who will have to be the first to give up dessert? People are highly reluctant to do it. In the short term, Mr Medvedev and Mr Putin will have to choose between the masses and the pursuit of reform."
Mikhail Delyagin, director of the Globalisation Institute, does not see even a hint of a shift towards a parliamentary republic. In his opinion, we witness "dual power that traditionally is established in Russia in transitional periods". He thinks it is an unstable condition that is "destructive for Russia": "We are a country used to having one boss; the paralysis of the state in the face of the unfolding global crisis, which is internal to Russia as well, is added proof of that. How can you talk about a parliamentary republic in a situation when parliament approves the budget for 2009 in late October based on the oil price of $95 per barrel? Being so out of touch with reality, it might as well have approved a budget with the oil price at $950 or $9,500 per barrel."
And yet, Mr Delyagin notes, "the very same parliament decides that the Finance Ministry can be allowed to make any changes to the federal budget independently: in other words, it waives its own powers in the key sphere of government, the budgetary sphere. Parliament is committing political suicide."
Russian parliamentarism is thus becoming something like an army camouflage suit that is used in a crisis fraught with social upheavals. However, it doesn't look like it is doomed. The time-tested mechanisms of society's self-regulation are becoming ever more relevant. Among them, even an imperfect parliament in "sleeping" mode may be a convenient launching pad for initiatives to reform society.