Nezavisimaya Gazeta: “Yelena Shestopal: “Who said Medvedev will step aside?”
An expert on political psychology is sure that the question of who will be the fourth Russian president is still open.
The executive editor of NG-Politika, Roza Tsvetkova, discusses the behaviour of the country's leaders, their speech habits, choice of clothes and their presidential ambitions with Yelena Shestopal, head of the Political Psychology and Sociology Chair at the Political Sciences Faculty of Moscow University.
Q.: Has the style of the presidency changed under Medvedev?
A.: Yes, of course, just like every driver begins by adjusting the driver's seat when he gets into a new car, so every new president adjusts his style to his personality. In Medvedev's case, it is a combination of attraction to and repulsion from his predecessor's style (incidentally, Putin in his time also built his image by comparing himself with Yeltsin).
Putin is at his best in direct phone-in programmes, for Medvedev they invented more private video links with citizens and bureaucrats of various ranks. Unlike his predecessor, Medvedev has an active Internet presence. At the Valdai Club the president and the prime minister now appear together, which was not the case when Putin was president. The current president also has his own forum in Yaroslavl. Because Putin is a past master at using snappy phrases and expressions, Medvedev, on the one hand, deliberately uses earthy language, but on the other hand, they invent for him eye-catching formulas and slogans such as "the four i's" or "freedom is better than unfreedom". So, there are both similarities and differences.
Q.: This suggests that when Putin became prime minister he had to change his image and style, right?
A.: As regards Vladimir Putin, his image is in many ways shaped by what he says and does himself. He says and does what he considers necessary to do or demonstrate to the public. You will note that he does not care much about how he looks. So, I have no reason to speak about change of image. You see, Putin's image is mainly himself. Incidentally, the significance of the image divorced from the person is often overrated, probably because the PR people want to grab the audience's attention. Specialists claim that no more than 15%-20% of how a politician is perceived depends on the image-maker, the rest is up to the leader himself. In other words, how a politician is perceived depends on what he does, how he speaks, in short, on his personality. Of course, one may cut out some features that may irritate the public, but it is impossible to remove the inner world that shines through the appearance, facial expressions, movements, the manner of walking, in short, all the external manifestations. One cannot help recalling Stanislavsky. Stanislavsky's school is based on the premise that the actor expresses the inner state through actions and movements. This is true not only of actors, but of all people, especially of politicians because a politician is a public person. We discern his real self through his behaviour. One can try to hide something and play-act, but when one overdoes it, it becomes immediately evident and creates a sense of insincerity. So, there are no grounds for saying that Putin or for that matter, Medvedev, have added something new to their respective images over the past two years. It is another question that the context of political behaviour changes.
Q.: And still Medvedev today is very different from what he was like at the beginning of his presidency...
A.: Yes, but this is because he is becoming more experienced, more responsible and skilful, and it has nothing to do with image. If one compares, for example, his public behaviour during the Neva Express train crash with the way he behaved during the Ossetian-Georgian conflict, we see two different images. But this is not because he has been coached by somebody to look better, although perhaps image-makers are working with him and I hope that they will help him. As a political leader Medvedev has become more confident, independent and his reactions are more appropriate. Moreover, he has developed his own line of behaviour and his public presence.
As regards Putin as prime minister, his style of communicating with people is the same as when he was president. This manner is organic and natural for him, it expresses his life attitude. He assumes full responsibility, just as he did when he was president, not because he is trying to intrude upon the current president's scope of authority but because this is his personal manner. A personality, its core characteristics cannot change so quickly.
Q.: Hasn't Putin's style of communicating with the people changed recently? Hasn't he become closer to ordinary people, at least when he appears on the screen?
A.: That is a tricky question. The formats of communicating with the people are the same as before. Then he also liked to coddle children, and they even cried when he hugged them, as you remember. Putin has communicated with the public in all sorts of formats before he became prime minister. It is another question that he is not outgoing as a person. He feels less comfortable with the broad public, unlike Medvedev who seems to be basking in public attention. Putin, I think, feels more at home in a narrow circle of like-thinking people than before the public. But over the years he has become used to being in public and he behaves in a very natural way. If you compare Putin vintage 2000 and Putin vintage 2009, the difference is vast. He has acquired very extensive experience of behaving in public. It is another question whether he enjoys it or not, but he has long passed the test for being a public politician with flying colours.
Q.: Should some of the credit be given to his image makers and speech writers?
A.: I doubt that Putin has image makers. Of course he used to have and still has a press service, there are people who control the public situations which he has to enter. But they are not image-makers in the habitual sense of the word. He does not need an expert because he has molded his image himself, such as it is. But image-makers are not very welcome at such a level.
An image-maker is somebody who works not only with texts and with cameras, he works with the individual. I can hardly imagine an image-maker, a psychologist getting access to the country's leaders. I know that there were some people working with Yeltsin, but it was a different era and a different person.
Speaking about Putin's book "In the First Person" which was written by three journalists, the text was of course polished with an eye to the image that had to be projected to the masses. But no leader of such rank would agree to certain verbal structures being put into his mouth. In that sense I don't think either Medvedev or Putin have image-makers. It is another question that they have advisers, consultants, who may prompt a topic to be raised, a new angle in a conversation, reaction to events. They are speechwriters, consultants and experts who may be brought in with a concrete task in mind. But no more than that. We are talking about personalities of such a stature who, first, would not let such specialists near them, and second, do not need them. They don't need to be told what to do, otherwise they wouldn't be politicians.
Q.: Including ties?
A.: Suits and ties are the domain of the wife rather than the image maker. My experience of consultancy work shows that no matter how many people advise a politician to put on another tie, the wife always has the final say. Thus, Medvedev and his wife Svetlana give the impression of a harmonious couple, one feels mutual respect and mutual love. And I do not rule out that his wife may tell Dmitry Medvedev what shirt to wear. But that does not mean that his wife influences political decisions. Everyone remembers Raisa Gorbachev, because I think the wife of a state leader understands that at least in public she has to keep a low profile. Having said that, Putin, I think, chooses everything himself, I doubt that he heeds advice, even on the part of his wife, about what cut of suit or what colour of tie to wear.
Q.: What about various snappy words and expressions? Does he think of them himself, this is not something his speech-writers think up?
You remember his hard-hitting sentence in Pikalyovo: "They started running around like roaches when they learned that I was coming." He used the same expression on a later occasion.
A.: The roaches, that is interesting. We have made a linguistic analysis of Putin's texts, especially his spontaneous speech. His vocabulary is very interesting. Linguists have the concept of "linguistic personality," the grammatical forms of words that create a certain verbal image. I have a strong feeling that Putin is by no means as simple as he would like to appear. The range of his expressions, the cognitive aspects of his speech betray a person who has a very sophisticated brain. At the same time he clearly tries to create an impression of a simple guy. That is why he uses all these vernacular words and expressions. The real Putin is far more complicated and intellectual, if you like. But as a politician his intuition prompts him that such a complicated image will not go down well with the public, and that when he addresses a large audience he should be more simple and use more simple language.
We established this by analysing his language, and I am sure that nobody prompts these snappy words to him. I remember talking to one of the people who was standing close to Putin at the time he used his famous expression "spoil them in the loo." I literally buttonholed him: "Tell me, did anyone prompt it to him or was it his own expression?" My interlocutor said, and I quote: ‘We were all stunned and felt at a loss when he said it. We realised he had dropped a brick.'"
But we needn't have worried: Putin's phrase became popular.
Chernomyrdin is another example. Can one think up in advance the things that Chernomyrdin said and how he said them? This is absolutely impossible. As regards "roaches", one should analyse how words crop up in Putin's speech, especially if they are repeated. I am sure that it has something to do with his rather humble childhood in St Petersburg, he was very much a street kid. Although in cognitive terms his speech is fairly sophisticated, his past, the experience of his childhood often makes itself felt: you remember the memories he shares in that book, "From the First Person", when he was chasing rats, and the kids had chased a rat into a corner and it attacked him.
It is a very important episode which shows that as a child he gained some experience of leadership, he was already a leader among his peers. I think one should trace that expression to his humble St Petersburg childhood, he has lived it down, but it is still inside him.
The experience of being in power cannot but develop a habit of concealing what you actually think. This is true of the experience of international negotiations and of communicating with Russian colleagues, who are no pushovers. So I think Vladimir Putin is one of the most experienced politicians in the world today. He has brought the baggage he had accumulated during the years of his presidency to the new role that fell to him to play. He is just as good in this new role as in the role of president. I think he likes to do what he is doing. Economic matters is where he feels at home, he is competent and he feels confident.
Q.: Why should he say almost explicitly that he might be the next president?
A.: The role of prime minister is not all that simple. The way our country is run, if you are not number one, you are faced with many restrictions. The dual-power system has proved to be very difficult for all those involved in the process. Putin may have regretted more than once that he had himself devised such a scheme. It has created problems above all for himself, although as prime minister he has proved to be head and shoulders above previous prime ministers. He managed to convert his experience as president, he knows the country and the people whom he has worked and still works with. It was easier for him to settle down in this role than for anybody else.
Q.: So, if he becomes president again, he will feel more comfortable?
A.: It is hard to say how he will feel because the role is always in a historical context. Who could have foreseen that Putin's premiership would coincide with the times of crisis? And who can predict what the times will be like if he becomes president again? Perhaps he will not feel anywhere nearly as comfortable as the experts think. Who said that Medvedev would simply step aside? Medvedev is no greenhorn who can be pushed around. He feels comfortable in his role as president.
Q.: Why do many experts say that image-wise, he is losing out to his predecessor?
A.: I don't think anybody is losing to anybody else. In the difficult situation that has been brought about by the crisis, President Medvedev is doing everything right. He performs his role differently, but this is not because he is stronger or weaker than his predecessor. It is hard to compare them. He may be less experienced than Putin. But on the other hand, he is younger and "more progressive" in the sense that he belongs to a different generation and he copes with his duties both in foreign and domestic politics.
It is another question that Putin's image has lost some of its influence. In our political set-up, the role of prime minister is secondary. But Putin has lost less than he could have lost, considering the circumstances. Comparing him with the prime ministers of other countries that have been much less affected by the crisis than Russia, I would say that he can take punches well.
From that point of view I think that none of them has lost or won. But then of course nobody had expected life to take such a turn. I think both of them - the president and the prime minister - are playing their parts well and with dignity. Compared with many other foreign politicians their approval rating and the popular attitude to them are much better than they might have been in any other country. We tend not to appreciate what we have. We do not quite understand that what Medvedev and Putin have accomplished pushes the limits of what is humanly possible. They have prevented the country from being destroyed. They did not act as saviors, but they certainly have done more than is humanly possible. We should be aware of it and we should be grateful to them for this.
Q.: The more one stays in power the more professional one becomes in the political sense.
A.: That is true, but do not forget that the more one is in power the greater the stress and the fatigue. Remember Yeltsin at the end of his rule: he was a man absolutely crushed by the pressure and the responsibility of power. Think of our numerous prime ministers who burned out within a year or two. The stress people experience when they are on the political Olympus is staggering. Only a physically and psychologically fit person can take this stress and resist the pressure long enough. However, fatigue still builds up. Hence such Putin expressions as "I worked like a galley slave," and indeed he worked like a galley slave. It is amazing how he has managed to keep so wonderfully fit physically and mentally.
Q.: Why then is the constant reference to intrigues? Such as "we are of the same blood" and "we will decide which of us will run in the election"?
A.: That is a political game. What is the point of showing one's trump cards ahead of time? That is not right. A politician or a diplomat uses language to conceal his thoughts and not to reveal them. Besides, I am deeply convinced that neither of them has yet made up his mind. Such decisions are always the result not only of what we want or what they want, but of a certain configuration of circumstances that will take shape at that particular moment. The suspense will be there until last, not only because they want to keep us in suspense, but because they themselves have not yet made up their minds.
Q.: Just like it happened when the successor was chosen?
A.: Quite right. Too many imponderables will prevent them from making the decision until last. We do not know and they do not know what the configuration and the alignment of forces will be when no further delay would be possible. We should not think of political leaders as being omniscient. They are not Olympian gods, they are humans.
* * *
Yelena Shestopal: "Putin is by no means as simple as he wants to be seen."
