Russia, A Democracy?

Masha Lipman provides a subtle analysis of the erosion of democracy in the Washington Post. In her piece "Putin Cements His Grip," Lipman summarizes how President Vladimir Putin is hollowing out whatever democracy existed and is leaving in its stead a Potemkin Village that appears like a rightful democracy, but rather is merely a facade to beguile foreigners. Lipman writes:

Putin and some of his aides are highly skilled in producing a government with the trappings of democracy and none of its substantial elements, such as public participation, the separation of powers, political competition or accountability. The formal decorum comes in handy when Putin needs to insist, usually to Western audiences, that Russia is a democracy. He appears anxious to fit in among the democratic leaders of the West and to distance himself from the Central Asian autocrats who have carved out lifelong presidencies.

As Lipman notes, Putin has succeeded in achieving absolute power, but he does not seem to want to change to constitution to keep power as president. Rather, he seems to be seeking other avenues to maintain absolute power, while stepping down as president of the Russian Federation as required by the Russian Constitution. All the while, he must manage competition by individuals who have used their positions to take control of industry and finance and have more than likely enriched themselves. As the leading industry, notably profitable industries in the oil, gas and natural resource sectors, were transferred under private ownership to state control, the new CEOs and directors were chosen out of the ranks of the political elite and their allies. Nonetheless, the need to maintain that Russia is a true democracy is still important to the Russian President and as Lipman explains the roots of this can be traced back to Soviet times:

Putin would not respond to the beseeching and do what several leaders of former Soviet republics have done: simply eliminate the constitutional hurdles and stay on as president. Although the judicial branch has been repeatedly bent to the will of the executive during his tenure, Putin has been strangely particular about the letter of the law. In today's Russia, politics may be deinstitutionalized, so that officeholders and institutions are pawns in a game of Putin's design; federalism may be undermined; political freedoms and civil liberties compromised. But while ultimately destroying the spirit of democracy, the Kremlin avoids direct violations and resorts to sophisticated schemes.

This simultaneous concern for appearance and contempt for substance is a pattern deeply rooted in Soviet history. Government propaganda was one of the pillars of the totalitarian system, and the gap between words and substance grew wider until the two had nothing in common. The regime's words -- the rhetoric of its Communist officials, its press, its political slogans and schoolbooks -- were radically at odds with real life. The Russian people grew used to this doublethink and doublespeak, so it's little wonder that today there is nothing more sacred about the current constitution than there was about any of the three charters adopted during Soviet times.

As it stands, the election for the new Russian President is only months away, yet it is not clear who will be the chosen candidate who will be guaranteed victory and it is even less clear what power and authority the incoming President will yield. What is clear is that one man, Vladimir Putin, wants to retain power.