Saturday, May 26, 2012


The Power Vertical

A National Leader In Search Of A Post

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin
TEXT SIZE - +
If Dmitry Medvedev remains president for a second term, as I suspect he will, what will Vladimir Putin's role be?

In my last post, I blogged what I thought was an excellent analysis of the current political dynamic by Lauren Goodrich at Stratfor.com. Goodrich argued that Russia was moving toward a political system characterized by "managed pluralism underneath not a president or premier, but under a person more like the leader of the nation, not just the leader of the state." And that leader is, of course, Vladimir Putin.

The post also quoted Igor Yurgens, chairman of the Kremlin-connected Institute of Modern Development, as saying that he expects Medvedev to remain president, but that Putin would remain Russia's most powerful figure as "father of the nation."

Regular readers of this blog will not be surprised that I agree with Goodrich and Yurgens that this is where Russia is heading.

But if that is the case -- and this is all speculation and tea leave reading at this point -- will Putin occupy an official state post? And if so, which one?

In the past, I have blogged that it doesn't really matter. Putin has the loyalty of -- and de facto control over -- the siloviki, and that should be enough for him to maintain decisive influence and act as "national leader."

But is that really the case? In recent weeks, I have begun giving the assumption a re-think.

It is true that informal authority is very important in Russia and Putin has plenty of it. But anybody who has spent any time in Russia and observed its politics at close range also knows that it is an extremely bureaucratic country where one's position in the state apparatus is directly proportional to one's power and influence.

Would Putin be able to hang onto that influence over the long haul without an official post? Perhaps, but it would be risky for him.

So what will Putin do?

He, of course, could remain prime minister, keeping the tandem together in its current form. But press reports and pundit buzz suggests he doesn't really like that job. A National Leader, after all isn't someone who gets bogged down getting his hands -- and image -- dirty with the details of day-to-day governance. Moreover, I expect that after the elections a more "liberal" or "technocratic" figure will become premier. Right Cause leader Mikhail Prokhorov is one candidate, should his party do well in the December elections to the State Duma. Finance Minister Aleksei Kudrin is another name that has been floated.

In the past I have suggested that Putin could rule as General Secretary of United Russia, taking a page out of the old Soviet playbook. He could also become Speaker of a United Russia dominated State Duma. But given United Russia's declining popularity, and the Duma's weakness to influence policy in a meaningful way, these could prove flimsy foundations on which to base his long-term authority.

The role that I think would best preserve Putin's control over the system was established in a little-noticed presidential decree that Medvedev signed back in May.

And here, I'll turn the floor over to defense and security analyst Aleksandr Golts, writing in "Yezhednevny zhurnal" (you can read the English version here):

A quiet revolution has been taking place under the shadow of the Kremlin administration...President Dmitry Medvedev has signed a decree inconspicuously named 'Security Council Questions' that suddenly and unexpectedly grants unprecedented powers to the Security Council secretary....  

Medvedev’s decree endows the post with an importance almost rivaling the authority of the ruling tandem of him and Putin. Judge for yourself. From now on, the Security Council secretary will be responsible for 'the control of Russia’s armed forces, other forces, military formations and bodies,' according to Medvedev’s decree. That is to say the secretary will control not only the armed forces, but also law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Moreover, Medvedev’s decree stipulates that the Security Council secretary will 'participate in formulating and implementing foreign policy.' The secretary will also 'make proposals to the Security Council for coordinating the work of federal and regional executive bodies in national emergencies.' In effect, the country’s siloviki, who previously answered only to the president, now have their own 'tsar'...

In addition, the Security Council itself is now empowered to monitor budgetary spending for defense, national security and law enforcement — fully one-fourth of the national budget. What’s more, the Security Council is charged with controlling the government, in part by analyzing a consolidated annual report on its main activities and results. In short, the Security Council will now run the government.

 Sounds like a job description for the National Leader.

-- Brian Whitmore

NOTE TO READERS: The Power Vertical has just started a Facebook page that I hope will beocme a forum for regular readers of the blog and for Russia watchers in general.

Tags: Putin-Medvedev tandem , National Security Council Secretary

This forum has been closed.
Comment Sorting
Comments
     
by: Ivan from: Markov
July 21, 2011 23:25
I fully agree with your prediction: Medvedev - President, Kudrin or Prokhorov - PM (depending on the success of the Right Cause party) and Putin - Security Council secretary.

Let me add one comment from a historical perspective: This is something I and many others assumed a long time ago. Putin saw his role as a savior of Russia and I am sure he had and still has the best intentions for his country. He took over Russia when it was on the brink of disintegration; he consolidated the country over the following 8 years and then started to slowly remove himself from the positions of power. His main interest as Security Council secretary would be to make sure there is not another drunk (Yeltsin) or a revolutionary (Lenin) installed as a President and insure that his historic achievements are not wasted by ignorant or mean interests.

Considering that several foreign governments (or parts of their security apparatuses) worked to help facilitate this disintegration, Putin had to do the "dirty things" on the way, and I personally am more than understanding of it. It is no question in my view that at least some parts of US and UK security apparatuses tried to facilitate this disintegration and this is the main reason why Putin is so anti-US and anti-UK (notice that he closely cooperated, or at least attempted to cooperate, with many other western European countries).

What many in the US and UK do not understand, in my view, is that any country will go through similar phases throughout their history. UK went from the largest empire in the history about 100 years ago, to merely an island with a fairly small territory today. I am sure that most people in the British Empire thought at that time that such a shrinkage would be impossible - but it is not: it can happen to Russia, and sadly for the owners of this site, it can happen to the US, and even to the remnants of the British Empire if Scotland decides so in a few years from now.

It is not given at all that Russia will survive this period in one piece - that is for sure, but if Putin and his followers manage to turn his best intentions into a stable and prosperous country, I would think that Russia fared really well considering how big and complex challenges were.

We will see how Americans handle their next earth-shattering crisis when it comes - in 10, 100 or even 1000 years - but the trying time will surely come and we will see if you stay in one piece or end up in ruins like Rome did, the magnificent city I have visited just yesterday.
In Response

by: La Russophobe from: USA
July 23, 2011 12:13
IVAN, your "analysis" is incredibly lacking in historical perspective. The Bolsheviks also took power at a moment when Russia was on the brink of collapse, and like Putin they used the same brutal methods to achieve "stability." But Russia was not better off because of these methods, and in fact the Bolsheviks brought Russia to the same end result. Just a little bit delayed.

The fundamental flaw in your myopic "analysis" (which is really nothing but pro-Kremlin propaganda) is that you don't admit what everyone knows: Russia has never given democracy a fair chance to succeed. You ask the world to give Putin decades to allow his brutal authoritarian measures to succeed, but Russians did not even allow democracy ONE electoral transition between two rival political parties before they trashed the system.

You also totally ignore the abject failure which has been produced in Russia by centuries of experimentation with dictatorship. You ask the world to drop its guard on Putin and his malignant regime, and the only result is to help Putin consolidate his power.

Under Putin, Russia is alone. It has no significant allies. It is corrupt. Bribery is soaring out of control (http://www.businessinsider.com/russia-bribe-2011-7), and Putin himself is pocketing billions, building an outrageous network of personal palaces just like the Tsars used to do. Dissent has been wiped out, and with it the flow of information, so that now the Kremlin is blind, just as in Soviet times.

Your words and "thinking" are helping to destroy Russia.

by: Koos Nolst Trenite from: Europe
July 22, 2011 13:44
One can of course stay very naive - OR look reality in the face and thus actually help people, and a population, and global affairs at large:

Secretaries of the Russian Security Council who have been classified by their soul's nature, as being severely Criminal Minds, are:

* Vladimir Putin (1998-1999),
* Sergei Ivanov (1999—2001)
* Nikolai Patrushev (since 12 May 2008)

From various sources it is obvious for those not Blind, that these three are cognizant of the mental condition of each oter, and protect each other.

It has appeared, that Nikolai Patrushev is of an even more severely Criminal nature, than Vladimir Putin.

In any case, they very heavily protect and hide each other's Criminal Intent and acts, from publication in Russia and from general public understanding.

Koos Nolst Trenite - human rights philosopher and poet

by: La Russophobe from: USA
July 23, 2011 12:06
It's hard to imagine why Putin would move from a job that has a clear mandate of authority under the Constitution to one whose authority depends entirely upon a presidential decree. You don't explain how Putin would reconcile that reality with your concern on his behalf: "Would Putin be able to hang onto that influence over the long haul without an official post? Perhaps, but it would be risky for him." What's the difference between an unofficial post and one whose entire authority can be stripped away at the stroke of somebody else's pen?

About This Blog

The Power Vertical is a blog written especially for Russia wonks and obsessive Kremlin watchers by Brian Whitmore. It covers emerging and developing trends in Russian politics, shining a spotlight on the high-stakes power struggles, machinations, and clashing interests that shape Kremlin policy today. Check out The Power Vertical Facebook page or

Listen

​​