News > October 18, 2004

Demise of Democracy

By Fred Weir

The people of Beslan read lists of those killed in the hostage crisis.

Russia’s democratic window, never pried open very wide following the Soviet Union’s demise, is slamming shut.

Citing a summer wave of terrorist attacks that killed 430 people, President Vladimir Putin last month ordered sweeping changes to the country’s political system that will effectively abolish regional gubernatorial elections, sharply reduce the space for independent politics and accelerate the pro-Kremlin United Russia Party’s merger with the state bureaucracy to create a single party-state behemoth reminiscent of the former Communist Party of the Soviet Union. “After these changes I am in a state of shock,” says Yevgeny Yasin, a former Russian Economics Minister, now head of research at the Higher School of Economics in Moscow. “This is directed against the democratization of the country and can only lead to an authoritarian regime.”

Boris Yeltsin destroyed Russia’s first freely elected parliament in a violent confrontation 11 years ago and used his victory to write a new constitution that granted the lion’s share of power to the Kremlin while reducing the legislature to little more than ornamental status. Since coming to power about 5 years ago, Putin has further shrunk the role of elected representatives, reimposed state control over much of the media, cracked down on politically active nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and beefed-up security services. Each turn of the screw has been rationalized by increasingly severe terrorist attacks, from a wave of still-unexplained apartment bombings in 1999, to the seizure of 800 hostages in a Moscow theater two years ago, to the horrific siege of a North Caucasus school last month that killed 330 people, mostly children (see “The Bloodiest Chapter,” October 11).

A raft of Kremlin-authored bills are currently before the State Duma, where United Russia’s two-thirds majority is expected to deliver them with few amendments into law before year’s end. The most controversial ones will claw back the right of Russia’s 89 regions to directly elect their governors—won after considerable struggle a decade ago. Instead, the Kremlin will propose its own candidate to be “endorsed” by each local legislature.

If regional lawmakers should reject the president’s nominee, the draft law empowers the Kremlin to dissolve the uncooperative legislature and appoint an “interim governor” entitled to serve for five years. Putin argues the measures are needed to restore central authority and curb abuses by governors, some of whom have been in thrall to local oligarchs or crime bosses. But critics see the move as a cynical power grab.

“Putin wants to use this opportunity to destroy the last vestiges of Yeltsin-era democracy,” says Alexander Golts, a national security expert with the weekly Yezhenedelny Zhurnal. “Instead of attacking terrorists, he’s attacking our electoral system.”

Another draft law would truncate Russia’s mixed electoral process, under which half of the State Duma’s 450 seats were chosen proportionally through voting for centrally compiled party lists, and the other half through first-past-the-post local constituency races. Under the new system all deputies will be elected from party lists, a change that will crush regional independents and strengthen the hand of big Moscow-based parties, especially the state-backed United Russia.

“Putin [says he] wants to create an American-style two party system, which would increase stability in a huge and volatile country like Russia,” says Sergei Strokan, a political expert who writes for the liberal daily Kommersant. “But the problem is that Russia lacks any developed, independent political parties. The state already dominates the political field, and therefore these measures could just end up enhancing the bureaucracy.”

Another, less-noticed bill would lift the Yeltsin-era ban on senior civil servants joining a political party. That can only benefit the Kremlin’s creature, United Russia, which has burgeoned to 700,000 members in the past year—about twice the size of its nearest conceivable rival, Russia’s post-Soviet Communist Party. Nearly half of all regional governors, eager to curry favor with the Kremlin, have joined United Russia, most in the past month.

“As soon as bureaucrats see that a tightly centralized power system is returning into force in Russia, there is no doubt they will rush to join the party of power,” says Sergei Kolmakov, vice president of the independent Foundation for the Development of Parliamentarism in Moscow. “When the bureaucratic chain-of-command becomes consolidated into a single party, that party will dominate the state and the nation. People from all sections of the elite will also want to join, to get closer to the sources of power.”

The public culture of fear and suspicion that marked the last century’s Stalinist experiment in central state-building also is creeping back. “In our besieged country there has emerged a fifth column of left and right radicals,” said Vladislav Surkov, deputy head of the Kremlin administration, in a recent interview with the daily Komsomolskaya Pravda, in which he hammered at “enemies” inside and outside the country. “False liberals and real fascists have more and more in common, the same foreign sponsors, the same hatred toward Putin’s Russia, as they say, but in fact toward Russia as such.”

• subscribe to print magazine

  First Name Last Name Home Address City State Zip Code Email

  2-year, 24-issues, $44.95 1-year, 12-issue, $24.95

• stay in touch with our email newsletter

  Subscribe to our regular weekly e-mail newsletter. It's packed with updates on recent and upcoming stories, events, campaigns and things every progressive should be informed about.

   

• email this article to a friend

  Your Name Your Email Recipient Email

  Personal message Thought you might be interested in this article from In These Times.

   

  Please help us prevent spam by verifying the word you see in the image above

  Send to multiple recipients. Just separate each email address with a comma.

• Reader Comments

  Somewhere, Dubya, Ass-croft & Co. are smiling…

  Posted by g-love on Oct 18, 2004 at 11:48 AM

  A recent report by the BBC on Russia supports this claim 100%. And, ironically, Putin threw his lot behind Bush and Co., which is hardly astonishing, since he stands to gain by the neocon unilateralism and isolationism. Again, however, the media net is cast on only a single country. The problem is far greater: many of the more conservative stamp are deeply suspicious of democracy as we think of it, as it could mean losing control over events and especially people. Also, they lack the trust that people can actually think and decide for themselves. In part they may well be right, and that is one of the reasons we, in America, have the electoral college. Had several electors in the 2000 election been honest and upright, they would have simply cast doubt upon those Florida results, which the media all too often suggest were problematical because of a chad problem: False: Even before Gore cravenly conceded, there was evidence of ballot tampering by the Bush machine in Florida. That is one purpose of the electoral college, a kind of built in safety system.

  Democracy is a very delicate creature indeed and must be cared for at all times. In fact, it requires that we who live under such systems be continuously alert not so much from terrorists (that has a lot to do with our foreign policy in the past and present), but from the internal woodworm. Power is an attractive thing, and in a demopcratic system, just about anyone can attain it given the right lobbies. In the USA, it has become a system full of fascinating contradictions and suspicions. Republican voters are suspicious of “Big Government” infringing on their economic lives while Republicans lawmakers are the first to become involved in our private lives, because they believe we, as individuals, are incapable of deciding for ourselves what is right and wrong (W is extreme here, since he follows some parochial moral code dictated by Billy Graham and his trainée of conservative christians: there is no debate with him, he is convinced, as Kerry rightly said, even if he is wrong). Women of course are to be most suspected, and again this goes deep into the roots of organized Christianity, no space here to debate that)… The only presidents in the past decades who have infringed on people’s personal lives have been, I suspect, Republicans. Democrats, however are more likely to leave people alone in their personal lives, but will demand regulation in the corporate world. The man who sold it best was Roosevelt, and many Americans, even conservative yahoo Christians in the Bible belt don’t realize that they have a lot to thank FDR for. But maybe the people of Tennessee don’t want electricity and TVs and brightly lit malls. Perhaps prayer works best with hookworms by the kerosine lamp. But even the Dems have moved right in the past years. Silly them. Still, they are less of a threat to democracy than the neocons, who should be washed out of washington. I am afraid they won’t be.

  Posted by Marton on Oct 19, 2004 at 12:12 AM

  it frightens me that this man supports bush--and more than that i’m very much concerned that there will even more of the ballot tampering Marton mentions in the above post. it sounds odd, perhaps, but i’m hoping that (Dem.) lawyers are preparing for the election as much as the Repub. laywers undoubtedly are!

  please vote for kerry!

  virgin mobile sponsored a contest encouraging young people to create PSAs on why it is important to vote in November. please go to http://www.psaupload.com and vote today (just vote, nothing else involved) for one of the five finalists.

  Posted by sms81 on Oct 19, 2004 at 10:30 AM

  As Stalinism was the birthchild of Western interrerence so to would be moves back, to counter a state of chaotic anarchy fuelled by further interventions to undermine post Stalin progress. Where in the world are direct interventions by the self appointed global policemen of the West not a negative influence?
  The post war support of undeveloped lands that achieved so much has been reversed by the righteous parties antipathy to cooperative Socialism. Sea’s of lunacy are the natural element of such, with the works of balanced reason some kind of anathema to them.

  Posted by Niall on May 24, 2008 at 2:44 AM

• register a new account »Posting Security

  To participate in our forums, please register for a free account.

  Username Password

    Remember me
  

  Retreive lost password »

Member Login

Also by Fred Weir

• Putin Is Gone! Long Rule Putin!
  With new president, Russians continue to forgo political voice for economic security
• From Autocracy With Love
  
• Ethnic Cleansing in Russia
  Putin stokes the flames of xenophobia by targeting non-Slavs in Georgia.
• No Reason to Exist
  
• ‘Managed’ No More
  Russians take to the streets to protest the privatization of their social welfare system.
• Deep Divide
  Ukraine's contested election reflects Russia's push to reunify