Paul
Goble
Staunton, June 5 – Having seen his
original social compact with the Russian population become shaky – deference to
his unrestricted power in exchange for a guarantee of rising incomes – Vladimir
Putin has assembled a new majority, according to Igor Bunin, head of the Moscow
Center for Political Technologies.
The wave of protests that hit
Russian cities in 2011-2012, Bunin says, showed that Putin’s original compact
was insufficient to guarantee his position and consequently the Kremlin leader
embarked on a three-stage plan to put a new majority in place on which he can
rely. That has now happened (politcom.ru/17679.html).
The first step in this process, the
Moscow analyst suggests, took place during the presidential campaign when “the
authorities mobilized their supporters under the slogans of order,” positioning
Putin and themselves as an alternative to continuing unruly demonstrations in
the streets.
The second stage involved the promotion
of “a conservative wave” that was based on “fears about a new time of troubles”
among “the traditionalist segment of society,” separated “the moderate
modernists from the opposition,” and had the effect of marginalizing the
opposition groups of all kinds.
Exploiting the fears of many Russian
parents that their children were being harmed by exposure to “mainstream
western trends,” the Putin regime was able to prevent “the demobilization of
the Putin majority” achieved during the elections and redirect it toward a
broader range of moral issues.
This conservative wave, Bunin
continues, “created not only a positive (defense of traditional values) but also
negative agenda, connected with the formation of an image of the enemy” in the
form of the West and “Russian ‘westerners.’”
And the third stage, which is taking
place now ‘is directly connected with the annexation of Crimea and the conflict
with Ukraine.” Those actions have added “new
groups to the Putin majority,” the Moscow analyst says. “Among them are
modernists who are skeptical about the basic components of the conservative
wave, but who want to be ‘with the people.’”
Another addition consists of the
supporters of Soviet values who believe that Putin’s actions point to the
rebirth of the USSR. Left wing groups
who had until recently been “clients of human rights organizations now accuse
them of ‘national betrayal’” and back a war for the Union.
In the case of these groups, “Soviet
identity has turned out to be stronger than the traditional opposition dislike
of the authorities.” That dislike continues “only in part of the elite and
intelligentsia circles which traditionally have many resources,” but who now
have watched as “their influence on public opinion has been minimalized.”
All this has increased “the
collective consensus” of Russian society because it has played on the sense
many have about what they see as “the revision of the geopolitical results of
the Great Fatherland War, the key event in all of Russian history from the point
of view of the majority of Russians.”
The future stability of this new
Putin majority depends on four things, Bunin says. First, it depends on the social-economic
situation. As long as that remains relatively stable and the costs of Crimea
and Western sanctions are not too high, this majority is likely to hold
together.
Second, it depends on how well the
regime can balance the demands of its various parts. Thus, “the soviet patriots call for a further
advance in the East of Ukraine and will be disappointed if Russia stops and
doesn’t create at a minimum a new Transdniestria.” But the modernists will be
upset if that happens and new sanctions are imposed.
Third, it depends on the Kremlin’s
ability to continue to use the media as a mobilizing tool as effectively as it
has over the last several months. In the
nature of things, the impact of such campaigns wear off with time, and that may
spark new questions about what Putin and his regime are doing.
And fourth – and this is “a deeper
global problem,” Bunin suggests – “the Putin majority is consolidating and
mobilizing on the basis of defensive and conservative values directed at the protection
of it on identity, defense against foreign and domestic threats from Bandera to
Concita.”
This
is the first time in a century that Russia has found itself in that position,
the Moscow analyst says. Earlier, regardless of the leadership or ideology,
Russia thought itself of being a country moving “along the path of progress” only
to see that blocked by war or revolution or decay.
Now
under Putin, however, “a bet is being made on an approach that is different in
principle, on the combination of power with conservative and defense values which
make use of phobias and defensive reflexes.” Such an approach may be “tactically
successful,” but in today’s more global context, one has to ask whether it can
succeed strategically for very long.
No comments:
Post a Comment