Paul
Goble
Staunton, March 10 – Vladimir Putin
deserves and takes credit for “’pulling’” Russia out the 1990s, Vladislav Inozemtsev
says, but his failure to institutionalize the mechanisms he used means that the
stabilization he achieved during the first decade of this century could not
last and that the lack of institutionalization opens the way to the danger of
revolution.
Unlike most analysts who link Putin’s
success to the rise in oil prices and his problems to their fall, Inozemtsev
says that “Putin’s success was based on two important things:” First, the
preservation of the privileges, property and “in part” influence of a
significant number of oligarchs and politicians who had risen to power under
Yeltsin (snob.ru/selected/entry/89157).
And second, the economist argues, it depended on his “introduction into the game
of a mass of new figures which received their portions of property and
influence but acquired them not in the course of a voluntarist redistribution …
but … quickly and ‘peaceably.’”
But neither of these “processes”
presupposed, he points out, “any formal institutions,” the first because the
formation of these things would threaten their position and the second because “any
transparent and clearly-defined order” would not permit them to satisfy their
appetites for more in the future.
And those two things meant that “the
Putin stability was and remains to this day ‘the stability of temporary people,’”
all of whom “understand that order is not eternal” and act accordingly. Indeed,
their behavior, including salting away money abroad, is entirely based on the assumption
that what is will not last forever.
Putin’s system as set up a decade
ago “turned out to be unique in that it did not require institutions” but could
rely instead on “’understandings.’” There were no real constraints except for “banal
profits” that one or another member of it could or hoped to extract, Inozemtsev
continues.
In the first two decades after 1991,
“few really believed that the system would last for decades.” Instead,” he
says, “all clearly understood that the figure of Putin himself was considered
by the majority of players around him as no more than temporary.”
“But the temporary became the
continuing,” and precisely that poses “one of the most terrible challenges to
the system.” While it might appear to
benefit the incumbents, it means that some are seeking to institutionalize a
system which is “based on the firm denial of institutionalization.”
This process began in an almost
unnoticed fashion several years ago, Inozemtsev says, “but it has become now
ever more clear.” And those who are most interested in it include many who were
in no way connected “with those who began to build it” and who thus have quite
different agendas.
Indeed, he suggests, the true
watershed in recent Russian history was not what happened in the wake of the
collapse of the USSR because the same players were involved on both sides but
rather now when the new players are people who “take what is transitional for
eternal, a game for reality, and form for content.”
“I would even say,” Inozemtsev says,
“that the current processes recall not the dividing line between the 1980s and the
1990s in the Soviet Union but the events which preceded 1917 in Russia and 1933
in Germany.” Given the rise of new people and the absence of institutions, “the
current power could end just as dramatically as Kerensky’s or as quietly and
step by step as Hindenburg’s.” But such “nuances” won’t be the most important
thing.
The economist adds that he would be “glad
to be mistaken” but it appears to him that “the differences between G.
Yavlinsky and S. Shoygu, V. Ryzhkov and I. Sechin now are much less significant
… that between all of them and those crowds which sometimes march peacefully in
Moscow in the Anti-Maidan” but sometimes act violently in Eastern Ukraine.
“Before our eyes,” he continues, “a
generation of people with no limits is rising up, a group who with unbelievable
ease could become the masters of the new Russia in the second half of this
decade.” Their prospects are much better than their marginal predecessors in
the “wild” 1990s, and the consequences of their potential success are truly
horrific.
No comments:
Post a Comment