Paul
Goble
Staunton, January 5 – Moscow political
analyst Ekaterina Schulmann has attracted a great deal of attention for her
application of the concept of “hybrid state” to Russia and her argument that as
such a state it will ultimately transform itself as long as its opponents stay
within the law.
But Irina Pavlova, a Russian
historian resident in the US, disagrees, arguing that Schulmann is using
Western terms that don’t apply to Russia, that her optimism about the future is
misplaced, and that her argument not to challenge the Putin regime more
directly serves the interests of that regime in not changing anything.
Schulmann, an instructor at the
Russian Academy of Economics and State Service, says that Russia is a hybrid
regime, that is, it is “externally democratic but internally not,” and that it
will change in a positive direction “in the first instance” out of its desire
for its own survival (rosbalt.ru/russi
a/2017/01/02/1579820.html).
She takes the term
from Western political scientists and says tha today “a scholarly consensus”
exists that “the entry ticket to the magic club of hybrid countries is a
multi-party system and regular elections. However authoritarian its regime, if
there are at least two parties and elections … the country is not viewed as a
classic autocracy, dictatorship or tyranny.”
Russia falls into this category, and
thus is “absolutely” different in principle from the regime of Joseph Stalin:
its economy is different, the structure of society is different, and the cadres
mechanism that the authorities have developed and make use of is “entirely
different” as well, the Moscow scholar says.
She argues that those Russian
analysts who see Putin moving toward one-man rule are “absolutely incorrect.”
His system is based on shifting cadres to find the right ones rather than
creating one in which they live in fear of him and of being dismissed. And she suggests that “statistically” most
hybrid regimes last 15 years – and then they begin to reform themselves and
only rarely toward one-man rule.
The 15th anniversary of Russia’s
hybrid system occurred in 2014, Schulmann says.
If Russia had simply been an authoritarian state, it would not have
changed; but it had and has the benefit of being a “hybrid” one and so launched
a series of experiments to see how best it could continue.
Hybrid regimes “are more flexible
and adaptive,” she says, “than are autocracies.” And Putin’s moves since that
time have not been a drive to restore a Stalinist system but rather an effort
driven exclusively by a desire to maintain him and his regime in power.
According to her, his lack of ideology is a sign of this reality.
The lack of an ideology is “an
objective necessity,” Schulmann argues, because “the goal of a hybrid regime is
not the conquest of the world but only its own survival.” It doesn’t want to be
restricted in its actions by any ideology. Hence Putin’s use and then discard
of various ideas and programs.
Few hybrid states become tyrannies,
she says; adding that “personally, she can identify only one at present: the
Belarusian regime of Alyaksandr Lukashenka.
As for Moscow’s repressive policies,
there is no need for them to be massive to be effective, the Moscow scholar
says. “In order to frighten society, one show trial is sufficient, as long as
all television channels show it and all media and social networks provide
coverage and discussion of it. And there is no need to restrict people from
leaving the country.
Consequently, Schulmann argues, “we
have all the preconditions for democratic development,” but because of the older
demographic structure of Russia’s population, there is little appetite for
radical changes in any direction. But there is support for moving things in the
right direction and the regime recognizes this.
“Russia will thus evolve both under
the influence of societal demand and under the pressure of circumstances,” she
says. To promote that, she argues, Russians should stay within the framework of
the law, however difficult that sometimes is, and to work with GONGOs because “joint
activity” is useful in putting pressure on the state.
Many Russians and others have been
attracted by this model and its optimistic forecast for the future, but one who
isn’t is historian Pavlova who sharply criticizes both the model and the
forecast and suggests that a deeper familiarity with Russian realities leads to
a very different conclusion (ivpavlova.blogspot.com/2017/01/blog-post_78.html#more).
The terms
Schulmann uses, Pavlova points out, were developed in and for Western culture.
It is not suitable for analyzing Russian reality now “because the course of Russian
history after 1917 so radically departed from European/Western history that for
its description is needed its own special terminology.”
“In Russian culture everything is
different than it is in Western culture: the Russian understanding of ‘the
powers’ is not the Western state, ‘the multi-party system’ in Russia is not
equivalent to that in the West, ‘elections’ in Russia are not Western
elections, and the very term ‘law’ has a different meaning than law in the West.”
The reasons such Western terminology
has nonetheless found favor among many in Russia are two-fold, Pavlova
continues. It provides a basis for
optimism, something a focus on the Russian tradition does not; and it allows
Russian scholars to share their work without Western realizing how
inappropriately their Russian counterparts are using their terms.
Moreover, she concludes, the powers
in Russia are delighted with such an approach: It promotes passivity by
suggesting that everything is going to work out well and that the population
should just wait for that to happen rather than taking any steps on its own to
change the situation.
No comments:
Post a Comment