Paul Goble
Staunton,
November 23 – To ask as The New Times has, “what is Putin hoping for?” is to
ask the wrong question, Liliya Shevtsova says. A far more important question,
one that goes beyond what may be in Vladimir Putin’s head to the current state
of Russian society is “why does he survive despite what others view as all his
failures and mistakes?”
No
one knows exactly what is inside Putin’s head and therefore no one really knows
how adequate his picture there of the world is, the Russian commentator
continues, but one can approach those issues by considering how well what he
does corresponds to the political system he has put in place (newtimes.ru/articles/detail/173196/).
That issue in turn can be most
usefully examined by asking three other questions, Shevtsova says. First, “how real is Putin’s
all-powerful status and does he really continue to remain the master of the
Russian ‘vertical?” That question permits only two answers: either he is or he
isn’t – and depending on the answer, one’s assessment of Putin hinges.
If Putin is all-powerful, as many
assume, “how is one to explain the chaos in the process of taking Kremlin
decisions and the complete irresponsibility of the power apparatus?” If, on the
other hand, he has become “the hostage of ‘the vertical’ he created and has
lost control over it, then he is repeating the logic of many similar regimes at
the point of their aging and exhaustion.”
And if in Russia, the situation has
reached that point, Shevtsova says, “then one should carefully look for the
process of the decentralization and collapse of the state fabric,” rather than
be distracted by questions about the personality of the man who “personifies”
the system because it now has a kind of life of its own.
The second question is more
difficult: “In what degree can be in general judge about the intentions or
goals of any leader at the stage of post-modernism?” Many of the former rules don’t apply, and
things that appeared to be opposites before, like truth and lies and war and
peace, now blend into each other.
“Life,” she continues, “like
politics is becoming polyphonic and ambivalent,” an ideal milieu for a Kremlin “which
to perfection has mastered the art of the fake and the bluff: ‘this isn’t us,’
we aren’t there,’ and so on.” In such a world, Putin’s “rhetoric and actions do
not necessarily speak to his intentions.”
And the third question – “if the
entire problem is in Putin, then his departure must open the way to Russia’s escape
from autocracy. Is that not so?” – is the most fateful because it forces those
who ask it to address the problems that Russia presents rather than assuming
that they are all linked to the persona of the current ruler.
But, however one answers these three
questions, Shevtsova says, one must deal with the fact that Putin is still in
office and in power, “regardless of the picture of the world which exists in
his head.” Many analysts, including
Shevtsova, have pointed out his repeated mistakes and missteps that in the case
of almost any other leader would have led to disaster.
But in the case of Putin, that is
not what has happened. The people have
not gone into the streets, the elites have not split, and his regime and system
while making many mistakes continues to function more or less as he appears to
want it.
Of course, it is possible to speak about
Putin and his dreams,” Shevtsova says. This is our accustomed and favorite way
of spending time. But let’s reflect too only why Putin has been able to master
the logic of rotting and what method he has employed to allow for his survival”
far longer than many have expected.
Because of the actuarial tables, Putin
is “already on the way out, even if he for the present remains. His historic
time is ending. Let’s think aobut what he has left us and what we will do with
this inheritance because getting out of
the current era will be much more complicated than getting out that of
communism.” (emphasis supplied)
No comments:
Post a Comment