Paul
Goble
Staunton, December 20 – The only unexpected
thing to come out of Vladimir Putin’s press conference this week was his
reference to the possibility of changing the Constitution to eliminate its
restriction on anyone serving more than two presidential terms “in a row,”
Yekaterinburg commentator Aleksey Shaburov says.
That has sparked debate over what
Putin’s proposal represents with some saying it proves he will use this device
to remain in power while others argue that it is part and parcel of his plan to
leave the scene to others, the Politsovet editor says (politsovet.ru/65035-slovo-pretknoveniya-zachem-putin-predlozhil-ubrat-iz-konstitucii-slovo-podryad.html).
But in large measure, he continues,
this debate ignores the fact that “in the present-day Russian situation, it isn’t
the Constitution which defines the framework of political reality but rather
the reverse. [And] therefore it is not so important how Putin’s decision about
the preservation of power (if it has been decided) will be framed.”
“Much more important,” Shaburov
says, “is that such a decision will require much greater efforts than simply
changing the Constitution, and these efforts may not please many people.” Not
only that, he suggests; but they may be greater than the resources of the system
to override such displeasure.
Despite the fact that “the question of
Putin’s plans for 2024 literally hung in the air” of the press conference, the
Kremlin leader did not say anything about the tradition but he did talk,
completely unbidden, about changing the Constitution to eliminate the
restriction on anyone serving more than two terms as president in a row.
The fact that he made that comment even
though he wasn’t asked, Shaburov argues, shows that “Putin really is thinking
about this theme.” And not surprisingly, many analysts and commentators have
rushed to interpret just what Putin means. There are three basic
interpretations.
The first view is that “Putin in fact did
not say anything new and that one need not take seriously his words or expect
changes in the Constitution.” Those holding this position note that he said
much the same thing in 2012 and no changes occurred. But today political conditions are different
and that vitiates much of this argument.
The second interpretation of Putin’s words
is that he has “decided to leave the post of president in 2024” either by
handing things off to Dmitry Medvedev for a time or by leaving the position for
good. Few believe the latter, but many do not recognize how difficult
organizing the former would be.
Medvedev is extremely unpopular and getting
him installed as president while not impossible would entail real risks. “And even if this happened, Medvedev all sick
years would be ‘a lame duck,’” something that would weaken Putin as well and require
enormous efforts by him to compensate.
And finally, the third view is that Putin’s
proposed change in the Constitution will allow him to be re-elected again and again
given that the tame Constitutional Court will undoubtedly bless any request
from him that his earlier terms not be counted against him if the basic law is
modified.
The problem with this view, Shaburov
argues, is that it is likely to generate public anger, the size of which is
difficult to predict. While those in
power think the people will swallow anything the Kremlin does, they are likely
wrong at least in this case.
Thus, with his words, Putin didn’t
introduce clarity into the 2024 problem but further confused and complicated it
because changing the Constitution alone won’t be enough to solve that problem.
Much political capital will have to be expended, and how much is currently
available remains an open question.
No comments:
Post a Comment