Paul
Goble
Staunton, September 26 – Like many
other political elites, the Putin regime is seeking to prolong its stay in
power forever; but unlike many others, it is undermining the possibility that
it will be able to do so by destroying the three factors which might have
allowed it to remain in power for some time, according to Lilya Shevtsova.
“The survival of present-day Russian
autocracy” depends on three factors, the
Russian political analyst says: the ability of the authorities to legitimate
themselves in the eyes of the people, the willingness of the elite to remain
loyal to the head of the system, and the opportunity to use the West for support
given its inability to modernize (svoboda.org/a/28745878.html).
In all three cases, the Putin
leadership has shot itself in the foot, a horrific mistake on its part because “the
attitude of [Russian society] depends on how this ‘triad’ works.”
First of all, the
Putin regime has rejected that which it had earlier insisted upon: its
legitimation via elections, Shevtsova says.
Earlier it had manipulated results but had used them to justify its
power. Now, first by pushing down participation in the local elections and then
calling for it to rise in the presidential race, the regime has shown how
hollow this process is.
“In both cases,” she writes, “the
Kremlin has destroyed the only means at its disposal to receive the broad
agreement of the people of its right to rule. There are no other instruments of
legitimation of the authorities in Russia.” There is now messianic idea, no
monarchy is possible, traditions have been trampled on, and technocracy is
impossible because of poor administration.
Not surprisingly, Shevtsova
continues, the regime is ever more actively turning to repression, an
indication that its core understands its lack of legitimation. In short, “we
have a power that has great difficulty in justifying its right to unlimited rule.”
Second, she says, the Putin regime
can no longer count on the unqualified loyalty of its own people. Loyalty isn’t
given for altruistic reasons but for wealth, power and security. The Kremlin
has called all three into question: It doesn’t have the funds it once had, it
won’t share power, and it no longer is guaranteeing security even to the top
elite.
Arrests of senior officials and
especially of Aleksey Ulyukayev have created “a new situation: it turns out that
even the highest echelon of the elite cannot feel secure.” Its members are
going to ask who’s next and the answer isn’t clear. What is clear is that Putin
will do what others in his position have done: appeal over the heads of the
elite and then purge it.
Once the Kremlin leader does that,
it is “unknown” who will take the fall; but already it is becoming an open
question “to what degree Putin himself controls his own ‘vertical.’” To be asking that question is in many ways an
answer in itself.
And third – and Shevtsova says this
is “the most important” – “the Russian system has always existed by using the resources
of its opponent, Western civilization.” That is especially true now when the
Russian elite has so many interests abroad, interests that are threatened by
sanctions brought on by Putin’s policies.
“Of course,” she continues, “it
would be naïve to think that the Kremlin regime is about to fall. There are
still not direct threats for the highest echelon of the rulers.” But “the
process of the demoralization of the powers that be is ‘in train’ and turning
it around is not possible.” And instead, in trying to keep, the regime is
undermining the foundations of its own existence.
According to Shevtsova, “the Kremlin
is able to maintain the impression of stability only thanks to the spinelessness
of the Russian political and intellectual classes, the confusion of society,
and the crisis of Western civilization.”
But the Kremlin has already managed to frighten those within its own
precincts even as it has mobilized the rest of the world against it.
It appears likely that the current
powers that be will “continue to dig themselves into a hole,” not because they
lack imagination but because “the interests of their survival contradict the
interests not only of society but of a anything but small part of the political
class.” And that leaves open two
questions:
When will that political class
become fed up? And will at that moment it turn to the creation of a legal state
or instead “again reproduce autocracy” with the only change being the person in
charge?
No comments:
Post a Comment