Paul
Goble
Staunton, October 23 – The hybrid
legitimation of his system Vladimir Putin has relied on, a combination of the
three Weberian ideal types – rational-legal, charismatic, and traditional – is in
trouble because of the degradation of the first and the resentments the second
and third are sparking among elites, according to Boris Zeitlin.
That situation which is close to a
crisis, the Moscow commentator says, is pushing the country in the direction of
totalitarianism in which even Putin be at risk and leading others to conclude
that the only way to avoid disaster is to seek “the full restoration” of
rational-legal legitimacy residing in the population as a whole (rufabula.com/author/boris-zeitlin/1695).
In order to understand what has
happened to this hybrid system of legitimation, Zeitlin suggests, one should
begin with “the so-called Russian parliament” which has become “a pace for
discussing only one important question – who and to what extent will gain
access to the feeding trough” of money controlled by the new nomenklatura.
The Moscow analyst says that “in
Weberian terms, this stratum may be called a patrimonial administration,” with the
caveat that it follows not so much its own interests as the interests of the “’master’”
of the state. Divvying up the spoils occurs not on the basis of clear rules,
however, and thus “does not correspond to the principle of rational exchange.”
“Besides this, the faith [of this
stratum] in Putin as an effective manager and arbiter of these agreements is situational”
rather than absolute and that is driving the system in a regressive fashion
toward the model of power “guaranteed not by procedures or charisma or even
tradition but more to archaic categories” like “’the right of the strongest.’”
But Zeitlin argues that “the right
of the deputies” who represent “not the people but the nomenklatura” has the
effect of “introducing hybridization” because it undermines the very principles
of rational-legal legitimacy and forces participants to look for other factors
to justify and legitimate the system.
One of the demands of these elites
is observing the Constitution and its most important provision for them – “the
primacy of international law since they keep all their savings abroad. Recently
we see a violation of this principle not only in the application of laws but
even in the process of drafting and adopting legislation.”
As a result of that, Zeitlin
continues, there has arisen “a crisis of rationality in the bureaucracy and the
entire nomenklatura,” a degradation of the situation “both at the level of
particular individuals and of cadres policy as a whole.” And that in turn has
mean that the two groups “have lost the habit of both effective and stable
administration … in their own interests but not those of the people.”
“Most likely,” he continues, “they
have lost as well the habits of rational calculation as a whole both at the
level of worldview and in the construction of personal life strategies.” And that has meant in turn that “they have
ceased to be a rational political subject and have entrusted their fate to a
charismatic leader.”
They expect two things from him: at
least some wealth from his table and the ability to “’defense the sovereignty of
the country in the international arena.’” There is less and less of the former, and the second
is becoming problematic because the interests of the nomenklatura which puts
its wealth abroad and their faith in the ruler contradict one another.
“Sanctions,” Zeitlin says, “are the
last attempt to return them to rationality, for it is obvious that having portion
of self-legitimation, they will lose power as well, and this means they will be
forced to subordinate themselves to a totalitarian Movement headed by a
charismatic leader.”
That drive is not being directed by
the leader “who himself is more a medium than a manager.” Instead, he is being
led by “the principle of irrational exchange, that is, sacrificing himself to
the divinity of a political religion.” And that means that if things proceed
very war, “no one, including the leader himself, will be able to feel secure.”
“The only alternative to such
de-hybridization,” the commentator concludes, “is its opposite: the complete
restoration of rational-legal legitimacy because only the return to the people of
the right to make decisions via parliamentary discussion can eliminate the
resentment which is destroying its capacity for rational thought.”
No comments:
Post a Comment