Is Putin 'overstaying' in power? - Instablogs
Is Putin 'overstaying' in power?
Eugene Ivanov , Boston: Jun 10 2008
Made Popular Jun 11 2008
Russia :

Is Putin 'overstaying' in power?

Critics of Russia’s Prime Minister, Vladimir Putin, can on occasion impress us with a vitriolic tirade – usually articulated in a rude language – but not with the common sense or the knowledge of basic facts. Take, for example, a self-proclaimed Russia “expert”, Anders Aslund. For years, Dr. Aslund has preached imminent collapse of the “criminal Putin regime” before the end of Putin’s second presidency. But September last year, Aslund suddenly changed the tune and forecasted that Putin will remain in the office indefinitely by “possibly following declaration of a national military emergency.” Go figure.

The fact that 55-year-old, healthy, fit and energetic Putin – who, by the way, is full 5 years away from the official retirement age –didn’t go fishing after completing his 2 terms as president, seems to be especially upsetting to his critics. They interpret this as yet another evidence of Putin’s “authoritarian” instinct and, more generally, as a proof that Putin’s Russia has become an “autocracy.”

The logic of the last claim deserves consideration. It implies that leaders of “authoritarian regimes” stay in power indefinitely, whereas heads of “true” democracies behave like comets in the sky: a brisk moment and they are gone, so that the voters cannot even remember their faces.

The problem with this logic is that it contradicts reality. For example, what do these 10 countries – Belgium, Denmark, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Monaco, Norway, Spain, Sweden, The Netherland, and the United Kingdom – have in common? Well, they all are prosperous Western Europe democracies. True, but they are also monarchies, meaning that the heads of states – Kings, Queens, Grand Dukes, or Princes – acquire and retain power not by elections, but by hereditary succession.

Come on, some would argue, the Monarchs in these countries have no real power. True enough, yet in Belgium, Denmark, and the Netherland, the Monarch appoints prime minister following a parliamentary election.

Gotcha, some readers would say. Here is the key: the prime ministers. Those guys are elected and they rotate frequently. Do they really? Former British Primer Minister, Tony Blair, has stayed “in power” for more than 10 years (compared to Putin’s 8 years and 1+ month) and then turned the reign to a hand-picked successor, Gordon Brown. In contrast to Putin’s successor, Dmitry Medvedev, who has been elected in a direct popular vote, Mr. Brown hasn’t been elected by anyone, except for a bunch of Labor Party apparatchiks.

Is Putin 'overstaying' in power?

Oh, those are monarchies. What about European “republics”? Here comes Jacques Chirac who has been President of France for 12 years, not counting 2 two-year stints as Prime Minister and 18 years as Mayor of Paris. And how about Urho Kekkonen who served twice as Prime Minister of Finland (for about 6 years total) before becoming the country’s President for the next 26(!) years. Aren’t France and Finland “perfect” democracies?

For some, perhaps, not perfect enough. They would frown upon aging “Old Europe” and argue that the “real” democracy is possible only “on this side of the Pond.”

OK, let’s check facts again. As pointed out by Hendrik Hertzberg, forty percent of Americans have never lived when there wasn’t a Bush or a Clinton in the White House. If Hillary Clinton had been elected and reelected – thanks God, she won’t — the nation could have gone 28 years in a row with the same two families governing the country (36 with elder Bush’s vice-presidency). And make no mistake: this isn’t about persona in the Oval Office; this is about powerful special interests running the country from behind, be it oil companies or teachers’ unions.

And then, there is, of course, Chelsea Clinton.

Is Putin 'overstaying' in power?

In all fairness to the Bushes and the Clintons, they come on the heels of Adams’s, Harrisons, and Roosevelts. And then there were/are Tafts, Kennedys, Lodges, Bays, Cuomos, Daleys, Dodds, and Romneys who have made it to the White House only once or haven’t made it at all (for now).

And then, there are five U.S. Senators whose dads were Senators before them. And then, there is Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, whose dad was a congressman. (Of the 244 women who have served in the House and the Senate, 46 succeeded their husbands and 12 their fathers.)

One wouldn’t call it monarchy, of course; however, elements of “hereditary succession” are hard to miss.

Coming back to Putin and his critics. For as long as Putin has desire to serve his country and enjoys solid public support, he should stay in politics. Those who jealously count every year of his political career would better look closer to home.

Add Images and Videos
Close X
Recommended Tags or Keywords
Search by Tags or Keywords
Selected Media ( You can Upload only Six media )
Sorry no picture found for this combination of tags. Try to search minimum number of tags at once
1 Stars
Marat
Moscow, Russia
well, how long one lives in the power is certainly not the issue, but how popular s/he is at the end of their carriers. Putin is among the a few, unlike Bush, leaders of the world who are famous at the end of their carrier. Putin has not grabbed power with force, but his massive popularity that has led him to reign as PM. people want him to be in the power. this is the reward for his services for the past eight years that are marked with the growth and development and Russians reckon it. when Russians have no problem then others have no credibility to raise a question.
1 Stars
Moss
Seattle, United States
Marat

Here we are talking about democracy. And Russian is no way a democracy but an autocracy. Where likes of Putin rule, who are hell bothered about ppl and force their will on them. Putin is in the power not because he is popular but he had not allowed anyone to fight against his hand picked candidate, Medvedev, in the presidential election. He is in the power only because of the quid pro quo that he has settled with Medvedev. Reality is not what it seems, but too bitter and less known.
2 Stars
Harshpaul
shimla, India
From the article:

Critics of Russia’s Prime Minister, Vladimir Putin, can on occasion impress us with a vitriolic tirade – usually articulated in a rude language – but not with the common sense or the knowledge of basic facts.


Thanks for illustrating what Eugene said.
(Global Perspectives)
1 Stars
Mike
Calgary, Canada
US is questioning it for noting. This is a propaganda politics. Why don’t they read the post carefully as the writer has added some facts with it. Well, consider this. Over here in the U.S. we have had Bush and Bush and so may examples included here. I think I see a trend developing here.
1 Stars
Yash
Gwalior, India
Putin is a strong man with strong determinations. He is back again and will undoubtedly complete his mission for Russia. He is set to steer the wagon for President elect Medvedev. Once he controls the power inside, then he comes back to control it from outside. Essentially, Russian Presidency has not changed from the old Soviet era, one can be involved in senior position for a long time. But it is Russia’s internal issue and they are not answerable for anything Russians want.
1 Stars
Stuart
Birmingham, United Kingdom
This is what I have been predicting something along these lines for some time. However, equation is exactly what I have presumed: there will be a ceremonial Head of State with Putin as Head of Government in the Kremlin in Moscow. This not only fits in with Putin's overall strategy to restore the Russia that ruled over the Russian Empire and the USSR but allows the Tsars back in as a historic unifying force. It is not only Belarus that Putin wants to merge with but also the Ukraine and other former Russian Empire/USSR countries. The Romanov family ruled over these nations for centuries and is part of a common heritage; a common heritage that will come in useful in putting the old territory of Mother Russia back together.
1 Stars
Michael
San Francisco, United States
No even being an American, I don’t find Putin as power hungry. no matter what others say but this man has done a lot to the Russians. if he would have been too much in this power thing, he would have made constitutional changes to take the third term, and perhaps Russians would have approved that without hiccups. but he didn't do that rather took a subsidiary role as a prime minister. A person who prefers country to his self interests is a great man. No doubts!!!
1 Stars
Michael Kerjman
The Earth, Australia
A question sounds strangely to me: any politician is as long in power as is being backed by forces supporting if even just only an image of person rather than a ruler acted in reality.

Assuring a real democracy to progress by rotating the most capable citizens in the White House by limiting any particular presidential rule with two terms in the office is what an American founding fathers’ prophetical intelligence demonstrated once again surely.

Speaking of an age, although sixty four is a limit for a government servants in Australia for instance, a long-promising to step down former PM J. Howard was simply shown a door by his own electorate not voting him into Parliament if even a national-liberal block leaded by him had won elections, which had not happened anyway in last November.
1 Stars
Dear Fellow Contributors,

Thank you very much for your thoughful comments. Let me briefly answer some of them before I disappear on a business trip.

Marat, I agree with you 100%. People often forget that democracy means ”power of people” and not just fancy and costly primaries/elections. I believe that Kremlin is much more accountable to the Russian people that it usually gets credit for.

Moss, you wrote: ”[Putin] had not allowed anyone to fight against his hand picked candidate...” FYI, there were 3 more presidential candidates in addition to Medvedev, making it 4 total — twice as many as participate in most of the presidential elections in the US.

Mike, I agree with you that a ”trend” is emerging. I think we need a constitutional amendment prohibiting spouses running for the same office.

Gwalior, the Russian presidency did changed from the Soviet Union era. Back then, the leader of state was the General Secretary of the Communist Party, and president was a place for an honorable retirement. Things changed when Yeltsin made presidency the most powerful position. But I agree with you completely that this is up to Russians to decide.

Stuart, I applaude your predictive power. You wrote: ”It is not only Belarus that Putin wants to merge with but also the Ukraine and other former Russian Empire/USSR countries.” I follow Russian politics very closely, but I’ve never heard Putin saying anything like that. Do you have any evidence to support your assertion?

Michael, fully agreed!

Michael Kerjman, I share your thoughts on term limits. Couple of days back, The New Times, too, came against them:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/09/opinion/09mon4.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

But when it comes to Russia, rules are different.
Add your Comment