I have argued on these pages that the tandem’s creative ambiguity as to which one of them will run for president in 2012 is now turning into a source of political instability in Russia.
Yet looking back on 2010, the tandem’s purposeful uncertainty could actually be good for the country’s democracy, despite the destructive potential of the clannish rivalry.
Vladimir Putin’s decision in 2007 not to change the Constitution to allow himself a third presidential term and his subsequent repositioning as the most powerful prime minister in modern Russian history with all the constitutional powers of a popularly elected president is perhaps the most under-recognized and undervalued contribution to the development of the country’s democracy.
This had a huge impact on Russia’s division of power, ultimately reducing the potential for autocracy and arbitrariness. For the first time, we have a political system with two, not one, equally powerful centers of decision making.
It made the system more pluralistic and much more open to the inflow of new ideas and new people, eliminating the risks of stagnation. President Dmitry Medvedev and Putin may be working in concert and are in agreement on the ultimate destination for Russia as a developed market democracy, but they clearly have different, but fortunately not antagonistic, views on how best to get there.
This has broadened the scope of the political debate, allowed for the introduction of policy ideas that have long languished as too liberal, and created a less confrontational style of foreign policy. Although Putin’s word may still be final, Medvedev’s impact on policymaking is already enormous. Just ask former Mayor Yury Luzhkov.
The gradual devolution of power under the tandem is good for Russian democracy. The emergence of the two centers for strategic decision making has already increased political competition, albeit still within the closed circuits of the political courts around each leader. Nonetheless, it is still an example of healthy competition.
Whether this rivalry of ideas and teams translates over time into open and competitive politics with independent parties and free elections remains to be seen. But under the tandem, the system is getting increasingly pluralistic and competitive, with reduced risks of tearing the country apart.
Keeping the tandem for another six years could be the fastest and safest way to develop democracy in Russia, as well as preserving Putin’s and Medvedev’s legacies.
Vladimir Frolov is president of LEFF Group, a government-relations and PR company.
A Message from The Moscow Times:
Dear readers,
We are facing unprecedented challenges. Russia's Prosecutor General's Office has designated The Moscow Times as an "undesirable" organization, criminalizing our work and putting our staff at risk of prosecution. This follows our earlier unjust labeling as a "foreign agent."
These actions are direct attempts to silence independent journalism in Russia. The authorities claim our work "discredits the decisions of the Russian leadership." We see things differently: we strive to provide accurate, unbiased reporting on Russia.
We, the journalists of The Moscow Times, refuse to be silenced. But to continue our work, we need your help.
Your support, no matter how small, makes a world of difference. If you can, please support us monthly starting from just $2. It's quick to set up, and every contribution makes a significant impact.
By supporting The Moscow Times, you're defending open, independent journalism in the face of repression. Thank you for standing with us.
Remind me later.
