perfidy

In the wake of the truly horrific terrorist attacks in Russia, it seems that Putin is letting the terrorist win. At least in the sense that he is apparently abandoning many of the more democratic features of Russian soceity in an effort to a) fight terrorism or b) consolidate his personal power.

President Vladimir Putin announced plans Monday for a "radically restructured" political system that would bolster his power by ending the popular election of governors and independent lawmakers, moves he portrayed as a response to this month's deadly seizure of a Russian school.

It seems that merely taking measures to more effectively combat terrorism is not sufficient to meet the crisis:

"Under current conditions, the system of executive power in the country should not just be adapted to operating in crisis situations, but should be radically restructured in order to strengthen the unity of the country and prevent further crises,"

Putin has often in the past raised concerns regarding his commitment to any kind of democratic ideals. His treatment of the press, in particular, has been the subject of much criticism. But it has not been limited to attempts to control the press. When he gained power, he kicked the governors out of the Federation council, and set up a a system of Putin-appointed presidential envoys to control them. Moving to eliminate independent governors and replace them with his appointees entirely would further centralize power in Putin's hands. The fact that the current governors are not making much of fuss suggests that they are think Putin's plans will succeed, and they are hoping to retain their jobs in the new dispensation.

Restricting the state parliament or Duma to only party list delegates would further restrict democracy. Right now, half of the delegates are elected from individual districts and the other half are selected from party lists based on the percentage of the vote that the party receives in the election. Given the cut-off for representation, many parties would fail to have any representation at all in the new system. In a nation like Germany, this is not a terrible arrangement - but in Russia, it means that getting into parliament would require the approval of often corrupt party apparatchiks, again centralizing control. As the article mentions, some parties are very nearly selling slots on their lists.

The newest moves take a vision he calls "managed democracy" to a new level.

"Managed democracy" sounds like a soon-to-be-unpleasant euphemism. Russia has had exactly two periods of democracy in its history. The first lasted only months and ended with the Bolshevik coup and subsequent terror. The current experiment has been longer, but always on a shaky foundation.

Putin seems to be relying on his KGB instincts. However, I don't think that this presages a return to a communist state. Despite the fact that the Communist party still holds many seats in the Duma, Putin's moves seem much more in line with traditional authoritarian government rather than outright totalitarianism. If pro-democracy forces in Russia are unable to contain Putin (and it seems very likely indeed that they will fail to do so) the result will be a more or less typical authoritarian government along the lines of Pinochet in Chili, Chiang Kai Shek in Taiwan, or the regime of Syngmann Rhee in South Korea.

While not a happy thought for the near term, an authoritarian government in Russia does hold out some hope for the future. Authoritarian leaders are not generally concerned with micromanaging the economy for ideological reasons. In each of the three nations listed above, stable representative government eventually emerged as economic progress created a middle class. Which means that Democracy might reappear in a few decades.