Hibernation is over
The end of what little remains of democracy in Russia
Michael Silicz, Staff
Major Russian political manoeuvres over the past year demonstrate unequivocally that the bear to the east has begun to stir from its decade-long slumber.
Following the end of the Cold War, Russian political power declined markedly throughout the 1990s. However, since the ascension of Vladimir Putin to political power, Russia has recovered to the point where it is now able to compete politically, economically, and militarily with the Western democracies of the world. Russia’s re-entry onto the world stage has been intrinsically connected to both the rise in natural resource demand (resources that Russia has plenty of) as well as with crony capitalist practices and dubious nation-state interventions into the Russian “free” market. The bottom line is that the Eastern bear’s hibernation is over, and it’s time Western leaders acted accordingly. Therefore, the Minister of Truth recommends that through the use of political and economic sanctions, Western democracies send a clear message to Russia that its increased militancy and the disintegration of democracy will not be tolerated.
Russia’s remilitarization, coupled with Putin’s consolidation of political power, should be far more than enough warning for Western democracies to take appropriate action now. The West has seen these patterns before, and history has shown over and over again that acting sooner, rather than later, can prevent catastrophes of grave magnitude.
In the last six months alone, Putin’s military track record has been a cause of substantial concern. Russia has made bold claims of sovereignty over swaths of the Arctic Circle. In July, Putin withdrew from of the Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty, possibly the most important military agreement since the end of the Second World War. The CFE treaty fosters military transparency through voluntary and verifiable limits on the amounts of offensive military weapons NATO and former Warsaw Pact nations can have. The “suspension” of this agreement raises many alarms. In September, Putin resurrected the Russian Strategic Air Command program. Finally, in October, Russia detonated the most powerful “non-nuclear” explosive device in human history. As troubling as these actions are, these nonchalant military signals are only half of the problem, and are arguably of less concern towards the real danger — Russia’s slide towards autocracy.
Putin dissolved Russian parliament in September in order to handpick his prime minister, Viktor Zubkov, to serve as a docile political puppet. The Economist aptly notes Zubkov’s qualifications: “He has no visible political ambitions, is quite old (66, to Mr. Putin’s 54) and is personally loyal (he was Putin’s deputy in St. Petersburg’s mayoral office).” In October, Putin then unsurprisingly announced his “entirely realistic” intention to take Zubkov’s job as prime minister when Putin’s term as president comes to an end in March 2008. Finally, in late November, shortly before the Russian parliamentary election, Putin yet again turned up the heat. Russia denied Europe’s democratic process watchdog, the Organisation for Security and Cooperation, the chance to monitor Russia’s recent early December election. Shortly thereafter, police cracked down on opposition parties, rallies, and leaders; culminating in the high-profile arrest of Garry Kasparov, Putin’s only real political threat. This has led to a unanimous condemnation of Russia’s democratic process which “meets none of the criteria of a free, fair, and democratic election,” according to former Putin advisor Andrei Illarionov, now of the libertarian Cato institute. By Dec. 3, to nobody’s surprise, Putin’s United Russia Party took staggering control of the Russian legislative branch.
These actions in themselves are worrisome enough. However, it will be in March 2008 when the moment of truth occurs. It is at that time that Putin must constitutionally give up his position as president and thus control of the country. The signs are clear that Putin is going to attempt to remain in power. It will thus be up to Western nations to pressure Russia into allowing the spirit of democracy to triumph over authoritarianism.
Thus, the situation at hand. Putin is constitutionally barred from running for president three times in a row but he has nonetheless positioned himself to remain in power while simultaneously increasing Russia’s military potency. The Economist cites three possible manoeuvres Putin may take to solidify his power after March 2008. First, Putin may just increase powers to the prime minister’s office and wait patiently until the next Russian president’s single term is up, at which point Putin could run again. Second, Zubkov may become the next Russian president, after being replaced as prime minister by Putin himself. Shortly thereafter, if Zubkov were “unable” to continue on as president and had to step down for any reason, Putin as prime minister would then constitutionally assume the presidency. But if these options are too subtle, Putin always has the option of changing the Russian constitution with the newfound control he has over the Russian legislative branch.
Should any of these events take place, Russia would become a democracy in name only. Rather than sit idly by while the country gains more and more political power, Western leaders need to act now by standing tough against Russia’s increased militarism; and by doing more than just condemning Russia’s regression of democracy with petty words.
The West made a mistake not ensuring Russia’s transition to democracy was more stable following the collapse of the Soviet Union. However, it would be far more tragic if the West now let Russia slide back into autocracy that took 50 years of Cold War to defeat. An ounce of prevention today is worth a pound of cure. Let’s hope that Western leaders weigh the costs of confronting Russia now while it still remains a democracy against the consequences of engaging Russia in the future when it may very well cease to be democratic.
