|
[JTW Analysis] Dmitry Medvedev: Russia's Democratic Adventure? |
|
|
Thursday, 24 November 2011By Viktoriia Demydova, JTW
On September 24, during the party session of United Russia, Russian Prime-Minister Vladimir Putin was declared a candidate of the party for the upcoming 2012 election. We are witnessing the last months of Dmitry Medvedev’s presidency, who was promised the post of prime-minister, in the case of Putin’s victory.
How can we evaluate the activity of Russia’s third president? Was it different from the policies of his predecessor?
I remember the headings of many Western articles and news in spring 2008 that presented Medvedev as more liberal than Putin. Partly, it was explained by his non-security services background, partly by his liberal rhetoric. Thus, in February 2008, during the economic forum in Krasnoyarsk, Mr. Medvedev put emphasis on the development of freedom in Russia. Later, in one of his early presidential speeches, Medvedev was talking about the importance of modernization for Russia. These issues brought to my mind Martin Lipset’s idea of democracy influenced by a level of wealth, urbanization, industrialization, and education. Was this the idea of Medvedev? Or was this to happen in Russia? Were the economic reforms and modernization seen as a basis for democratic development? Before answering these questions it is important to look at the 2000-2008 period of Putin’s presidency and to discuss his legacies.
Who is Mr. Putin?
What were the main milestones of the Putin’s presidency? It is important to answer this question before judging his successor. First, it is important to say that the Russian Federation was under severe crisis by 2000, when Putin took the post. Yeltsin’s economic policies failed; the federal system was destabilized by the bilateral treaties with the republics that gave them more powers; the Chechen war exhausted the country. Since Yeltsin was seen as a liberal democrat, Russian citizens understood the crisis to be a result of democratization. Under such conditions, the building of vertical power by Putin was met very well; it was seen as the only solution to manage the situation.
Putin managed to suppress Chechen separatism and strengthened the power of the center. From 2000 to 2002 he passed a package of laws that stabilized the federal system in Russia. Now, regions have to pass half of their revenues to the Federal center. The president got the right to sack governors, and governors to sack local mayors. Russia was divided into seven “super” districts based on existing military districts; each was headed by a Putin-appointed presidential representative. The Federation Council, the upper house of the Russian parliament, was to be composed of two permanent representatives from each region, one nominated by each region’s executive branch and one by the legislature. A 2002 law provided the president with a mechanism to dissolve regional legislatures if they adopted laws that contradicted federal legislation. The 2004 Beslan events—when terrorists seized a school building and many people died during the rescue operation—were used for a further consolidation of powers. A 2004 law deprived ordinary citizens the right to call a referendum. Governors were to be appointed by the president. The electoral reform of 2005 raised the threshold for parties to enter parliament from 5 to 7 percent, which let only 4 parties enter the State Duma in 2007.Another important dimension was the war with the oligarchs. While some of them lost opposition channels and newspapers, others lost bigger assets—a few oil companies were acquired by Gazprom. Freedom of media was restricted from then on. According to new law on civil society, the list of the foreign sponsors for Russian NGOs was minimized.
Democratic Adventure of Medvedev?
What really changed under Medvedev? Were there any shifts toward democratization?
It seems useful to apply some indicators of democracy for the Russian case, such as the separation of powers, multiparty system, elections, referendum, freedom of media, and civil society development.
In terms of separation of powers, the executive branch is still overbalancing. The two chambers of parliament are dominated by the United Russia party which won 64 percent of the seats during the 2007 elections and 66 percent in the 2009 regional elections. The president has a right to appoint governors who form the Federation Council. The president and the government are independent of parliamentary approval. The president is directly elected for four years and cannot be elected for more than two consecutive terms. The president alone has the power to dissolve parliament or the government. Parliament technically can remove a sitting president, but it is extremely difficult.
Parliament has the power to issue a no-confidence vote in the government, which can be rejected by the president. The president nominates the prime minister, who in turn forms a cabinet. The president and government initiate legislation, which becomes law with a simple parliamentary majority. The parliament may initiate legislation, but it is subject to presidential approval. This includes the possibility of veto. The president has a power of decree. In fact, it seems Russia is a hyper-presidential republic, and this system has not changed in from 2008 to 2011.
In 2008, during Medvedev’s presidency, constitutional amendments were adopted. They increased the term of parliamentarians from four to five years, and the term of the president from four to six years. It is interesting that these changes will come into force during the upcoming elections in December 2011 and in March 2012. Medvedev, in fact, prepared a longer term for Putin and secured United Russia’s position in the State Duma.
Russian presidents enjoyed wide support from the voters during the elections. Putin received almost 53 percent of the vote in 2000, and 71 percent in 2004. Medvedev won 70 percent in 2008.The Russian Federation is an electoral authoritarian system—the leader comes to power through the electoral procedure. In October 2011, a new electoral law was adopted. The threshold was decreased from 7 to 5 percent. On the one hand, the provision of the law allows a bigger number of parties to enter the parliament and gives them more rights in terms of coalitions and voting in the Duma. On the other hand, these changes will come into force only in 2016 which gives Putin four more years to change the constitution.
As for the multiparty system, as a feature of the democratic regime, Russia demonstrates awide range of parties, but there are only four political forces in the parliament. They are United Russia (315 seats), Communist Party (57), Liberal Democratic Party of Russia (40), and A Just Russia (38 seats). The simple majority and even constitutional majority (two thirds of the votes) are easy to achieve by the bigger faction alone.
A referendum was used in Russia only three times: in 1991 to dissolve the USSR, and twice in 1993 to dissolve the parliament and continue the reforms by Yeltsin. The situation with the freedom of media has not changed, as well as the state of civil society. The latter is still weak and uncoordinated, lacking funding and basic principles.
What Has Been Done So Far?
Mr. Medvedev, as the third Russian president, nevertheless has some achievements. He started the war on corruption and the abuse of administrative resources. During regional elections in March 2009, accusations of administrative resource use were acute. The leader of the A Just Russia party Sergey Mironov was especially active. This led to new round of elections on October 11, 2009, when United Russia won with 66 percent of the vote. However, later in 2010, Mironov was dismissed from his post of governor in Saint Petersburg which meant dismissal from the Federation Council. The oppositional head of the Federation Council was removed due to his dismissal from the post of the governor of Saint Petersburg, following the vote of the United Russia party in the city administration. The basis for this was the dissatisfaction with the cadre policies of Mironov.
At the same time, on September 15, 2009, Medvedev stated that he approved of the 2004 abolition of direct popular elections of regional leaders, effectively in favor of their appointment by the Kremlin, and added that he did not see a possibility of a return to direct elections even in one hundred years. To soften this statement, on November 6, 2010, the president vetoed a recently passed bill which restricted anti-government demonstrations. In late November 2010 came Medvedev’s public statement about the damage being done to Russia's politics by the dominance of the United Russia party.
Nevertheless, the vertical power construction continued. In December 2010, Medvedev initiated police reform.In accordance with it, the salaries of police officers were to be increased by 30 percent. Interior Ministry personnel were cut and financing and jurisdiction over the police was centralized. $7 billion has been allocated to police reform from the federal budget for from 2012 to 2013. This reform provoked a wide response from the citizens. Social activists argued that Russia was being transformed into a police state.
Another important initiative of Medvedev is the modernization of Russia, which includes energy, information technology, telecommunication, biotechnology, and nuclear technology projects. The core of this project was an idea to create a Russian Silicon Valley in the town of Skolkovo in order to diversify the Russian economy. The Russian government allocated $2.8 billion for that enterprise. There was an attempt to introduce a new concept of “a scientific business” to the legislation. The project presupposed substantial tax relief through amendments to existing legislation, including the Tax and Budget Codes. Companies based in Skolkovo would be exempt from taxes and customs duties during the first ten years. Companies having up to $10 million annual profit and up to $30 million annual turnover are exempted from VAT and Income TAX for ten years. Refunds of import customs duties and VAT expenses paid during importation into the Russian customs territory and eased migration laws for highly skilled specialists were designed.
However, Russian leadership failed to understand that Silicon Valley is not only technologies and business, it is a culture. It requires the rule of law, clear intellectual property rights, and a tax regime that supports competition. All these are missing in Russia.
In the foreign policy of Russia from2008 to 2011, it is important to mention the war in South Ossetia. To say that this war contradicts democratic peace theory is to say nothing. In this case, Russia sought to protect the Russians in Georgia. This provision is one of the pillars of the Russian foreign policy since 2000. Moreover, it is beneficial for Russia to have a Russian enclave in the Caucasus region. This short war was a clear message to the whole world that the strategic and geopolitical interests of Russia are more important than the democratic principles.
To conclude, despite the expectations of some experts that Medvedev would be a more liberal leader than Putin, the analysis showed that he mainly concentrated on modernization and innovation. The political system was not liberalized and Putin’s policies were continuing. It is characterized by the net of obedient institutions (pro-presidential faction in the parliament, security services, and control over regional governors), electoral procedures used to sustain the visibility of democracy, patron-client relationships, control over resources through these relationships, and public support for the president. Russia still lacks strong institutions, a developed party system, strong civil society, and independent media. |
Thursday, 24 November 2011
Viktoriia Demydova, JTW
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MOST VISITED NEWS (DAILY) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
