What’s going on in Russia and what does its president, Vladimir Putin, have in mind for the nation and for himself? Richard Tempest, a professor of Slavic literature and the head of the Russian, East European, and Eurasian Center who was in Russia in June, is an expert on Putin and Putin’s Russia. In an interview with News Bureau writer Andrea Lynn, Tempest offered his assessments of the nation and its leader.
What is the Russian government up to?
The regime is non-ideological, quite unlike Soviet times. That is one of its weaknesses. Putin’s advisers are desperately trying to manufacture some kind of national foundational myth that would underpin the system that has been created. In the absence of such a national narrative, they are pushing Soviet and imperial nostalgia, which is very effective in rallying support to the regime on the part of a broad strata of the population. This is a process that began during (former President Boris) Yeltsin’s second term.
Is Putin trying to find a way to remain in power, as many news stories suggest? Is that possible given the political climate in Russia?
Putin and the group around him are former KGB officers and hail from St. Petersburg. In Russia they are known as the ‘siloviki’ – ‘muscle guys.’ These are intelligent men who are aware that the political system now in existence is highly contingent. They project an image of strength at home and abroad, but have the sense that all this is very fragile. If one looks at the ease with which authoritarian or totalitarian regimes have collapsed in Russia in the past (the autocracy in 1917, communism in 1991) they are probably wise to feel this way. Most important, there is an absence of institutional mechanisms that would ensure the smooth transfer of power and enable those who have acquired wealth whilst in government service to keep it. Every change in leadership inevitably involves a purge of the political/economical elite. This is what happened when Putin took over the presidency in 2000: oligarchs and ministers who were closely associated with Yeltsin were expropriated, forced to flee into exile, or, in the case of Boris Khodorkovsky, even thrown in jail. So, Putin – whether he likes it or not – must remain at the top of the political hierarchy. He has to keep riding the bear, because if he dismounts, the bear will eat him: there will inevitably be a wholesale redistribution of power and wealth within the country’s ruling elite.
What about the notion that Putin has been tipping his country to the right? Has he the power to do that?
I can’t agree with the terminology. The terms ‘left’ and ‘right’ have lost meaning in modern Russia, where communists are joined by liberals, right-of-center parties and even crypto-fascists (Eduard Limonov’s National-Bolshevik Party) to protest government policy and mount street demonstrations. The ruling Unified Russia party mimics the propaganda and rituals of the former Communist Party, but this is part of the Soviet nostalgia project – a way for the Putinites to curry popularity and strengthen their hold on power by appealing to the culturally familiar. The instincts of the ruling group are certainly authoritarian, thus the total control over TV and manipulation of the print media, although the Internet has so far been left largely alone, unlike China.
I would suggest that the Putin crew has concluded a set of overlapping social contracts with various strata in society: The surviving oligarchs have kept their riches, but have been stripped of political influence and are expected to aid government economic policy; small and middle businesses are left pretty much alone – they don’t generate enough cash flow for the government to take an interest; the millions of low- and middle-ranking government bureaucrats have seen their prestige rise, their pay improve and their bribe-taking tolerated, provided this is kept within limits; the middle class have their foreign vacations in Turkey and Spain and enjoy access to alternative news sources online; the lower socioeconomic categories in the cities have seen their living standards rise and are more than happy with the mix of government propaganda, Soviet nostalgia and porn they see on TV; but pensioners, the very poor and rural village-dwellers are increasingly left behind.
This article was imported from a previous version of the News Bureau website. Please email news@illinois.edu to report missing photos and/or photo credits.
