ULI453U-RUSSIA, CENTRAL ASIA AND THE CAUCASIA
Chapter 2: Contemporary Russian Politics
Russian Political Culture and Identity
Political culture is a source of continuity in radical changes and attitudes toward political development. The following forces have shaped Russian political culture: personalistic authority, highly centralized government, collectivism (DeBardeleben, 2007, p. 400). In the cultural, historical, and political sense, Russia is ancient. The Kievan state is considered the first Russian state, which traces back to the 9th century. Then the Muscovite principality united small Russian feudal structures back to the 15th century. Ivan the Terrible and then Peter the Great, transformed the Russian state to the Russian Tsarist Empire, which was recognized as one of Europe’s great empires. After the October Revolution in 1917, Bolsheviks established the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (RSFSR). It was the largest and most important republic of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). On December 26, 1991, the Russian Federation was established when its predecessor, the RSFSR, voted to change its official name to the Russian Federation. Nevertheless, Russia’s march to independence began earlier, on June 20, 1990, when the RSFSR declared its independence from the Soviet Union in a resolution on sovereignty. This day is now celebrated as Independence Day in Russia (Theen & Wilson, 2001, p. 247).
The Russian language has two words for Russian political identity. A “Russkii” has a national, monoethnic meaning; the other, Rossiiski, is a broader concept shaped by the interaction between Slavic and non-Slavic (mostly Turkish) cultural traditions than a few centuries, was used to encompass peoples of different ethnic origins living in Russianled states. During the late Tsarist Empire and the Soviet Union, almost half of the population belonged to the non-Russian ethnic groups. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Russian Federation has become an ethnically homogeneous state. Nevertheless, the country’s official name is Rossiyskaya Federatsiya (Russian Federation), and it has a broader meaning than the mono- ethnic version of the Russian word is used. Still, about 20% of the country’s population comprises nonRussian nationalities (the largest minority are Tatars, a traditionally Turkish-Muslim nation, predominantly living in Tatarstan). Therefore, as in the past, the Russian state legally recognizes the country’s multinational characteristics and the supranational political community. At the same time, 25 million ethnic Russians live outside of the Russian Federation in the post-Soviet states called “near abroad” by the Russian political elite. In this respect, it becomes meaningful to use “Russkii” or “Rossisski” to define the Russian identity in Russian politics (DeBardeleben, 1997, p. 203).
Political culture reflects the characteristics of a society’s political orientation. In this respect, Russians have a strong character. Although the Soviet regime attempted to break away from traditional Russian culture, Russian culture has survived. Some old traditions were revived
while preserving some Soviet political behavior (Theen & Wilson, 2001, p.248). Some political attitudes of the Tsarist and Soviet periods, such as promoting strong leadership and centralizing authority (DeBardeleben, 2019, p.593), also became the defining characteristics of contemporary Russian politics.
Russian Political Institutions
Before the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Russian Federation began to take shape as the RSFR. The presidential position was created in June 1991. Boris Yeltsin was elected Chairman of the RSFR by popular vote. It received 57% of the total votes. Thus, after the election, Yeltsin was seen as the legitimate leader of Russia. He pledged to create a political regime based on liberal democratic values and institutions during and after the election campaign. Putin and Medvedev repeated the same words when they were elected President of Russia. Over time, Russia’s political regime has changed from a liberal democratic regime to a Russian regime which carries the characteristics of the Russian political culture. That is why Vladimir Surkov, one of Putin’s closest advisers, describes the Russian political regime as a sovereign democracy, which means that democracy in Russia should have more Russian political culture and historical features than Western ideals. (Debardeleben, 2019, p. 593).
The power of the president was increased with the constitutional changes made by the Putin administration at different times. For this reason, the Russian political system turned into a political regime that some experts who followed the political developments in Russia called soft authoritarianism. Joan DeBardeleben defines it as “a system of political control in which a combination of formal and informal mechanisms ensure the dominance of a ruling group or dominant party, despite the existence of some forms of political competition and expressions of the political opposition” (DeBardeleben, 2019, p. 565). Another turning point of Russian political development is the 1993 Constitutional Crisis between Yeltsin and the Parliaments and the Constitutional Court. Ending this crisis by force and having the Constitution after the crisis has had several significant effects on the Russian political system and institutions that continue today. One of the most important consequences is a strong presidential system. Second, there is a weak parliament and dispersed political parties. Third, it becomes harder to replace power with an election.
Federalism in the Russian Federation
Whether a country has a unitary, federal or confederal system is related to how authority is distributed between central (national) government and certain administrational sub-unites like regional or local levels. In the unitary system, the central government directly controls and even appoints regional and local administrators. On the contrary, in the federal system, regional or local administration shares power with the central government.
On the other hand, the federal system is a political structure that has its own independent powers and responsibilities. The constitution clearly regulates the distribution of power. While the central government’s sovereignty over the regional or local government is accepted, the authority on specific areas and issues is left to regional or local governments in the Constitution, in which sharing powers and responsibilities are mentioned and specified. The level of sharing authority and responsibilities left to regional or local governments depends on bargaining and power relations between the central and local politicians (Hesli, 2007, p. 87).
For example, Tatar leaders gained comprehensive autonomous power in the negotiation, which they held with Russia’s central government in the early 1990s. Authorities that they obtained include opening commercial representation offices abroad (e.g., in Turkey), collecting taxes, and using Tatar language in the schools. Another factor that enhances the authority of regional governments is electing regional governments by the local citizens. While elections provide legitimacy to local governments, they also ensure their strength against the central government.
According to the Constitution, Russia is a federal state. Today Russia has eighty-five regions, including Crimea and the city of Sevastopol (forcibly annexed from Ukraine by Russia in March 2014 and including Turkey, most countries do not recognize the annexation of Crimea). There are twenty-one republics (with Crimea, twentytwo), forty-nine oblasts, six krais, one autonomous republic, four autonomous okrugs, and two cities of federal status (Moscow and St. Petersburg and the Russian government considers Sevastopol city a city of federal status). Even though comparatively the Soviet Union, Russia seems to be a more homogenous state because 80% of the population is Russian. Still, Russia is officially (written the Constitution) and a multinational state because many ethnic groups in Russia live regionally concentrated areas (DeBardeleben, 2019, p. 583).
Thus, while Russia has accomplished some decentralization in the 1990s, the process reversed in the 2000s, and federal units lost some of their gains of the 1990s. Under Putin’s leadership, the Russian government increased the central government authority over the federal units. Putin described this policy through a term power vertical. The power vertical refers to a unified top- down hierarchical structure of executive power extending from the central government to other regional administrators. To implement his idea of power vertical, Putin first created seven, now nine, federal districts on the top of the existing federal units and appointed each federal district his own people. Most of them have worked in security ministries. Their primary responsibility is to ensure obedience to federal laws and regulations. The second step taken by Putin was decreasing governors’ authorities. Governors were a direct member of the
Federal Council to have their own voices be heard in the capital city. In 2001, Putin revised the combination of the Federal Council and removed governors from the Council (Hesli, 2007, p. 92).
After the Beslan tragedy in 2004, Putin criticized corrupt and ineffective regional leaders and proposed eliminating the election of governors through the popular vote. Instead, the president nominates them for approval by the regional legislature. Both this policy changed during Medvedev’s presidency. To appoint the governor of certain regions, a candidate needs a certain number of local deputies’ and officials’ support (DeBardeleben, 2019, pp. 582-583). Why did the Chechen war begin in the 1990s?
Russian Economy
Russia experienced rapid industrialization and urbanization during the early Soviet Union; In 1917, only 18% of Russia’s population lived in cities; It was 73% in the 21st century. Despite its vast area, less than 8% of Russia’s land is arable, while 45% is forested. Russia is rich in natural resources, usually concentrated in Western Siberia and the north of Russia. Russia’s wealth includes oil, natural gas, mineral resources (including gold and diamonds), and extensive forest areas. Oil and natural gas exports are now the primary sources of Russia’s economic wealth and foreign trade. (DeBardeleben, 2007, p. 356).
Many factors influenced the crisis, but three critical economic determinants play a crucial role: (1) inability to achieve rapid and radical economic liberalization, (2) A continuing traditional state paternalism in relations with state-owned enterprises and collective agriculture, (3) High-level corruption and embezzlement of state-owned enterprises and assets. The third step of the economic reforms was the privatization of the state-own companies and assets. The privatization policy headed in 1992- 1994 by as the Deputy Prime Minister and Head of the State Committee for the Management of State Property, Anatolii Chubais (Boilard, 1998, pp. 129-131).
Under his management, significant numbers of state assets and companies had privatized in a relatively short period. It involved small-scale privatization based on the sale of state assets, primarily shops, repair shops, and small businesses. The second phase of privatization was the privatization of medium and large enterprises. The third, In October 1992, large state companies were privatized by distributing share coupons first to the employees of this company and then to the public. The oligarchs collected these vouchers handed to the citizens of Russia. Especially, managers of kolkhozes and sovkhozes received massive subsidized credits and opportunities to grab these valuable state’s economic enterprises. They paid either low prices or nothing, so they quickly grabbed some valuable state assets and enterprises. From this transition, the state assets and companies created a new elite with their interests, called oligarchs. Thus, oligarchs
became millionaires within a short time. They benefited from “special opportunities” from rent-seeking (Hesli, 2007, pp. 213-2014).
In the second half of the 1990s, while oligarchs wielded their political influence, they also continued to enrich themselves by taking advantage of the unregulated financial market in the country. In August 1998, the Russian stock market lost 90% of the value. The Russian currency, ruble stumbled and lost two-thirds of its value against the U.S. dollar. Some of the Russian banks bankrupted, the prices of imported products tripled, and unemployment increased (DeBardeleben, 2007, pp. 372- 373).
Thus, the period of 1991 to 199, Russia experienced an economic depression. After Putin came to power in late 1999, the Russian economy experienced its first substantial economic growth and considerable structural improvements, which had continued until the 2010s. In this time, the Russian economy stabilized, budget surpluses and economic confidence were raised. Economic recovery was mainly related to oil and natural gas (Hesli, 2007, pp. 214-215).
Thus, there are three reasons why the Russian economy has been in a slowdown in the 2010s. First, the global financial crisis in 2008 had an adverse effect on Russian economic relations with other countries. Consumption and prices of natural gas and oil decreased dramatically. Natural gas and oil are the biggest export raw materials of Russia. Second, after Russia annexed Crimea and supported separatists groups in Donetsk and Luhansk, the Western governments put economic sanctions on Russia. Third and the most important, Russia still has unfinished reform on the economic areas. Grandiose development schemes continue to be offered to the public as a testimony to the government’s vision and strength. The Russian government spent its financial sources for grandiose projects and military operations outside the country. For example, hosting the 2014 Olympic Games at Sochi cost over $50 billion, and building Kerch Bridge to connect Russia to Crime cost 4 billion dollars. Russian military operations and financially supporting the Assad regime in Syria also are costly activities. Therefore, the ongoing decline in energy prices since 2014, increasing competition with the other oil and natural gas suppliers, and the tension with Germany, in which Russia sells the most natural gas, negatively affect the country’s economy.
Political History
Rise of Boris Yeltsin as a political figure linked with Gorbachev and his reform attempts. Gorbachev brought Yeltsin from Sverdlovsk (today Yekaterinburg) to Moscow and made him the Communist party boss in Moscow. When Gorbachev launched his reform projects (perestroika (restructuring), glasnost (openness), and demokratizatsiya (democratization), Yeltsin was a staunch supporter. However, when he realized the reform process
was a slowdown, he criticized the slow process and the Communist Party’s Politburo members he blamed for slowing down the process. He fired from his position. After the monopoly of the Communist Party’s removed, Yeltsin established his political platform. First, he was elected chair of the Russian Supreme Soviet in 1990 and then president of RSFSR, when Russia was still a part of the USSR. The idea of the Presidency in Russia was a new one, even a revolutionary one. However, after becoming President, Yeltsin had no real power until the August coup attempt.
By early December 1991, Yeltsin met Ukrainian and Belarus leaders in Minsk to create a new Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). After a few days, eight former Soviet Union republics joined them, but the Baltic States and Georgia refused it. On December 25, 1991, Gorbachev resigned from the general secretary of the Communist Party of the USSR, which was officially dissolved on January 1, 1992 (Von Laue, 1993, pp. 175- 177).
As the leader of the newly independent Russian Federation, Yeltsin took a more radical approach to reform than Gorbachev did. He declared his commitment to Western-style democracy and market economic reform. He did not want to waste time to realize the economic program. However, this program was difficult to implement and controversial. The executive and legislative branches of the government also failed to reach a consensus on the nature of a new Russian constitution; the result was a bloody showdown in October 1993, after Yeltsin disbanded what he considered to be an obstructive parliament and laid siege (DeBardeleben, 2019, p. 563) to its premises, the Russian White House.
In conclusion, the Yeltsin’s years were transitional; Russia moved from one system to another, from a socialist country to a nationalistic country, a totalitarian regime to sovereign democracy, and planned economy to market economy. The transition to a market economy and a democratic polity, movement towards a renewed national identity was the main content of the 90s.
Vladimir Putin-First Two Terms (2000-2008)
From 1998 to August 1999, Yeltsin replaced five prime ministers. In August 1999, he appointed Vladimir Putin, the head of the FSB, the Russian Internal Intelligence agency, as prime minister. Putin’s first job as prime minister was to deal with the ongoing military operation in Chechnya. Yeltsin resigned at the end of 1999, excusing health problems, and handed power over to Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. Putin became the acting President on 31 December. Then he won in the first round of the presidential elections held in March 2000. Putin took advantage of favorable conditions. In 1999, the economy initiated a period of sustained economic growth that lasted until the 2008-2009 global financial crisis. High
international gas and oil prices have invested tax dollars in the state’s coffers. Putin focused on two problems during the first term of his presidency. The first problem was the war in Chechnya. Putin followed a strict and uncompromising policy regarding the war in Chechnya. Having learned from the mistakes made in the First Chechen War, Putin cut contact between the Chechen militias and the people. Then the Russian forces drove the Chechen militias away from settlements, especially cities. He developed a close relationship with Chechen dignitaries. He appointed Akhmad Kadyrov, one of the Chechen notables, the ex- mufti of Chechnya, who had fought against the Russians during the First Chechen War and was on the Chechen side during diplomatic meetings with the Russians, the leader of Chechnya. Thus, he chechenized the Chechen problem, making it a problem among Chechens. However, sporadic fighting continued, and some tragic events also happened. One particularly tragic event involved a hostage-taking on the first day of school (September 1, 2004) in the town of Beslan in southern Russia, which ended in tragedy, with more than 300 hostages killed-the majority children DeBardeleben, 2007, p. 387).
The second important issue was related to the economy. Russia experienced two major economic crises in the 1990s. The crisis of 1993 stemmed from the problems experienced in the country’s transition from a planned economy to a free-market economy. Socio-economically, it caused great trauma in Russian society. The second economic crisis of 1998 occurred when the oligarchs benefited from the new economic system and wanted to gain economic advantages from their political links. Due to panics, the economic crisis deepened. The oligarchs’ took their money abroad. Thus the Russian stock market collapsed and caused the Russian currency, ruble, to excessively depreciate, and the Russian banks went bankrupt. With the crisis ended, the Russian government took steps to fix the economic system. While these steps were taken, natural gas and oil prices, which are the most significant Russian foreign trade items, started to increase in the world energy market. This, in turn, helped recovery of the Russian economy (DeBardeleben, 2019, pp. 569- 570).
Dimitry Medvedev (2008-2012)
Dmitry Medvedev, like Putin, was born and grew in St. Petersburg (formerly Leningrad). Medvedev and Putin together worked for the former mayor of St. Petersburg, Anatoly Sobchak. He was their professor from Leningrad State University. He and Putin became colleagues and close friends under Sobchak’s mayor’s office in St. Petersburg. After Putin moved to Moscow, he brought Medvedev and his other colleagues to Yeltsin’s presidential administration. Medvedev served as campaign manager for Putin’s first presidential election in 2000. In October 2003, Medvedev was promoted to the head of the presidential administration and in November 2005 as the first deputy Prime Minister (Kelley, 2017, pp. 163-168).
In May 2008, he was elected as the third president of the Russian Federation. His first order was the appointment of Vladimir Putin as prime minister. They established a tandem. Putin continued to work behind the scenes to keep the decisive power. Under Medvedev’s presidency, Siloviki, who held a critical position in the Putin administration associated with security, intelligence, and defense ministries background, relatively lost their power. Civiliki, or civilians, elevated certain positions in the presidential administration. But, Putin expanded the role of the Prime Minister Office and hired his old security colleagues there (Kelley, 2017, pp. 172-173).
Vladimir Putin-Second Two Terms (2012- )
The March 2012 elections reinstated Putin as president. Putin continues to control the State Duma through the “ruling party” of United Russia. The United Russia Party, in the parliamentary elections of 2011 and 2016, had won majority seats in the State Duma. However, some opposition groups accused the Russian government of election fraud and unfair election conditions. It sparked mass protests in major Russian cities across the country in 2011-2012. However, Russia’s annexation of Ukraine’s Crimea region in 2014 reinforced popular support for Putin’s leadership. Many Russians saw the annexation of Crimea as a significant representation of Russia’s international interests. The annexation of Crime worsens Russian relations with western countries. Since 2014, Russia has experienced an economic downturn, stimulated by the fall in global gas and oil prices and western economic sanctions in response to the annexation of Crimea (DeBardeleben, 2019, p. 565). Even though his popularity was decreasing, in the March 2018 presidential election, Putin won the highest vote, %76, all elections which he ran.
Despite all the problems faced by the country, Putin had and continues to have consistently high levels of popular support throughout his tenure. Since the Russian Constitution (DeBardeleben, 2019, p. 564) includes the limit of two consecutive presidential terms, the Presidency was transferred to Dmitry Medvedev (2008-2012). T But due to the tandem with Medvedev, he served as prime minister during Medvedev’s Presidency. He remained the de facto leader of the country.