From Communism to Putinism

From the desk of Richard Rahn on Fri, 2007-09-21 22:13

The view of Russia is clear from where I am writing this, Bucharest, Romania.  Month by month, President Putin of Russia has been erecting a new authoritarian model that owes more of its lineage to fascism than communism. 

That model can now be named:  Putinism  - a Russian nationalistic authoritarian form of government that pretends to be a free market democracy.

Unlike Soviet communism, the new Russian state does not seek to direct every aspect of political and economic life. Instead, through limited, direct control and intimidation, plus strategic investments in both institutions and people, not only in Russia but other nations as well, the Kremlin seeks to ensure favorable global press and decisions beneficial to its interests from political and business leaders around the world.

Here in Eastern Europe, it has been noticed some politicians who take a Kremlin-friendly line suddenly seem to have more campaign funds. Infrastructure projects, particularly in the energy sector, that are perceived to be most beneficial to Russia's long-term interest more easily find sources of funding.

Media sources and companies that follow a more pro-Russian line seem to suddenly prosper. The Putinistas are not so crude as to leave direct fingerprints of the true sources of these funds.

A Russian or even an American businessman may be led to understand that his profitable Russian related business will only continue if he invests in certain specified projects, advertises in specified media, or contributes to specified social or policy organizations.

And much of it is perfectly legal. Occasionally, this Russian influence peddling is more transparent, as in Gazprom, the Russian state's gas monopoly, hiring former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder.

In many ways, it is much easier for the Russian authoritarians to gain power and influence now that they have been freed from having to defend the indefensible communist political and economist model. For the most part, the Putinistas accept the price system as the best way to allocate resources and motivate production.

They have endorsed private ownership and private enterprise - no one is advocating the re-nationalization of restaurants. Yet, their desire to control has caused them to buy or seize sizable equity stakes in the major Russian export industries - oil and gas and some metals - and virtually all of the mass media. Knowledgeable Europeans, and particularly Eastern Europeans, are increasingly concerned by the Kremlin's none-too-subtle attempts to influence or even control their political and economic decision making and undermine NATO.

Unlike the communists with their mass repression, killings, and gulags, the Putinistas have been accused of selective murders and have imprisoned their media, business, and political critics, both inside and, in several instances, outside Russia. Putin apologists claim the murders are solely due to rogue elements, much like the prisoner abuse by a few American soldiers in Abu-Ghraib.

The difference, of course, is that the Bush administration vigorously investigated and prosecuted the prisoner abuse cases, whereas not one of the Russian media and other suspected political assassinations has resulted in a conviction. (Recently a questionable arrest was made in the killing of well-known journalist and Putin critic, Anna Politkovskaya. )

Putinism depends on the Russian economy growing rapidly enough that most people have rising standards of living and, in exchange, are willing to put up with the existing soft repression. But the Russian economy is still all too dependent on high, raw material prices - primarily energy - and when those prices come down, as they will at some point, the Kremlin's ability to control its own people and intimidate Europe will diminish.

As Putinism is increasingly recognized as undemocratic - the Kremlin already is in firm control of who can run for what office and who can win - it will be increasingly difficult for the Russian leader to be invited to summit meetings with the world's major democracies, let alone to Mr. Bush's or some future U.S. president's home.

Putinism cannot continue to exist as it now is. As Russia's economic fortunes change, Putinism is likely to become more repressive. Authoritarian regimes, unlike true free-market democracies, are inherently unstable and rarely end happily.

All those politicians, media folk and business people outside Russia, who have been dining at the Kremlin trough, might also think about how history treats fellow travelers.

This piece was originally published in The Washington Times on 19 September 2007.

@Atlanticist911

Submitted by Monarchist on Sun, 2007-09-23 14:52.

All Russian parliamentary parties consist fake opposition, this is their job to play this role. There is no difference between them, they are all former communists and they know each other very well.

@royalecraig #3

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Sat, 2007-09-22 15:55.

btw

 

Arguing for a like-for-like defence policy vis-a-vis Europe and Russia would mean it would be ok to place a missile defence cordon (only) around Brussels.Does that make any sense to you?

@royalecraig

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Sat, 2007-09-22 14:23.

"Much of Europe's fear and mistrust of Putin is (EU) propaganda".

 

That statement suggests that even you don't believe that ALL mistrust of Putin is groundless.Therefore,perhaps you'd care to share with us your thoughts on some of his foreign and domestic policies you DO find problematic,and what YOU propose should be done to counteract any potential negative impact they might have upon the "West".

Here in Eastern Europe, it

Submitted by Monarchist on Sat, 2007-09-22 14:11.

Here in Eastern Europe, it has been noticed some politicians who take a
Kremlin-friendly line suddenly seem to have more campaign funds.
Infrastructure projects, particularly in the energy sector, that are
perceived to be most beneficial to Russia's long-term interest more
easily find sources of funding. <dt>

Some examples would be helpful to check this out, otherwise these are just empty words. This is very difficult to follow political situation in all those Eastern European countries. However from what I know former former post-communists changed their loyalties from Moscow to Brussels and what is ironical they are often in the first line of the battle for "democracy and so called  European social model" in Russia. I don't know about any mainstream party from the new EU members which would  prefer Moscow over Brussels. If such parties exist they are very small and unimportant. <dt>

Ukraine is a bit different but they have enough Ukrainian oligarchs supporting pro-Russian Party Of Regions that they need no more funds from Moscow. Anyway their political scene is awful either EU-lovers or Kremlin trolls.

Russia

Submitted by royalecraig on Sat, 2007-09-22 13:14.

Much of Europes fear and mistrust of Putin is EU propaganda, We in the West SHOULD NOT be thretening to put US or EU Missiles on his Borders.

What is he supposed to do, just accept it.

 

 

Reply to royalecraig

Submitted by Norman Conquest 304 on Sat, 2007-09-22 14:14.

Some people living in Europe, especially in Western Europe, aka Old Europe, seem to have a rather short memory and still don't get it. Yes, Russia was and remains a threat. And who threatened and blackmailed the West for 50 years during the Soviet era? Yesterday, it was communism. Today, it's oil and gas. I mean, isn't it clear to you? So if your Putinchick is not happy, it's his problem. Never forget that the New Europe is now sovereign. Moreover, never trust a Russian. At least, as Ron Reagan once said: "Trust but verify".

Reply to Kapitan Andrey, the BJ's Mr de la Palisse

Submitted by Norman Conquest 304 on Sat, 2007-09-22 08:16.

Well, apart from stating the obvious, could you please "hekfes" write a comment with substance and insight? Although Richard Rahn’s article is too short for a full analysis, the author provides a lot of food for thought, which, as you’ve mentioned in the case of evolution, is part of a normal, gradual process in shaping opinions. The author has suggested a lot of great points for further reflection. His intention was not to establish firm principles. I usually appreciate his columns very much and was not disappointed this time again.

 

In Reply to Richard Rahn

Submitted by Kapitein Andre on Sat, 2007-09-22 03:41.

Rahn: Month by month, President Putin of Russia has been erecting a new authoritarian model that owes more of its lineage to fascism than communism...That model can now be named:  Putinism  - a Russian nationalistic authoritarian form of government that pretends to be a free market democracy...Unlike Soviet communism, the new Russian state does not seek to direct every aspect of political and economic life. Instead, through limited, direct control and intimidation, plus strategic investments in both institutions and people, not only in Russia but other nations as well, the Kremlin seeks to ensure favorable global press and decisions beneficial to its interests from political and business leaders around the world.

 

These post-Soviet developments are neither unusual nor suprising when one considers both contemporary and historical contexts. The Russian government is pursuing heterodox economic policies involving capitalism, state capitalism and perhaps corporativism while retaining an increasingly authoritarian hold on the state. This is in line with the great powers before it (e.g. Great Britain, the United States*, France, Germany, Japan, etc.) and the newly industrialized economies of East Asia (e.g. South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, etc.). Moreover, the dissolution of the Soviet state did not provide the cultural, legal or political structures necessary for proper capitalism to develop in the Russian Federation or other newly independent states.

 

Rahn: Putinism depends on the Russian economy growing rapidly enough that most people have rising standards of living and, in exchange, are willing to put up with the existing soft repression. But the Russian economy is still all too dependent on high, raw material prices - primarily energy - and when those prices come down, as they will at some point, the Kremlin's ability to control its own people and intimidate Europe will diminish.

 

The average Russian citizen is only beginning to reach let alone surpass the living standards he or she had during the Soviet era. What Putin is seen as doing is delivering Russia from both the communists and the oligarchs and organised criminals that dominated the Russian economy during Yeltsin's administration. He is seen as returning pride, hope and dignity to Russians, which is worth far more to them than empty conceptions of individual freedom or the free market.

 

Rahn: Putinism cannot continue to exist as it now is. As Russia's economic fortunes change, Putinism is likely to become more repressive. Authoritarian regimes, unlike true free-market democracies, are inherently unstable and rarely end happily.

 

Authoritarianism was relatively successful in South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan and Western Europe (absolutism). However, the process of evolution is a gradual one.