Without having had the opportunity yet to read the Time article in which Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin was selected as the person of the year, one can expect that such designation was meant as a backhanded compliment. The official U.S. position regarding Putin is laced with concern over recent reforms within the political structure of Russia, and there is no reason to expect that the editors of Time would deviate from this official – and widely accepted – line. But an interesting question arises: from the Russian perspective, is this skepticism fair?
There are three principal figures responsible for the significance of Putin – Gorbachev, Yeltsin, and Putin himself. Without the policies of Gorbachev, there would have been no need for Yeltsin to put the final nail in the proverbial coffin of socialism-slash-communism. Gorbachev’s significance is, thus, as the bridge between the staid past and a brighter future. For that reason, it’s ridiculous that he continues to be despised by a large segment of the population. Yeltsin, for his part, has to undertake difficult policies in order not to fall back into old habits. Yes, news reports at the time would tell us of unbelievably rough living situations for the average Russian thanks to Yeltsin’s and Gaidar’s “shock therapy” economic policies – situations which only worsened with the rise of the oligarchs – but in the end, it’s hard not to say that the ends justified the means. Yeltsin, like Gorbachev, however, could only take things so far. By the time Yeltsin stood for reelection in the critical campaign of 1996, he was the second least popular person in Russia (second only to Gorbachev). His victory meant that it would be that much harder for the Communists – or whomever – to roll back the clock. Curiously, however, Yeltsin was not criticized as harshly as Putin is now for handpicking his successor. U.S. policymakers may not have liked Yeltsin’s meddling as an affront to real democracy, but they turned a blind eye because they believed in Yeltsin’s vision. Putin’s vision is not altogether different, although admittedly, it is more extreme than Yeltsin’s perversions of democracy.
The problem with Putin, according to U.S. policymakers, is that his version of democracy masks authoritarian intentions, despite Putin’s repeated assurances that he is a democrat. One strike agains that notion is the already-discussed fact that he has handpicked his successor. But so did Yeltsin who was able to retain his democratic tag. Another strike against Putin is that he has tightened the screws on the media. This is an unfortunate development that cannot be overlooked, although one should do well to note that certain civil liberties once taken for granted in the U.S. have been curttailed in the name of the GWOT. Is what is happening in Russia altogether different? Sure, in America, it is still possible to express opposition to official American policies, but how effective has that been? America is still engaged in a deeply unpopular war in Iraq despite widespread protests and even a Democratic-controlled Congress that has somehow managed to neuter itself. So, really the question of differences between Russia’s opposition and that of America come down to semantics. In terms of maintaining a semblance of democracy, is it important to have a voice, however ineffective it will be in the end? I ask what’s the difference when in Russia, there allegedly isn’t (much of) an opportunity to express opposition in the first place? In short, I think the cause for concern is valid, but we needn’t be so hasty as to demonize Putin as the second coming of Stalin just yet. Let’s see how things in Russia play out in the aftermath of this year’s presidential elections first.
Either way you slice it, to return to the theme of this post, there can be no denying that Putin will be incredibly important in Russian history, regardless of what one thinks of his policies. He’s not Hitler or Stalin where you feel that you had to support him or risk getting shot (although some might claim otherwise). Putin (generally) delivered a long since absent law and order to Russia. He also restored a sense of pride among Russians that had been missing since before the fall of the Soviet Union. Furthermore, in Moscow and St. Petersburg, if not some of the other larger cities in the Russian Federation, the people are now more prosperous than ever. Thus, even if Putin experimented with fully free elections, he could expect a victory for Medvedev, the United Russia Party, and ultimately, himself.
