Russia Profile
April 13, 2007
Russia Profile Weekly Experts Panel: More Third Term Rumors
Introduced by Vladimir Frolov
Contributors: Eugene Kolesnikov, Andrei Lebedev, Alexander Rahr, Sergei Shishkarev, Andrei Zagorski
Last week marked the seventh anniversary of President Vladimir Putin’s election as President of Russia. That leaves only one year before his second term expires and, according to the Constitution, he will have to leave office.
It appears that many high-ranking members of the Russian political elite are uncomfortable with this prospect and keep floating all sorts of trial balloons to see under what scenario Putin might be most likely to stay on the job.
Early this month, Sergei Mironov Federation Council Speaker, and leader of Just Russia, the second largest pro-Putin party sent a letter to the regional legislatures asking them what they thought about the advisability of launching a nationwide debate on repealing the constitutional two-term limit for the sitting president as well as on prolonging the duration of the term from four to five, or even seven years.
The Just Russia proposal once again sent the Russian political establishment into a tailspin, mainly since most observers assumed that Mironov, the third man in the Russian political hierarchy, would never venture anything that controversial without the clear blessing of Putin himself.
The Kremlin rushed to deny that Putin had changed his mind, and even mildly rebuked Mironov. Boris Gryzlov, the leader of United Russia also rushed to nip Mironov’s initiative in the bud by saying that his party, which has control of the Duma, would not allow for such a change in the constitution.
For a while, its seemed that Mironov’s initiative would go the way of other such proposals and the whole debacle was Mironov’s attempt to earn some cheap PR points for himself and his party. But then something unexpected happened.
First, Deputy Duma Speaker Lyubov Sliska broke ranks with her boss Gryzlov and endorsed Mironov’s proposal. Most importantly, last Friday, Moscow mayor Yuri Luzhkov in a televised interview also suggested that prolonging Putin’s term in office and doing away with term limits altogether was worth discussing. Luzhkov couched his comments in strong anti-American rhetoric, suggesting that term limits was an invention of a “still young American democracy” while more developed democracies in Europe do not have such impractical provisions. “Keep him in the job he is doing so well,” suggested Luzhkov, obviously keeping in mind the fact that his own term that is due to expire at the end of 2007.
Luzhkov’s jump into the game is a serious matter. At a minimum, it indicates there is no unity on the issue within the United Russia leadership, since Luzhkov is one of the party’s top leaders. At a maximum, it might indicate that Putin is indeed having second thoughts about his decision to leave in 2008.
But a more likely scenario is that a group of senior Kremlin officials, most likely aligned with Deputy Presidential Chief of Staff Igor Sechin and the FSB Director Nikolai Patrushev, are looking desperately for ways to convince Putin to stay in office after 2008, since this is the only way for them to maintain their levels of power. Both designated successors Dmitry Medvedev and Sergei Ivanov are viewed by this group with unconcealed suspicion and the election of either of them would seriously weaken the group’s position.
Can Mironov’s initiative to draft Putin for a third term succeed where other such plans foundered? What would it take for Putin to agree to Mironov’s proposal? How would the West react to Putin changing the constitution and remaining?
Sergei Shishkarev, Deputy Chairman, State Duma Committee on Energy, Transportation and Communications :
Federation Council Speaker Sergei Mironov is trying to revisit an issue that has already been closed. President Putin has publicly rejected the idea of changing the constitution to allow either for his third term in office or for prolonging the duration the presidential term to five or seven years. He said that the constitution would not be changed for the sitting president. The Kremlin also reminded Mironov that Putin intends to strictly observe these constitutional provisions. The speaker of the Duma and the leader of United Russia stated that the party will defend the constitution and wants the president’s desire to leave office in 2008 to be respected. I fully support the position of my party United Russia.
However, there is one element in Sergei Mironov’s initiative that deserves serious consideration. He says he wants to launch a public discussion on the subject of the number and duration of presidential terms. Such a discussion is healthy in a democratic society like Russia. After all, it’s the people who need to decide the issue. But this discussion should not concern the sitting President. Putin has already expressed his position on the issue. He will leave his office in 2008. Whether the constitution will be changed after the presidential election a year from now will become clear after the public discussion proposed by Mironov takes place.
Mironov wants to use the issue of a third term for Putin to boost his personal popularity and that of his party, Just Russia. He wants Putin’s enormous popularity among the Russian people to reflect on his party. This is called stealing. Mironov and his party need to prove that they have the support of the Russian people, not borrow popularity from Putin.
Alexander Rahr, Director of the Russian Program, German Council on Foreign Relations, Berlin:
How would the West react to the theoretical possibility that Vladimir Putin decides to stay on for a third term in office? The reaction would be mostly negative. Many Western politicians have become very suspicious of Putin`s foreign and domestic policy. They suspect him of trying to resurrect Russia as a new empire, using oil and gas as weapons. Nobody had expected such a return of Russia into the Champion’s League of world politics. The United States is particularly angry at Putin’s desire to participate in a multipolar world. His growing popularity and authority inside Russia also provokes instinctive fears in the West.
If Putin managed to change Russia so unexpectedly and dramatically in only eight years what will Russia look like in another eight years? Will it become a new version of the Soviet Union or a strong capitalist rival to the West?
Putin`s decision to stay or to leave will not take Western feelings and emotions into account. Putin will decide sometime this summer, and only in accordance with Russian politics. He may indeed stay, if he realizes that his country would be on the verge of a major crisis, for example a deep split in the top leadership, as a result of his departure. He seems to already be receiving such signals from the siloviki who may have whispered in his ear that they will never accept Dmitry Medvedev as president, because his is too close to parts of the Yeltsin family.
However, the strongest argument for Putin to leave is the constitution. There is simply no way to stay without altering the country’s fundamental law. Putin’s main credo of has been the consolidation of statehood on the basis of law. If he agrees to change the constitution, he will destroy the achievements of his policies. In order to enter history as a modern Peter the Great, who managed to revive a Russia in such a short time, he must sacrifice his personal ambitions. Only then will he keep a chance to return in 2012.
Eugene Kolesnikov, Private Consultant, the Netherlands:
It would be useful to start a discussion of Putin's options for a third term by dispensing with some widespread myths. First is the myth that constitution is a sacred document that should not be touched. That is not quite true. Constitutions are living document that are amended as states and societies evolve. France, for instance, has amended its constitution 18 times and the United States, 27 times.
The second myth is that the West, particularly the United States, is deeply concerned about changing the Russian Constitution to allow Putin to serve the third term because they are the moral guardians of democracy. This is preposterous. It is Putin's Russia that the West is concerned about, not his third term per se. Just a few years ago, the less than democratic elections that brought about Yeltsin's second term enjoyed the wholesale backing of the West.
The third myth is that the overwhelming support of Putin by the Russian people is in large part due to the Kremlin's control of the media and stifling of political opposition. Those who lived through the 1990s and experienced over the last seven years the restoration of order, wellbeing, pride for the country and optimism about the future do not need any propaganda to respect and support Putin. Virtually everyone in Russia became better off, with the exception of a few exiled or jailed oligarchs.
And the last myth to discard is that it was not Putin, but the oil and gas bonanza that changed the country. I will not repeat the numerous arguments against this myth and only mention that average oil price in today’s dollars during Yeltsin’s rule was $23 per barrel while during the first term of Putin's presidency, when the main changes took place, it was $29 hardly a decisive factor in transforming the country beyond recognition. By the way, during the perestroika, the average oil price was $33 per barrel in today’s dollars.
Against this background, it is quite understandable that the Russian people would like Putin to stay. Putin, in turn, has every moral and political right to change the constitution and stay in power. Opinions of such staunch guardians of democracy as George W. Bush in this case do not really matter. Sergei Mironov's initiative is a reflection of this prevailing attitude in the Russian society and yet another attempt to put pressure on Putin to stay.
However, it appears that Putin has made a different personal and moral choice. It is probably more important in his view not to change the constitution to accommodate one person, even if he is the one most suitable for the job. Preserving the constitution in this way will provide a powerful moral precedent and firm ground on which to maintain stability and further develop a law-abiding society in Russia. Putin, as he already mentioned, will participate in this task in some other way. This choice, unfortunately, means that some changes in Russia are forthcoming. I hope, and Putin must believe, that they will ultimately benefit the country. Nevertheless, if Putin changes his mind, I, as many others, would not be too disappointed.
Andrei Zagorski, Professor, MGIMO-University, Moscow:
The continued debate over allowing President Putin to continue his office for the third term or longer supports the theory that, as of now, every scenario is still possible.
Furthermore, the growing controversy over this issue in the public space is an indicator of the mounting power struggle within Russia’s narrow ruling elite, which is divided on many issues. The very emotional televised interview by Sergei Mironov on Mar. 31 strikingly translated the fears of further “monopolization of political power” by United Russia, thus marginalizing the siloviki.
Regardless of the prospects for such a marginalization, the major problem with the third term scenario remains that it has to be accepted by the West. Meanwhile, it is not only the U.S. administration that has signaled its concern about this scenario. Even the most Russia-loyal German politicians regard this scenario as almost impermissible from a constitutional perspective.
Therefore, it would be hardly possible to sell the third term scenario to Russia’s major partners in the West. More importantly, should it materialize, this scenario would dramatically strengthen the argument of the skeptics who particularly since Putin’s Munich speech emphasize the value gap between Russia and the West.
Nevertheless, opting for the third term or a similar scenario would not ruin Moscow’s relations with the West. As long as the oil price is high enough, the inevitable cooling of those relations could probably be affordable for the Kremlin economically and politically. It would not be conducive, however, to repairing this fragile relationship.
For that reason, although changing the constitution doesn’t necessarily require a referendum, doing so without a referendum would significantly undermine the international legitimacy of the Russian president. Since the last chance to hold a referendum is on the day of parliamentary elections in December, the decision about whether to do so will soon be made. In order to make such a referendum possible, the State Duma would have to decide on it before breaking for the summer, or at least early in September.
The constitution could still be changed without a referendum, but this option comes with much higher political risks, so it could only be justified by an extraordinary situation.
Andrei Lebedev, Senior Associate, the State Club Foundation, Moscow:
It would take an extraordinary event to for President Putin to break his clearly expressed promise to leave office in 2008. There seems to be no loophole in the wording of his intention to do so, and hopefully no catastrophe will allow him to change his mind.
The constitutional way of presidential transition is far too important for Russia’s image abroad. More than that, it is critically important for the further development of democratic institutions in Russia. Actually, 2008 could be the first time Russians will participate in free elections without a predetermined winner. Whatever marginal politicians might say about the “absence of real choice” (the same may be, and is said, in most democratic countries where there are one or two clear frontrunners), the field is there to compete for every person able to garner enough support. Once truly democratic presidential elections take place, they will set a hard to break precedent.
Therefore, any banter about “the third term” should be dismissed as simply an attempt to attract extra attention. Some additional political scores with supporters can hardly outweigh the image of a lawmaker inclined to bend or change the law in favor of a political star.
As far as “senior Kremlin officials” are concerned, they will have to face Putin’s departure sooner or later. There should be no doubt that work behind the scenes goes on in order to assure orderly transition of power to a candidate ready to take their interests in the account. But then again, this is the way it works in any democracy, isn’t it?