#11 - JRL 8090 - JRL Home
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004
From: vlad brovkin <brovkinv@yahoo.com>
Subject: Freedom in Putin's Russia - a view from the Urals

Freedom in Putin's Russia - a view from the Urals
By Vlad Brovkin
Associate professor at department of international relations at Urals University and Executive Editor of Demokratizatsiya, The Journal of Post-Soviet Democratization.

I'd like to give my take on the situation, as one who has lived in both countries, Russia and America.

While being here I realize that one has a totally different perception of events than being in the US. And a doubly different perception

For example I was surprised that the Western media were so hysterical when the Yukos case was on. The guy is a thief and I was happy he was arrested. I wish they did it to all the former oligarchs.! There is no basis to say that this is a witch hunt, lack of freedom and the rest of it. Basically this is a fight against corruption, tax evasion and capital flight. They cannot arrest them all so they chose someone to make an example to others. In view of the Enron and other recent corporate corruption cases, one should not act like this is not happening in the West.

Freedom of the press. This is a problem indeed but not because the state from somewhere is suffocating the press but because local little tsars do. The biggest threat to freedom of speech is coming from the local Khans, who control everything in their provinces. In fact the central press is free and sometimes they say things that political correctness would not alllow to say in the west. Here again comparing the political discourse in Russia and in America I cannot say that there is more freedom in America. In fact probably the degree of permissible is greater in Russia.

Elections to the Duma. I have an impression that they were free and fair by western standards. Of course there was some manipulation in the sense that some candidates were not allowed to run and others were supported and promoted. But here again. The same goes on all the time in America. The system is in fact based on that principle in America. If someone wants to run he has to raise the money for it and that means please those people who would bet on him and give him the money. In Russia it is pretty much like that too. But it is still possible to mobilize grassroots support and come out into the national arena which is not possible in America.

The economy, stupid. One of the greatest achievements of Putin is economic boom. I do not know whether he did it or it worked by itself. the fact is that the economy is booming. Housing construction is going on everywhere. One can get a job anytime. In fact there is a shortage of workers filled by Central Asians. The standard of living is very modest sti! ll but not as modest as a few years ago. Again if we go by the American standard and ask are you better off than four years ago, the answer for most would be yes.

Local bosses and centralization. Western media mostly equated decentralization with federalism and with freedom during Yeltsin's years. Occasionally it mentioned the chaos that came with it. Rarely it mentioned the main thing locals noticed: that it meant almost total arbitrary power for the governors.

Actually it was more like destroying federalism. The recentralization by Putin is more like federalism, not in an ideal sense, but at least in the sense of the fundamentals: a common nationwide market, some common nationwide laws, some limitations on regional power.

Putin's re-centralization of power was treated from the start by most Western writers as a restoration of hypercentralized bureaucratic tyranny. It was seen by only a few Westerners the same way most Russians saw it -- as directed at holding! the country together, reestablishing a nationwide market after the collapse of 1998 and protectionism in many regions, and bringing the governors under some control. This actually meant more freedom: restraining the arbitrariness of governors, separating courts from their control.

Some Western writers have recently argued that, no matter what Putin's original program was, the relation is now one where Putin and the locals run mutually supporting despotisms. In other words, even if originally he was trying to cut down the local bosses somewhat and showed his power, more recently he made a devil's deal with them - they support his power and abuses, he supports their power and abuses.

But the options put above are too black and white. In reality it is more give and take on both sides, Putin and the governors. It seems to me that the local bosses now know that they have to get civilized and not to abuse power too much. If they transgress they will be removed as was the! case in Far East. So they are more restrained now and some are trying to act as real leaders in their regions as opposed to being thieves and dictators as in the past. I also think this has been the intention of Putin not to overthrow them but to civilize them. Also it all should be seen againt the real fight against corruption that is going on. More and more cases of exposed and charged officials are coming out all the time. All this sends a message. On the other hand there are areas where local rulers are as bad as under Yeltsin.

On all of these counts Putin is popular, and the reasons for his popularity are normal, not anything uniquely Russian. In the West, the popularity of Putin is treated as if it were proof of a hopelessly authoritarian mentality. Here it does not look that way.