Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005
From: David Gillespie <mlsdcg@bath.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: 9221-comments re Aslund
I´d like to make some comments about Anders Aslund´s essay in 9220, and the responses in 9221 by Jeremy Putley and Ira Strauss.
First of all, it strikes me that Professor Aslund may be overly critical of Putin´s resurgent authoritarianism because, as one of the advisors during post-Soviet economic reform, he may well feel that all his own work in the 1990s is being undermined. It is true that that work itself has come under severe criticism, not least in your pages a few years ago, for having paved the way to ´robber capitalism´. Is Anders Aslund simply criticising Putin as a way of protecting his own record?
Secondly, I fail to see where any opposition is coming from, since Professor Aslund admits himself that incomes are rising and Russians generally are feeling better off. Why should ordinary Russians, generals or oligarchs threaten when things are going so well? What does he mean by ´disaster´ threatening Russia? Surely Russia has survived enough disasters since 1991 to withstand the fall of another President.
I´m also very wary of Professor Aslund´s uncritical quoting of George Bush as a framing narrative for his forthright and admittedly articulate appraisal of Putin´s second term. In Europe people are far more critical of President Bush´s ´war on terrorism´ and the consequences that we have seen on this continent, and his words and speeches on this topic are greeted with less than unanimous approval, to put it mildly. Ironically, I am reminded of Solzhenitsyn´s critique of the ènd justifies the means´ as the main building block of the Soviet state: the same could be said of Bush´s attempt to impose `democracy´on the rest of the world.
Personally, I am sure that Putin wants a third term and maybe even a Lukashenko-like Life Presidency. Even before the 2004 election he and his people were testing the water with the public (in particular, during a live TV phone-in on Channel One in December 2003). He also knows the problems that would cause in the West, and is caught between his authoritarian instincts and an awareness that the world and Russia have changed since 1991. Be hard on Putin by all means, but not in the name of American democracy.
Best wishes,
David Gillespie
Professor, Russian Studies
University of Bath, UK