Russia After Putin: Inherent Leadership Struggles

[peterd]

Russia After Putin: Inherent Leadership Struggles

Analysis


Editor's Note: This is the first part of a three-part series on Russia's leadership after President Vladimir Putin eventually leaves office. Part 1 revisits Putin's rise to power; Part 2 will examine Russia's demographics, energy sector and Putin's political changes; and Part 3 will explore whether the political systems Putin has built will survive him.

Russia has undergone a series of fundamental changes over the past year, with more changes on the horizon. Russia's economic model based on energy is being tested, the country's social and demographic make-up is shifting, and its political elites are aging. All this has led the Kremlin to begin asking how the country should be led once its unifying leader, Vladimir Putin, is gone. Already, a restructuring of the political elite is taking place, and hints of succession plans have emerged. Historically, Russia has been plagued by the dilemma of trying to create a succession plan following a strong and autocratic leader. The question now is whether Putin can set a system in place for his own passing out of the Russian leadership (whenever the time may be) without destabilizing the system as a whole.


Read more: Russia After Putin: Inherent Leadership Struggles | Stratfor
Follow us: @stratfor on Twitter | Stratfor on Facebook

www.stratfor.com/analysis/russia-after-putin-inherent-leadership-struggles?utm_source=freelist-f&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20130625&utm_term=FreeReport&utm_content=readmore&elq=715b7765f8b74a399c9b8783b188ac74

[dustdevil28]

Is he going to leave anytime soon? I doubt it, but my guess is Medvedev would be tapped to be an interim leader until someone else comes along.

Who knows, perhaps democracy will make a comeback.

-DD

[peterd]

Democracy may be possible, however chances of that happening are very small.

[dustdevil28]

Jun 30, 2013 9:42:33 GMT -8 peterd said:

Democracy may be possible, however chances of that happening are very small.

Why do you say that? They have the makings of it right now, they're just caught up in Putin's cult of personality for the time being.

-DD

[peterd]

People of Russia live under oppression for many years. When wall came down things has changed. Many, who use to be hardline communist suddently changed to so called democrats. Why, they officially because rich. All what they stole under communism now they did not have to hide. Plus they maintained power and influence. Ordinary people don't really know what democracy is all about. Yes, they are free, however due to the high food prices nothing for them changed. Now situation in Russia is in state of anarchy. There are many who would rather revert to Stalinist era. Government would control and provide for the people and people did not have to worry about tomorrow. Attitude is the problem.

Majority of people who travel to Russia see St. Petersburg and Moscow. Both are beautiful cities full of history. Once you go to the country, you will see diffent picture. You would see sadness, paint, and suffering.

[dustdevil28]

People of Russia live under oppression for many years.

Yep.

When wall came down things has changed. Many, who use to be hardline communist suddently changed to so called democrats. Why, they officially because rich.

They became democratic and gave the poor to vote so they could be rich?

All what they stole under communism now they did not have to hide. Plus they maintained power and influence.

Government officials from the Soviet era were bound to be part of the new government, they were the ones with government experience. It's a lot better to go with those who have experience at government than throwing the lot to the masses.

Ordinary people don't really know what democracy is all about.

All human beings understand the idea of freedom.

Yes, they are free, however due to the high food prices nothing for them changed.

For some, for others things have changed. They are free not to succeed or fail, they didn't have that before.

Now situation in Russia is in state of anarchy.

Okay?? They have a stable government, a capable military and compared to the rest of eastern Europe a they have a decent economy. What anarchy are you talking about, the fact that they have poor people? So do we.

There are many who would rather revert to Stalinist era. Government would control and provide for the people and people did not have to worry about tomorrow. Attitude is the problem.

Old habits die hard, but the "many" you talk about are the older and dying class. The new generation isn't going to revert back to that, there is no movement towards it and any talk about it is laughable at best.

Also, this discussion started out as one of who would lead after Putin, how is it that I now have to explain to you about communism's current state in Russia? How did we get to that point? All I asked you was to explain how Russia would be leaderless without Putin when they could elect another leader? Instead I get this odd ramble.

-DD

[peterd]

Russia's Managed Democracy

Past experiments with liberal democracy have led Russia to the brink of civil war, economic collapse and the plunder of state resources. Daniel Beer explains why most Russians feel happier with a strongman firmly in control.

www.historytoday.com/daniel-beer/russias-managed-democracy

______________________________________________________________________
'Sovereign democracy', Russian-style

Vladimir Putin's Russia is not a trivial authoritarian state. It is not "Soviet Union lite". It is not a liberal democracy either. It is, however, a "managed democracy". The term captures the logic and the mechanisms of the reproduction of power and the way democratic institutions are used and misused to preserve the monopoly of power.

But the concept of managed democracy is also insufficient. It cannot illuminate Vladimir Putin's Russia considered not as a power machine but as a political ambition. It cannot explain why Putin resists becoming president-for-life; why, unlike his central Asian colleagues, he has declared his intention to step down at the end of his second constitutional term in 2008. It cannot explain what distinguish Putin's concept of sovereign democracy and Hugo Chàvez's concept of sovereign democracy.

www.opendemocracy.net/globalization-institutions_government/sovereign_democracy_4104.jsp

________________________________________________________________________________
What Happened to Russian Democracy?

When then-President Boris Yeltsin stood on a tank in 1991, waving a fist in defiance of communist hard-liners, he heralded a new dawn for Russia.

The Soviet Union collapsed months later, promising to usher in a new era of Western-style democracy. But at the end of Yeltsin's rule, eight years later, democracy had become a dirty word for most Russians.

www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7762959
______________________________________________________________________________
Would democratic change in Russia transform its foreign policy?


The incompatibility of an anachronistic and arbitrary regime with the modern world is leading many to consider that democratic change is possible — likely even — in Russia. But those expecting that a new ‘democratic’ government would somehow take a softer line on foreign policy should think again, says Ivan Krastev.


If Russia undergoes democratic change, what would its foreign policy look like? Would it be greatly different from what it is now? Would it be much more in tune with American foreign policy? Would it share European values? Or would there still remain important differences between Russia and the West?

These questions, all posed recently by American analyst Mark Katz, are important ones, particularly so given that relations between Putin’s Russia and the West seem to have reached a dead end. Obama’s ‘reset’ with Moscow is over, and in the near future we can expect only banality, frustration, noise and growing mutual mistrust. Viewed from Washington, Russia has become both more annoying and less needed. The shale gas revolution has made Americans uninterested in Russia’s energy resources. The UN has proven ineffective in dealing with global crisis, so Russia’s seat on the Security Council is of diminishing value. American troops are on their way out of Afghanistan, so there is less need for Moscow’s assistance there either. Washington has outsourced the task of changing Moscow’s position on Syria to the Turks. And the American Senate has lost patience with Kremlin’s symbolic politics, most recently over legislation banning American citizens from adopting Russian children. (Americans were of course expecting retaliation for the Magnitsky Act, but they were shocked by the cruelness of the response. Does the Kremlin really believe that it punishes America by punishing its own orphans?)

www.opendemocracy.net/od-russia/ivan-krastev/would-democratic-change-in-russia-transform-its-foreign-policy
____________________________________________________________________________

[dustdevil28]

Thanks for the c and p pete, but I'd rather hear your opinions on the matter. If I wanted to read articles I can do that anytime.

-DD