“A historically new situation for Russia”

“Russian ruling elite can be described through a model of Soviet collective governmental body – the CPSU Central Committee’s Politburo,” such a conclusion was made by the authors of the report “Vladimir Putin’s Big Government and Politburo 2.0.” This document was created by president of Minchenko Consulting communications holding Evgeny Minchenko and director of analytics department at the International Institute for Political Expertise Kirill Petrov. It is based on the results of interviews with more than 60 experts – representatives of Russian political and business elite. Because of the specific nature of the subject, survey participants were granted anonymity.

The authors named current Russian regime “Politburo 2.0” because it strongly resembles “the CPSU CC of the 21st century.” The specific features of such a body are the following: “firstly, it never assembles for general meetings. Secondly, the official status of its members does not always correspond to the actual amount of their influence on the decision-making process. And thirdly, a few elite groups have formed around ‘Politburo 2.0,’ among them being ‘force,’ ‘political,’ ‘technical,’ and ‘entrepreneurial’ groups.” The authors think that Politburo includes eight members who represent business and political elite: Igor Sechin, Sergey Chemezov, Gennady Timchenko, Yury Kovalchuk, Sergey Sobianin, Sergey Ivanov, Viacheslav Volodin, and Dmitry Medvedev.

The President of the Russian Federation Putin is given the role of “an arbiter.” “Russian government is a conglomerate of clans and groups who fight with each other over resources. And Vladimir Putin’s role in this system remains unchangeable: he is an arbiter and moderator, but a powerful one, whose opinion is decisive in conflicts, at least for right now,” the report says.

The Day asked political scientist and leading expert at Moscow Carnegie Center Lilia SHEVTSOVA to comment on the document:

“This report reflects the political spectrum within the Kremlin. It should be understood that Putin’s ‘vertical of power’ does not consist of his persona only. It is rather a form of collective government, which is personified and embodied by one individual – Vladimir Putin. But there is nothing surprising about this definition. The regime that was created after Yeltsin’s resignation can be called authoritarian and bureaucratic. This is a collective rule of a corporation that controls the government, economic and law enforcement resources. The activity of this corporation is coordinated by a leader, who acts as an arbiter, chief supervisor, as the first among equals. Regarding the authors’ deep study of shadow corners of Russian government, it might be really interesting, especially for the inquisitive minds.

“Minchenko’s report contains information on the ‘new breath’ that will occur as the result of the ‘New Moscow’ project privatization and passing property rights to children (practically, this is a neo-patrimonial regime emerging). But what actions does the government take in order to acquire this ‘new breath’?

“The present situation in Russia is absolutely new in historical sense. The country has entered the period of confrontation between government and the active part of society. What will this confrontation result in? What is the potential of this regime’s collapse and a revolutionary reconstruction? These systematic existential questions were not answered in this report. And these are the key questions nowadays. The authors of this document became like microbiologists, watching amoebas and infusoria through a microscope. In general, this microcosm might be interesting, but it doesn’t say much about the tendencies and development of the macrocosm. A more systematic approach is needed for that, and it is necessary to constantly compare the analysis of these tendencies in order to understand which way the government and Russia are going.”

The results of the survey show that a conglomerate of competing clans rules over Russia, but not a tandem. Can it be said that Putin started regarding Medvedev as a potential rival?

“I have a quite peculiar attitude towards this ‘tandem.’ I am absolutely sure that even when Medvedev was the president, his tandem with Putin as a prime minister was an imitation, a Potemkin village of a kind, because Putin has always remained the key player. Medvedev created an impression of a president, but he was just a substitute, a figurehead. A tandem implicates the equality of players and participants. Even back then the tandem was a mere fiction, and Medvedev had no grounds to lay claim to control over law enforcement structures and main economic flows of funds. A certain group of supporters started to form around him, but it fell apart shortly after. And now, despite a number of circumstances that caused Putin to appoint Medvedev as a prime minister of his technical government, there are no signs of even an imitation of the tandem. This can even be seen on television from the way decisions are made: sometimes Medvedev jumps up and suddenly reveals some ambitions and expresses the desire to avoid humiliation. Then Putin bangs his fist on the table and tells the society and elite: ‘Don’t pay attention to this Medvedev guy!’ Apparently, Medvedev is the center of gravity for some economic clans. And Putin gives him freedom of action in decision-making in matters that relate to Medvedev’s retinue in order to save the prime minister from total humiliation. I do not think that Putin is afraid of Medvedev. The latter has turned into an object of derision not for the society only, but for the political elite too. Putin has nothing to be afraid of there.”

Some experts note that Putin returned to the style of government he was exercising during his second presidential term. Why did he choose this style? Is it as effective today as it was back then?

“Things that have happened during this summer, the whole package of bills adopted by the Kremlin, and first steps of the implementation of the new legislation (including the Pussy Riot case) tell us that the previous regime is going through an evolution. It could be called electoral authoritarianism, which still allowed some freedom for dissenters. Now we can see this regime is transforming into a harsh authoritative regime with elements of dictatorship, which is supported by bureaucratic power structures. We are talking about a new regime of repressive nature. When it shifts to new practices (repressions), it indicates that the regime is agonizing and degrading. Which means that previous methods of governing are exhausted, and the forms of government typical for Putin’s second term are not effective enough. Putin can’t rule over such a mixed and unstructured society anymore by using a whole range of tools: bribery, involvement, imitation. And this caused him to start practicing repressions.”