What is it about Russia that drives the Anglo-American world
mad? Soviet communism collapses, the empire is relinquished. Then come the
wild hopes and failures of the 1990sÂincluding the 1993 half-coup and the
tank assault on Russia's legislature, the results-adjusted referendum on a
new constitution (still in force), the dubious privatisations, the war in
Chechnya and the financial default in 1998. But after all that, in December
1999 Boris Yeltsin apologises, steps down earlyÂand names his prime minister
and former secret police chief Vladimir Putin as acting president. To
widespread consternation, Yeltsin predicts that the obscure spy is the man to
"unite around himself those who will revive Great Russia."
Incredibly, this is exactly what transpires.
And this is a grand disappointment, even a frightening
prospect? The elevation of PutinÂa secret deal promoted by Yeltsin's personal
and political family, motivated less by patriotism than self-preservationÂwill
go down as one of the most enduring aspects of Yeltsin's shaky legacy. Now,
Putin, just like his benefactor, has selected his successor, Russia's new
president Dmitri Medvedev. Sure, Putin has no plans to retire to a
hospital-dacha, where Yeltsin had spent much of his presidency. Still, in his
crafty way Putin has abided by the constitutional limit of two presidential
terms. In May, Medvedev will acquire the immense powers of the Russian
presidency (a gift of Yeltsin) in circumstances whereby the Russian state is
no longer incoherent (a gift of Putin). And this is grounds for near
universal dismissal in the west?
Two clashing myths have opened a gulf of misunderstanding
towards Russia. First is the myth in the west that the chaos and
impoverishment under Yeltsin amounted to a rough democracy, which Putin went
on to destroy. When something comes undone that easily, it was probably never
what it was cracked up to be. Still, the myth of Russia's overturned
democracy unites cold war nostalgists, who miss the enemy, with a new
generation of Russia-watchers, many of whom participated earnestly in the
illusory 1990s democracy-building project in Russia and are now disillusioned
(and tenured).
Second is the myth, on the Russian side, that the KGB was the
one Soviet-era institution that was uncorrupted, patriotic and able to
restore order. This credits Putin's stooge entourage for the economic
liberalisation that was actually pushed through by the non-KGB personnel
around him.
Each of these myths deeply rankles the other side. When a big
majority of Russians accept or even applaud Putin's concentration of power,
Anglo-American observers suspect not just ignorance but a love of
authoritarianism. (Unfortunately, Russians have never been offered genuine
democracy and the rule of law alongside soaring living standards.) When
foreign-based commentators and academics celebrate Yeltsin's Russia, which
was worth a paltry $200bn and suffered international humiliation, while
denouncing Putin's Russia, which has a GDP of $1.3 trillion and has regained
global stature, most Russians detect not just incomprehension but ill-will.
Let's take a deep breath. To recognise that Putin inherited a
dysfunctional situation derived from rampant insider theft and regional
misrule is not to condone his KGB-style rule, which has often been nasty and
sometimes self-defeating. Even though many Russian officials are
conscientious and competent, the state remains too corrupt, as in most places
around the world. At the top, privileged functionaries have grabbed (and are
still grabbing) prime business holdings. At all levels, officialdom now seeks
its rewards by mimicking the Kremlin's repression and manipulation. But
Russia is also increasingly prosperous, with a new consumer-driven market
economy and a burgeoning middle-class society full of pride. This combination
of a relatively closed, unstable political system and a relatively open,
stable society may seem incompatibleÂbut there it is.
What happens when a large, important country turns out to have
a dynamic, open market economy integrated into the global system, yet a political
system that is undemocratic and not democratising? A lot of head-scratching
by experts. It may be comforting in the corridors of punditry and social
science to write about how economic growth without the rule of law is doomed
to fail (China?) or how economic growth eventually brings political
liberalisation. But many countries, not just Russia, have more or less
manipulated elections while lacking the rule of law, and yet still have
dynamic market economies. In Russia private property is not guaranteedÂand
property ownership is widespread.
A conceptual adjustment to Russia's seemingly impossible
reality is now under way, but the process is painful and slow. "When I
worked in Moscow in 1994 and 1995 for the National Democratic Institute, an
American NGO, I could not have imagined the present situation,"
confessed Sarah Mendelson, a senior fellow in Russian affairs at the Centre
for Strategic and International Studies, in the American Scholar recently.
"We thought we were on the frontier of a democratic revolution. We
weren't. We were witnessing a market revolution." This basic
understanding, so long in coming, is not yet widespread. For the most part,
pathetic cries about how "the west," whatever that is, has (again)
"lost" Russia, and how the west must somehow "resist"
Putin, persist....
The unsolved murders of Russian journalists and the arrests of
political activists make many observers want at a minimum to chalk up Putin's
boom to dumb luckÂfloating on highly priced reservoirs of oil and gas left by
nature hundreds of millions of years agoÂand to predict a come-uppance. Maybe
Russia is set for a fall. In terms of quotidian state functions, Russia is
badly governed, which makes it vulnerable in a crisis. In a global world
where everything is connected, if China's boom loses air, Russia too will
feel the enormous downdraught. And Wall Street's financial engineering may
yet annihilate everyone, good and bad alike. Whatever the future holds, it is
clear that the world has not seen such large authoritarian market economies
like Russia's or China's since, well, Nazi Germany and its ally Japan. But
today's authoritarian Russia and China are not militarily aggressive. And
Edward Lucas notwithstanding, these countries are also not likely to be
defeated in war and occupied so that the likes of Michael McFaul and Kathryn
Stoner-Weiss can have another go at the democracy crusade so well chronicled
by David Foglesong.
The power of the Kremlin can seem all-encompassing. Across the
20th century, the average time in office for leaders in the democratic US has
been about six years. In autocratic Russia, it has been around ten. Remove
Stalin's long despotism, and the figure falls to eight. Still, authoritarian
successions are always difficult from a regime's point of view. (Perhaps the
most remarkable fact about China is not its market transformation but its two
smooth, albeit opaque, political transitions after Deng Xiaoping stepped
down, first to Jiang Zemin and then to Hu Jintao.) One of the many weak
points of authoritarianism is that it makes bad options appear attractiveÂlike
hoping, as many do, that Putin remains Russia's real ruler. But whatever the
fate of the latest succession, the Kremlin's China-like strategy will likely
continue: suppressing many of the politically liberalising aspects of
globalisation while pursuing its economic aspects to the ends of the earth.
Just like the Chinese and the Arab autocracies, the Russians
are comingÂand for real this time. When Russian capital, already highly
visible in Europe and Britain, comes with ever greater force to Wall Street
and to Main Street America, will Americans understand the value of Russia
having a substantial stake in US success? Will Americans appreciate that
having Russian-owned assets on American soil that could be seized provides a
huge source of leverage over the Kremlin that is today lacking? As for the
EU, it may be crucial for north Africa and the Levant, but it is far less so
for Russia (or China). The EU seems likely to be bedevilled for some time
over the status of Turkey, while Russia, just like China, continues to pursue
bilateral relations with individual European countries. Russia's trade with
EU countries is hugeÂthree times its trade with the former Soviet republicsÂand
Germany is easily Russia's biggest single partner (in 2007 their bilateral
trade hit $52.8bn). Still, right now no place matters more to Russia than
London as a commercial hub of globalisation. London's importance is one
reason Russia has triedÂwith episodes like the British Council harassmentÂto
send forceful diplomatic messages over anything related to its sovereignty,
just as China does, without undermining real interests.
We should not, however, exaggerate Russia's global power. In
future the US, the EU and China will each account for no less than one fifth
of global GDP. Even if Russia does become the world's fifth largest economy,
it would still constitute no more than 3 or so per cent of global GDP. The
Kremlin will use its seat on the UN security council and presence at the G8
to defend its interests globally, while also seeking good relations with
China in various forums. But Russia is not an EU country, not a US ally and
not a China ally. It is perceived as a possible partner, but also as a
potential enemy, by all three. Above all, if Russian companies, whether
state-owned or private, are not able to go toe-to-toe with the best companies
in the world, you can forget the whole game. "Even with the economic
situation in our favour at the moment, we are still only making fragmentary
attempts to modernise our economy," Putin said in a speech this year on
Russia's long-term development strategy to 2020. "This inevitably
increases our dependence on imported goods and technology, and reinforces our
role as a commodities base for the world economy." He added that
"the Russian economy's biggest problem today is that it is extremely
ineffective. Labour productivity in Russia remains very low. We have the same
labour costs as in the most developed countries, but the return is several
times lower. This situation is all the more dangerous when global competition
is increasing."
In short, President Medvedev and, if so named, Prime Minister
Putin have their work cut out