>From the newspaper Trud.
TITLE: INTERVIEW WITH HISTORIAN AND WRITER ROY MEDVEDEV ON
VLADIMIR PUTIN'S PRESIDENCY
[TRUD DAILY, P. 3, MAY 7, 2004]
SOURCE: FEDERAL NEWS SERVICE (http://www.fednews.ru/)
FOUR YEARS IN THE KREMLIN
Today sees the inauguration of President-elect Vladimir Putin
This is not the first book by historian and journalist Roy
Medvedev in which he turns to the personality of our President. His
book "Vladimir Putin: Acting President" was published three years
ago. Since then the world has seen momentous events that
dramatically changed the alignment of forces and the relationships
between great powers. The Russian President all these years has been
among the key protagonists in these events, as shown in Roy
Medvedev's new book, just out, "Vladimir Putin: Four Years in the
Kremlin."
The author used to be a dissident who has taken his share of
suffering under the communists, but has preserved the reputation of
a broadly thinking and independent man. Today Roy Medvedev answers
questions from Trud correspondent.
Political Technologies and Civil Choice
Q: The results of the presidential elections did not come as a
surprise to anyone although many people had not expected such an
overwhelming victory for Vladimir Putin and such a poor showing from
his rivals. Some see his victory as a logical result of four years
of fruitful work, others as the result of political technologies and
lack of a credible rival in the political arena. What is your point
of view?
A: Vladimir Putin's victory did not come as a surprise to
observers, but his emergence on the Russian political scene, his
meteoric rise and his influence on the situation in Russia continue
to intrigue many in and outside Russia just as much as four years
ago.
I would like to note, and I write it in my book, that not only
our country in the 20th century, but the history of Western
democracies, aside from the times of the great revolutions, have
seen such a rapid and popularly approved rise of a political leader
that we have witnessed in Russia in recent years. Historically it so
happens that the rise of a national leader usually happens as a
result of intricate and prolonged political in-fighting which may
turn bloody in a totalitarian country. It is obvious that Vladimir
Putin career rise, especially since August 1999, has been
extraordinary. But there is an explanation to it. In the early 1990s
the former ideological and personnel systems in Russia were smashed
and everything was in flux. That enabled some startling and totally
unpredictable careers to be made. Obscure clerks, heads of
laboratories, humble academics, Komsomol activists and members of
cooperatives filled the corridors of power, the boardrooms of banks
and even occupied the offices of the heads of special services. As
Alexander Herzen rightly wrote in his memoirs, in times of trouble
power is seized by people "with great ambitions and small abilities,
with immense pretensions but without stamina and capacity for work."
In this melee that mixed both worthy and not so worthy people
the former special services officer Vladimir Putin began his rise in
1991 until Boris Yeltsin, on the one hand, and the powerful magnetic
field of popular demands and expectations on the other, elevated him
to the pinnacle of power.
Let us not forget that the elite itself after Yeltsin was
heterogeneous and anything but consolidated. Democracy went hand in
hand with despotism and new Russian capitalism contained elements
not only of crime, but hefty chunks of former socialist relations.
This regime had different colors and applied different principles in
different spheres of management. Political scientists still use
different colors for the map of different Russian regions. No
country in the world knows such a mixture of political colors.
During the eight years under Yeltsin the living standards of
the majority of Russian citizens, on all main counts, dropped by 40-
50 percent and the number of people living in abject poverty
approached half of the population. The death rate in the country
greatly outstripped birthrates and the population shrank by 3
million. Crime increased, the systems of education, health and
culture were in decline.
It was in this complex and contradictory situation that the
youngest national leader in the history of the USSR and Russia had
to start his work. Putin's success as President -- and this is my
deep conviction -- was not a product of some new political
technologies and his high approval rating and unprecedented popular
confidence in him are the results of his policy and state
activities, the decisions that he took independently assuming the
full responsibility. That is why Putin distilled everything that in
the former times was called "the healthy part of society."
Q: The opposition has made great play of the thesis about "the
President's lack of political experience," ignorance of complicated
economic problems which would inevitably cause him to make mistakes
in international politics.
A: Such passages reflect the pitch of political struggles but
do not correspond to reality. It is true that by comparison with
Mikhail Gorbachev and Boris Yeltsin Vladimir Putin had modest
experience when he was elected for his first term as President. He
had not gone through what we call "party-economic management
school", he had not sat in the Politburo and had not studied at
party's academies. But let us not forget that the new Russian
president was shaped as a politician and statesman in an era of
revolutionary upheavals which gave him invaluable experience. Those
were the times when one year counted for two and even three, as they
say in the army.
Putin held fairly influential positions in a large city working
in the same team with Anatoly Sobchak. Sobchak was a kind of mayor
who used to say: "A mayor shouldn't be an economic manager." Putin
was not a public speaker in the same sense as Sobchak was . But in
terms of personal ability he was far superior to Sobchak. While the
mayor paraded his oratorical skills at society receptions, Putin did
the day-to-day routine work which really made the "second capital"
tick.
Let us not forget that the young vice-mayor in those years
directed his efforts to creating conditions that would make St. Pete
attractive for foreign investors. Putin was very instrumental in
creating the first currency exchange in the city and in the signing
of many economic and advisory agreements between townhall and
Western partners. He was involved in the opening of a branch of
Dresdner Bank in St. Petersburg, which was one of the first branches
of a foreign bank on Russian territory. Between 1990 and 1995 about
6,000 joint ventures, half of the total for the whole of Russia,
were created in Petersburg.
It was the time when he was gaining political and international
experience. US President Clinton visited the city twice, ex-
presidents Reagan and Carter also visited the city. That veteran of
American foreign policy, Henry Kissinger, met with Putin several
times. Unlike many others, he singled Putin out and even managed to
ask him a few questions about his past.
It is worth noting that at the same time a group of serious
economists, managers and security and army men began to be formed
around Vladimir Putin. They included German Gref, Dmitry Kozak,
Dmitry Medvedev, Igor Sechin, Nikolai Patrushev, Sergei Ivanov,
Viktor Cherkeson, Sregei Mironov, Ilya Klebanov, Vladimir Kozhin,
Viktor Ivanov, Alexander Grigoryev, Grigory Poltavchenko, Leonid
Reiman and others. These people had their own style and they saw
Putin as their leader.
It is another question that few people knew about the nature
and scale of Putin's work as vice-mayor of St. Petersburg. And yet
when he was appointed Russia's Prime Minister, his credentials for
the job were much more solid than those of Yegor Gaidar, Sergei
Kiriyenko and Sergei Stepashin.
With "the Family" and without the Family
Q: The way a politician chooses his team is the key feature, an
acid test that characterizes him. In Boris Yeltsin's team it was
"the Family" (some of whose members the new President inherited)
that called all the shots. In Putin's team, as his opponents think,
the key positions are held by the "Petersburg guys." Do you agree
that the pool of talent on which he can draw is rather limited and
not always effective?
A: There are indeed many people from St. Petersburg around the
President. But by no means all of them are linked with the special
services. There is a large group of Petersburg liberal economists
and lawyers that had never anything to do with the secret services.
So, the Petersburg team can be roughly divided into three groups not
necessarily interconnected and sometimes even opposed to each other.
They are the representatives of the "power structures," or siloviki,
the liberal economists and the lawyers.
I think the following would be a natural answer to your
question: what matters is not where these people came from, but how
they perform and what new and effective ideas they have contributed.
And on that count I don't mind expressing some doubts and concerns.
In my view the President's team over the years has failed to produce
an outstanding individual, a man who in popular consciousness could
occupy a place if not equal then at least comparable to that
occupied by Putin today.
I am particularly worried about the dearth of strong people, an
effective team in such important spheres as the social and economic
spheres. During the past years a lot of able, enterprising and well-
educated leaders who have acquired managerial skills both here and
abroad, have gained prominence in the Russian provinces. But how to
get them together, how to unite them and use them effectively? That
question has yet to be answered.
Let us take the economy of Russia and its main ideologist,
German Gref. He has come up with an idea which has already provoked
stormy debates in society. I mean his proposals to abolish all the
social benefits for pensioners, invalids, veterans and other
disadvantaged social strata to replace them all with compensation in
cash. Let me say that this is not a new idea. Some members of the
Yeltsin team were its ardent advocates, for example, Aven and
Nemtsov. At the time it didn't come off and now Gref is trying to
revive the idea.
This proposal boils down to abolition of social benefits. But
it is obvious that social entitlements and payments in cash are very
different things. Gref, like his colleagues in the cabinet, himself
enjoys a number of substantial perks. A personal official limousine,
free medical care for his family, private jet, state dacha,
bodyguards, VIP lounges, etc. Would these people agree to being
offered instead of real benefits free fares on the Metro and the
trolleybus, cash allowances to pay for taxis and the services of
private doctors, and to buy air tickets at the Cabinet of Minister's
booking office? I would like to stress that privileges is not a
financial but a social issue that affects millions of Russian
citizens, who have already lost a great deal during the Yeltsin
reforms. I think raising this issue is untimely and it indicates the
incompetence of the officials who are raising it.
Putin Will Never Leave Politics
Q: Yeltsin did not start thinking (with the help of his
entourage) about a successor until it became clear that he was
physically and morally unfit to run the country. Vladimir Putin
first spoke about a successor recently. Do you think that they will
create a new post for Putin or he will quietly quit in four years'
time, as the people around him aver?
A: I am convinced that Putin will quit as President in four
years' time. But it doesn't mean he will leave big politics.
Logically one might imagine a scheme that would enable him to
preserve his political influence and run for President again in
2012. By the way, history knows quite a few examples of comebacks by
heads of state.
For instance, Putin may become the leader of the United Russia.
Let me remind you that we have lived for years under such a scheme
when the leader of a party was de facto head of state. By the way, I
have no doubt as to who will be the head of state if United Russia
becomes a truly ruling party in four years' time with Putin as its
leader. Russia is not America. In our country an authoritative
leader, even if he has temporarily left the post of president but
has kept a niche in the political elite, can remain the most
influential person in the country.
Q: Do you see any other variants?
A: Another option is that the new president appoints Vladimir
Putin the head of government. Let me stress that in order to retain
influence occupying a high post is necessary. In this country you
cannot just "simply be Deng Xiaoping". You may ask what has Putin
decided for himself? My hunch is that he hasn't yet decided. Above
all, because there is no person around him yet who is worthy of
becoming the head of the nation.
Q: Do you believe that this is his problem?
A: Yes, this is his problem. The fact that Putin, once he found
himself in the driving seat, is successfully sorting out serious
social situations and commands people's trust came as a surprise to
many people, above all for Boris Yeltsin. I don't think he had
discerned such powerful promise in his successor. His aim in naming
a successor was to name someone who would protect his family from
possible trouble and allow him to live out his days quietly. That
was the problem he was trying to solve.
Q: And it was Putin's moral probity and decency that he counted
on?
A: Undoubtedly so. He counted on his sense of an officer's
honor (let us not forget how Putin behaved when rescuing Anatoly
Sobchak from a delicate situation and risking his own career in the
process). Yeltsin also counted on the authority his appointee
commanded in the special services and in the other power
structures... One thing Yeltsin had not expected was that Putin
would prove an efficient President, far more effective and respected
than Boris Nikolayevich Yeltsin himself.
This is particularly obvious today when real changes are taking
place in the economy, the financial status of Russia is improving
and the GDP is steadily growing. Reforms of the army, education are
moving forward, if with difficulty, and outstanding social problems
are being addressed.
Q: Putin's critics claim that he is a tough president.
A: You can't be anything but tough in Russia. We live in a
country where a civil society has not yet been formed. The leading
political and social force after the fall of the CPSU is the
bureaucracy. The bureaucratic hierarchy from bottom to top is the
framework of the state. You would agree that it is the bureaucrats
and not the military, the businessmen, party or religious figures,
like in Iran, wield real power here. And bureaucrats demand an
authoritarian, tough manner of administration, they simply don't
recognize any other style.
By the way, Yuri Luzhkov who knows all the vices and
shortcomings of bureaucracy is very keenly aware of it. So, he has
been successfully managing Moscow all these years resorting to
tough, occasionally brutal decisions. And he has been successful.
Concluding this topic, I would like to tell you that the past
four years have been very eventful for the country. Russia has
become more consolidated, it has made great strides toward economic
recovery and strengthening its influence in the world. This inspires
hope and confidence in a big future. In the future Russia will not
be a solitary super power. But neither will it be a junior partner
of the US. Nor will it be the kind of "bright future" that had been
promised to us since 1917.
