Political Leadership of Vladimir Putin in Russia's Transition - Assignment Example

Leadership Transformation in the Soviet Union and After The dissolution of the Soviet Union on December 26, 1991 is one of the most significant events in modern history. It not only signified the end of a superpower but also marked the apparent defeat of a vast political ideology. Nearly two decades later, Russia as a sovereign state has re-established its position in international affairs and the ideology that was socialism has permeated modern all social structuring. In doing so, no state has had to undergo such tremendous reorganization of its administrative, economic and political systems as modern Russia. Compounding this is the fact that most of these changes have not been contiguous in their evolution but have been sudden or revolutionary. The period from 1980 to the present has witnessed a procession of leaders in rapid succession with as many as seven men occupying the highest position of power; though Mikhail Gorbachev, Boris Yeltsin and Vladimir Putin stand tall among all of them. The Soviet Legacy The rise and decline of the Soviet Union has been studied in such great detail that there is no further information that can be elucidated from a renewed discussion of the topic. Instead we focus on the period starting from the later years of Mikhail Gorbachev when Russian leadership was at a crisis point, then briefly sojourn through the Yeltsin years observing the privatization of the economy and finally focus the greater part of our attention on Vladimir Putin when the state regained some of its lost glory and discipline. Gorbachev presided over a Soviet Union that was in deep crisis. The revolutionary reform policies that he had endorsed – Glasnost (Openness), Perestroika (restructuring), Demokratizatsiya (democratization) and Uskoreniye (acceleration) – had unintended consequences; particularly the resurgence of nationalist sentiments among soviet satellite states. Economic reforms particularly those that relate to agriculture and industrial policy were not highly successful. This is hardly surprising. The Soviet leaders in Moscow including Gorbachev had no sound understanding of the actual dissent that was prevalent in the soviet society at the grass roots level. For a society in which barter was still a prominent way of value exchange, fiscal policy changes were difficult to be appreciated and implemented. The integrity of the state was further undermined the rise of independent revolutions and referendums in Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Georgia, Ukraine, Armenia and Azerbaijan. The highlight of Gorbachev’s years has been his highly successful foreign policy which not only brought an end to the cold war but also opened new frontiers of international cooperation. Both Gorbachev and Yeltsin had to fight the traditional stronghold of the bureaucracy over Russia (Brown and Shevtosa). Boris Yeltsin brought to the presidency years of experience and authority as a decision maker. By the time he became the president of Russia in 1991, he had already been the communist secretary in the Sverdlovsk region, the first secretary of the Moscow party and the Chairman of the Russian Supreme Soviet. He announced his market reforms in October 1991. Under Yeltsin, the privatization of the economy was so successful that by 1997, over 70% of the GDP was being contributed by the private sector (Ross). Unfortunately the resulting income that was distributed unequally; so that most of the property came to be consolidated in the hands of a few people who, unsurprisingly also began to wield enormous political power. They go down in Post Soviet history as the infamous “Oligarchs” of the society. Corruption and favoritism grew to institutionalized prominence; these have not been contained during Putin’s term – but have only grown further. In summary, it should be mentioned that all three of them bore no resemblance to each other as individuals and acted in different “social and geopolitical circumstances” (Brown and Shevtosa). Gorbachev aspired to bring a humane reformation to socialism and introduce western values within Russian thought. The society in his time was yearning for a social upheaval and was more than willing to accept the freedoms that he gave them. Yeltsin was left with the task of reorganizing a new Russia from the remnants of a superpower. He had to dismantle the administrative structure previously in place and direct a national resurgence. The country had cooled from the activism of the previous era and the Yeltsin years were generally a period of discontent and disillusionment. Putin stood at a cyclic conjuncture when people looked back the might of the Soviet era with nostalgia(Brown and Shevtosa). He was their answer for a strong leader who stabilized the state and brought social order. Putin’s Rule – A transformational Leadership? Putin’s term as the president of the Russian republic is widely considered a success; all the economic and social indicators suggest this (detailed in later sections). But this does not answer the question if he was also a transformational leader – i.e., someone who through his leadership was able to raise his followers to “higher levels of motivation and morality” (Burns). Whether he satisfies this strict definition or not, Vladimir Putin was responsible for massive systemic changes in the Russian administrative as well as social fabric. Despite this, his personal style of governance has been questioned numerous times. His propulsion to power was more due to the benevolence of the outgoing Boris Yeltsin than due to his own capability. The Russian society, not used to thinking in terms of opposition politics, saw Putin as Yeltsin’s chosen successor (Brown and Shevtosa). As a presidential candidate, he was uncharismatic and reserved, bordering on asceticism. When asked about his administrative program prior to the 2000 election, he unhesitatingly replied “I won’t say”; something unthinkable in a western society. These apprehensions were put to rest once he came to power. Putin demonstrated throughout his presidency that he had a solid vision of what he wanted to achieve for Russia. He undertook a vigorous campaign to innovate the economy and input mobilization in politics. Putin consolidated Moscow’s power over the federacy by drawing a vertical political structure that brought the provincial governors to submission and ensured his direct supervision over the entire nation. One of his most prominent achievements has been the weakening of the powers of the oligarchs who were removed from the political scene of Moscow. In particular he was vicious in his persecution of Berezovsky and Gusinsky. Unlike his predecessor he had no illusions about Russia’s current standing in the world and Putin had adjusted to the indisputable fact of great disparity of power between Russia and the United States. This was made evident when he identified himself immediately with the war on terror which followed September 11, 2001 and even welcomed closer American ties with soviet successor states for the purpose of the containment of terror. In the clarity of his vision and the depth of his strategy, it should be said that Putin was indeed a transformational leader. Within the first few months of his rule, he had to confront the challenges posed by rebels in Chechnya against whom he was forced to wage war. The crisis soon materialized in Moscow as the Russian Theatre Hostage crisis where many people died. Soon after this came the Kursk submarine tragedy when one of Russia’s proudest nuclear class submarines self destructed killing everyone in it. His handling of this particular incident was widely condemned in foreign media as the president was in one of his vacations through most of the situation. Throughout his presidency, Putin pursued a brilliant behind the scenes style of decision making. He had inherited the usual Russian distrust of opposition and never learned to learn from his critics or even to reach compromises with them. As a consequence, he built a vast bureaucracy that pinnacled towards him, on which he depended as the main structural source of his support (Ross). Interestingly, despite having to clear the wreckage left behind by both Gorbachev and Yeltsin, he never criticized his predecessors directly but maintained very cordial relations with both of them. Another demonstration of the transformational nature of his leadership can be seen in his relationships with former Presidents George Bush and Jacques Chirac, of US and France respectively as well as the former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, all of which were particularly friendly. In the ensuing sections, we shall explore the finer points of his administrative, Economic and Foreign policy reforms that shall shed light on the transformational nature of his leadership. Economic reforms Many major economic reformations were undertaken during the period of Yeltsin such as the removal of Soviet price controls and the liberalization of trade. These were not well structured so that the effect on the Russian economy was one of hyperinflation; plunging millions into poverty and dissatisfaction. In 1998, Russia entered a period of terrifying financial crash with a huge devaluation and default on treasury bills. The Government suspended payment on $40 billion worth of ruble bonds(Ausland). The reforms would have the one advantage that they made fiscal reform inevitable in Russia. Putin, who came to power in December 1999, therefore had a much less thorny path of convincing the nation of the utility of his plans. From 1997 until 2000, the government slashed public expenditure by 14% of the GDP, most subsidies were abolished and cash payments were insisted upon – eliminating the barter system altogether. The government further laid out a number of macroeconomic measures to achieve stabilization such as a reduction in government spending, targeting outlays for public investment projects, consumer subsidies and increased defense sales. The highlight of Putin’s economic plans was the radical tax reform that he introduced in 2001. Personal income tax which peaked at 30 percent earlier was now replaced by a flat tax of 13%. Corporate profit tax was also reduced from 35% to 24 %. Tax evasion was reduced substantially by including giant Oil and Gas concerns into the Tax network while small scale tax violations were decriminalized. These reduced the threat to businessmen posed by tax inspectioni. As a result, the government coffers began to swell and Russia has had a budgetary surplus ever since. On 24 July 2002, the Duma legalized the sale of agricultural land thereby ending one of the most important legacies of communism. Despite this being a compromise measure, it was a necessary first step for the promotion of private participation in agriculture. With a view to promote medium and small scale industries, Registration and licensing procedures were simplified in 2002. Since then, the number of registered enterprises has reached almost five million by 2006. Other than these, Russia has stepped up its arms exports which have been annually contributing upwards of 17% of the GDP. The Putin years have seen Russia’s nominal Gross Domestic Product (GDP) increase 6 times reaching the eleventh largest in the world, making Russia the fastest growing economy among the G8 nations. The one significant stroke of luck that Putin enjoyed was the rise of international oil prices in 2004. This not only filled Russia’s state treasury but also boosted its reserves abroad. The rising commodity prices also caused Russian exports to skyrocket. The downside of all this economic growth has been the aggravated corruption and repression in the society. The president himself has identified corruption to be “one of the main concerns of his presidency”(Ross). Corruption has become one of the most contested among Putin’s legacies (Anderson and Gray). Foreign Policy Russia under Putin re-established itself as a global power that was not willing to be a mere spectator in international affairs. As mentioned earlier, he has enjoyed a particularly cordial relationship with his contemporaries in the United States, France, Germany and Italy. At the annual Munich Conference on Security Policy in February 2007, he criticized the United States “monopolistic dominance in global relations” criticizing the US’s "almost uncontained hyper use of force in international relations” due to which, he argued, “no one feels safe”ii. He was opposed to the American invasion of Iraq without the backing of the Security Council. Earlier he had opposed the proposed Missile Shield program of President Clinton and suggested his own alternative to it. During his term there as much rhetoric on both the Russian and American sides which proved interesting to the media but matters were never allowed to cross their limits. Russia has been accused of planning an alternative to NATO by combing forces with neighboring nations in Asia, such as China. Joint military exercises were conducted in 2007 with the Shanghai Cooperation Organization member states following which Putin announced the permanent resumption of long-distance patrol flights of The Russian Air Force Tu-95 and Tu-160 strategic bombers. This had been suspended since 1992. Putin announced a moratorium on the observance of CFE treaty by Russia in 2007, insisting that all NATO members ratify the treaty and start observing its provisions. He argued that since many of the new NATO members (NATO was undergoing a period of expansion) had not signed the treaty, it created a global imbalance in the presence of Armed forces which was detrimental to Russian national security. The death of Alexander Litvinenko brought Russia and the United Kingdom to one of the lowest points in their diplomatic history. In July 2007, Prime Minister Gordon Brown of UK expelled "four Russian envoys over Putins refusal to extradite ex-KGB agent Andrei Lugovoi, wanted [there] for the murder of fellow former spy Alexander Litvinenko in London." The Russian constitution prevents the extradition of Russian citizens to any other country, which made it difficult for Russian authorities to comply with English demands. Words were exchanged and more diplomats were expelled until matters reached normalcy by itself. His term has also seen increasingly greater interference by Russia in the affairs of peripheral states such as Belarus and Ukraine. The press in both Ukraine and the west were quick to condemn the inference of Russia in the internal affairs of a foreign nation. Putin’s Administrative Reforms The dismantling of Yeltsin’s regime For Putin the transformational leader to implement his full vision, it was necessary for him to begin by dismantling the regime of his predecessor, Boris Yeltsin. He began by rewriting the power equations of Moscow with the peripheral states. Putin came to power at a time when the powers of the provinces were rising, partly due to serious divisions within the central legislative and the state executive, and partly due to the inefficiency of Yeltsin. Moscow became increasingly dependent on the support of provincial leaders, who were consequently showered with favors and concessions. Many leaders such as that of the distant Maritime Provinces had become openly disrespectful of Moscow and yearned higher powers for themselves. Until 1996, the president could dismiss the governors of the sixty regions at will, which gave him enormous influence over regional politics. However, in that year direct gubernatorial elections were held which fundamentally altered the power relations within the federacy. It was this scheme of things that Putin wished to rectify. The altering of Yeltsin’s policies were more visible in the economy and foreign policy, where Putin very often reversed the working of his seniors – such as with the soviet satellite states. Interestingly, Putin re-instated the anthem and flag of the Soviet Union as the emblems for all of Russia. He focused his efforts on recentralizing Russia’s political power. The provincial chief executives were removed of their membership from the federal council effectively stripping them of their parliamentary immunity from prosecution. The president could remove the regional head if he could prove that the legislation in the territories was unaligned with the centre or that the chief executives were involved in criminal offences. Russia had three layers of political power – Federal, provincial and local. By aligning itself with the local governments, Moscow could wield greater strength over the provinces – a fact that was identified by the Yeltsin Government. He had formed the Council of the local governments that attempted to organize the Russian mayors in a partnership with the centre in what was increasingly becoming a political struggle between the centre and the provinces. Putin used all facilities available to him to enforce his authority in Russia – be it a vast bureaucratic machinery, legislation, military power or hard bargaining. His use of military muscle power was most visible in Chechnya which led to an escalation of warfare in the region.. Putin reorganized the administration of the nation into a straight vertical by appointing his trusted colleagues as Governor Generals of the seven super districts which Russia came to grouped into. These regions were centered at Moscow, Khabarovsk, Rostov-na-Donu, St Petersburg, Novosibirsk, Ekaterinburg and Nizhny Novgorod. Most of the new governor generals were Putin’s close personal allies and were from a similar military background as he. Throughout his career, Putin has displayed considerable preference for authority and discipline often enforcing a distinctly martial style of governance. Conclusion Putin was a very successful president and is instrumental for Russia’s current status in the world. For the stability that he had brought to the country, no less than Time magazine praised Putin as their man of the year 2007. However, there are also grave downsides to his presidency. According to Freedom House standards, Russia has moved from being partially democratic to authoritarian in 2007. More importantly, it has stayed equally corrupt according to the measurements by the World Bank (2007), the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (2007) and Transparency International (2007). Significantly, this is at a time when corruption has abated elsewhere in the world. Despite this, the clarity of his vision which once again re-established the might of Russia in the world and kick started the ailing Russian economy, makes him a true transformational leader. References Anderson, J H and W C Gray. Anticorruption in Transition 3: Who Is Succeeding...and Why? . Wshington DC: world bank, 2006. Ausland, Anders. Russias Capitalist Revolution: Why Market Reform Succeeded and Democracy Failed, 2007. Washington DC: Peterson Institute for International Economics, 2007. Brown, Archie and Lilia Shevtosa. Gorbachev, Yeltsin and Putin: Political Leadership In Russias Transition. Carnegie Endowment, 2001. Burns, J MAcGregor. Leadership. New York: Harper and Row, 1978. Ross, Cameron. Russian Politics under Putin. Manchester Univeristy Press, 2004. Read More