Reading Between the Lines
By Nikolay Petrov
President Vladimir Putin's state of the nation address last week was a mixed bag. I was struck by a number of important, interesting ideas in the speech, though it seemed to bear no relation to previous state of the nation addresses or to the political situation as a whole. Putin's treatment of the issues was piecemeal and unbalanced. The speech contained clear social-democratic leanings regarding the economy and the sort of populism you'd expect just before an election, not right after one.
Now that Putin has entered his second term, and no longer has to concern himself with the boundless but fickle love of his electorate, the president might have been expected to deliver a tougher, more substantive address to the ruling elite and society at large. Putin's decisive action on administrative reform and reorganization of the government gave reason to believe that he would do so. He did not.
The president made no mention of the parliamentary and presidential elections, or of important events with a direct bearing on security and foreign policy: the changing of the guard in Azerbaijan and Georgia; the standoff in Abkhazia; the impeachment of Lithuanian President Rolandas Paksas; terrorist attacks in Central Asia; the expansion of NATO and the European Union; major progress in Russia's bid to join the WTO; and the war in Iraq. Putin had nothing to say about the Yukos affair or the regime's relationship with the business community as a whole. He was silent on administrative reform and the situation in Chechnya.
There was little to connect this year's speech with last year's apart from the reiteration of three strategic goals: doubling GDP, fighting poverty and modernizing the armed forces. Judging by this year's speech, you would have been forgiven for thinking that Putin had just embarked on his first term as president, not his second.
I would like to focus on two main themes in the address, one that Putin touched upon and one that he did not: democracy and federalism.
Putin has frequently expressed his concern about the state of democracy in Russia, and his annual address could have sparked a broader debate on this issue in society. Instead, the section of the speech devoted to domestic politics contained a strange disjuncture between the lofty goal of developing democracy and civil society and the total lack of concrete proposals to achieve it. Putin said nothing about United Russia, the Kremlin's successful pet project. The president outlined his vision of what political parties should do but said nothing about the government's own plans.
The entire section on civil society stuck out in terms of both content and style. I was particularly struck by the strange passage about nongovernmental organizations that opt not to protest against "violations of fundamental human rights" and "infringements upon the real interests of the people" because they "cannot bite the hand that feeds them." Putin's distinction between the interests of the people and "dubious group and commercial interests" gave the impression that NGOs, not the state as a whole, were responsible for defending the people's interests.
Putin offered a fair assessment of the problem posed by the insufficient diversification of funding sources for civic organizations. But the only way to redress this issue is to reduce the dependence of business on the state at all levels. Until this is done, these organizations will have no real alternative to funding from Western foundations and those created by out-of-favor (and therefore independent) oligarchs.
Unlike democracy, federalism went unmentioned in the president's address, giving the impression that Russia is a unitary whole. It was no mistake that Russia was mentioned 27 times in the speech and the Russian Federation just three times. The regions were mentioned only in passing during Putin's discussion of medical care, unemployment and various state functions. Putin said nothing of substance about relations between the federal and regional governments, the Federation Council and the State Council. This omission seems all the more glaring given that the State Council will convene in early June to discuss these very issues. Has reform of the federal government led to the dismantling of federalism? Or are we to understand that no problems exist in Moscow's relations with the regions?
This state of the nation address had something for everyone. Putin assured the poor that the government is concerned for their welfare. He laid out a plan of action for the government to follow in a number of areas. The military and patriotic audience heard comforting words about a strong Army and a state-of-the-art nuclear arsenal. He delivered veiled threats to the West and to political parties that take money from the wrong people, while calling on these parties to work more closely with nonpolitical organizations and to improve their coalition-building skills. He also had a message for Western and Russian liberals about the unwavering course of reforms.
In his state of the nation speeches, Boris Yeltsin offered slogans and pipe dreams calculated to go over well in the West rather than a realistic plan of action. Putin has continued in much the same vein, though his words are now intended as a balm for the ears of his domestic audience.
In the United States, whose State of the Union address was the model for our own annual address to parliament, there is a tradition of allowing the opposition to rebut the president's speech. This would be a very useful institution in Russia, where opposition parties, both left and right, have been deprived of the opportunity to use the State Duma as a platform for advancing their views. It would also fit right in with Putin's talk about healthy competition.
01.06.2004 / Source: The Moscow Times/
By Nikolay Petrov
President Vladimir Putin's state of the nation address last week was a mixed bag. I was struck by a number of important, interesting ideas in the speech, though it seemed to bear no relation to previous state of the nation addresses or to the political situation as a whole. Putin's treatment of the issues was piecemeal and unbalanced. The speech contained clear social-democratic leanings regarding the economy and the sort of populism you'd expect just before an election, not right after one.
Now that Putin has entered his second term, and no longer has to concern himself with the boundless but fickle love of his electorate, the president might have been expected to deliver a tougher, more substantive address to the ruling elite and society at large. Putin's decisive action on administrative reform and reorganization of the government gave reason to believe that he would do so. He did not.
The president made no mention of the parliamentary and presidential elections, or of important events with a direct bearing on security and foreign policy: the changing of the guard in Azerbaijan and Georgia; the standoff in Abkhazia; the impeachment of Lithuanian President Rolandas Paksas; terrorist attacks in Central Asia; the expansion of NATO and the European Union; major progress in Russia's bid to join the WTO; and the war in Iraq. Putin had nothing to say about the Yukos affair or the regime's relationship with the business community as a whole. He was silent on administrative reform and the situation in Chechnya.
There was little to connect this year's speech with last year's apart from the reiteration of three strategic goals: doubling GDP, fighting poverty and modernizing the armed forces. Judging by this year's speech, you would have been forgiven for thinking that Putin had just embarked on his first term as president, not his second.
I would like to focus on two main themes in the address, one that Putin touched upon and one that he did not: democracy and federalism.
Putin has frequently expressed his concern about the state of democracy in Russia, and his annual address could have sparked a broader debate on this issue in society. Instead, the section of the speech devoted to domestic politics contained a strange disjuncture between the lofty goal of developing democracy and civil society and the total lack of concrete proposals to achieve it. Putin said nothing about United Russia, the Kremlin's successful pet project. The president outlined his vision of what political parties should do but said nothing about the government's own plans.
The entire section on civil society stuck out in terms of both content and style. I was particularly struck by the strange passage about nongovernmental organizations that opt not to protest against "violations of fundamental human rights" and "infringements upon the real interests of the people" because they "cannot bite the hand that feeds them." Putin's distinction between the interests of the people and "dubious group and commercial interests" gave the impression that NGOs, not the state as a whole, were responsible for defending the people's interests.
Putin offered a fair assessment of the problem posed by the insufficient diversification of funding sources for civic organizations. But the only way to redress this issue is to reduce the dependence of business on the state at all levels. Until this is done, these organizations will have no real alternative to funding from Western foundations and those created by out-of-favor (and therefore independent) oligarchs.
Unlike democracy, federalism went unmentioned in the president's address, giving the impression that Russia is a unitary whole. It was no mistake that Russia was mentioned 27 times in the speech and the Russian Federation just three times. The regions were mentioned only in passing during Putin's discussion of medical care, unemployment and various state functions. Putin said nothing of substance about relations between the federal and regional governments, the Federation Council and the State Council. This omission seems all the more glaring given that the State Council will convene in early June to discuss these very issues. Has reform of the federal government led to the dismantling of federalism? Or are we to understand that no problems exist in Moscow's relations with the regions?
This state of the nation address had something for everyone. Putin assured the poor that the government is concerned for their welfare. He laid out a plan of action for the government to follow in a number of areas. The military and patriotic audience heard comforting words about a strong Army and a state-of-the-art nuclear arsenal. He delivered veiled threats to the West and to political parties that take money from the wrong people, while calling on these parties to work more closely with nonpolitical organizations and to improve their coalition-building skills. He also had a message for Western and Russian liberals about the unwavering course of reforms.
In his state of the nation speeches, Boris Yeltsin offered slogans and pipe dreams calculated to go over well in the West rather than a realistic plan of action. Putin has continued in much the same vein, though his words are now intended as a balm for the ears of his domestic audience.
In the United States, whose State of the Union address was the model for our own annual address to parliament, there is a tradition of allowing the opposition to rebut the president's speech. This would be a very useful institution in Russia, where opposition parties, both left and right, have been deprived of the opportunity to use the State Duma as a platform for advancing their views. It would also fit right in with Putin's talk about healthy competition.
01.06.2004 / Source: The Moscow Times/
publicado por MP às 20:59
