Now that the term “zeroing” is inscribed in the political vocabulary, it is possible to speculate about why our President has chosen this option and not any other.
When in 1855 the Emperor died, Nicholas I, ruled Russia for three decades, one of the first of the epitaphs he had heard from the lips of the historian Timofey Granovsky: “There is nothing surprising in the fact that he died, it is amazing that we are still alive”. I think that when completed the earth path of the current Russian ruler, someone is bound to remember these words.
So, with the new architecture of the Russian government for the next 16 years, it has become increasingly less clear. Even the most naive idealists, more recently, to talk about the “problem 2024”, acknowledged, neither this problem nor any transit will not. You can now speculate on why Putin chose this option of extending his power, and not any other.
It has become clear that Putin is not going to retire until at least 2036. “But we’ll see,” as he, a sly grin, said during his last speech in the state Duma. Let me remind you that the reign of Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev, seemed to contemporaries endless, lasted 18 years.
Actually, Putin could not and did not want to leave for two main reasons. First, personal safety. This is important. Not coincidentally, in 2000, only came to power, he pushed through the Duma the law on guarantees to former presidents. In the current version of the Constitution which is now little doubt, will be in the “popular vote” and will approve, the constitutional court also is an article on the guarantees of the departed ruler. That is, it is more legally protected than after his resignation.
However, Putin as a politician is one hundred percent pragmatic. And, therefore, cannot tolerate even the theoretical possibility that the new Supreme leader, who sometime still appears on the horizon, showed him the bill. Guarantee that this will never happen, can only give the Lord God. Well, he is a personal, almost unlimited power, in this case, clearly the more reliable of the divine.
The second important reason why Putin during his life cannot become a former Governor — his entourage — MPs, Ministers, approximate the oligarchs, managers of state-owned companies, a variety of advisors. In General, all of them created the ruling class of modern Russia. Putin can’t leave, because, except for the first paragraph, he is also the guarantor of the permanence and well-being of the privileged position of not only themselves, but their children and grandchildren. That is why they are so agitated, when after the January message of Putin to the Parliament felt that something in their perfect life can suddenly change radically. That is why have to write one constitutional amendment after another, participating in the Grand drama called “can’t stay away”, played the king-priest to the slaves.
Now, when it became clear that the king is not going anywhere, even the post will be called the still, and the boyars love for him knows no boundaries, it is worth Recalling what options transit recently discussed.
The option of accession of Belarus (in the official terminology of the Kremlin propaganda — “closer integration”);
— “Parliamentary Republic”;
— The option of the state Council (also known as “Kazakhstan”);
— The nullification of presidential terms, with the possibility of a new re-elected national leader.
The first option is to upgrade the political system of Russia (in the case of a successful accession of Belarus) among the experts were discussed for quite some time. I, say, wrote about this in June 2017 and then noted that the only guarantee of Belarus ‘ sovereignty today is President Alexander Lukashenko, who promised, if anything, to distribute to the citizens, seven million machines.
Accordingly, this option could only be realized by addressing the “father”. For example, such proposals, which he, according to the Kremlin strategists, could not refuse.
As such the proposals in the Kremlin, of course, not considered the possibility of appointing Lukashenko on some real position in the updated Union state. Alexander G. for this, too independent, its “too much”. On some really serious position, he, God forbid, could outshine your bright personality, you know who… For this reason, the speech most likely was some well-paid sinecure.
However, this option is not passed, because Lukashenko has clearly shown that he does not want to be the “second guy in the village”. Only the first — albeit at home, and nine million in Belarus. In his performance, it sounded like a hymn of loyalty to the Belarusian sovereignty. In reality, as in the case of Putin, it was a question of guarantees of security after retirement. Lukashenko, as well as the Russian leader, in this respect, trusts only its own safeguards himself. Whatever it was, but try to solve the Belarusian problem by force in the Kremlin at this time decided not to. Anyway, from time to time.
The second option (“parliamentary Republic”) in the Kremlin was also discussed, which was confirmed during his speech in the state Duma on 10 March and Putin himself. He also explained why it is not suitable for Russia: “of Course, there are alternatives, we all know, is a parliamentary form of government, which is widely used in the world. However, at this stage of our development it is for us can not be used. Let’s see what happens in the traditional countries of parliamentary democracy in Europe? I say without exaggeration, for years in some countries today, can not form a government. For Russia it’s just totally impossible, is absolutely unacceptable”.
The real reason for the refusal of the idea of “parliamentary Republic”, I think, is different. Parliamentary democracy is a fairly stable form of government. Those countries that over the years “cannot form the government,” live for yourself and not fall apart, and the economy have sometimes even better than in “stable” Russia. And Putin is, of course, well known. Moreover, in some countries, particularly in Hungary or in Germany, the ruling party or coalition in power for many years (in the first case, 10 years, the second almost 15).
In Russia, any party, headed by Putin, successfully obtained the majority, as many times as he would like. The problem is that the very structure of parliamentary democracy, in its core, providing more possibilities for political competition, and therefore less controlled from a single center, it seems Putin is more dangerous, and therefore less reliable in terms of guarantee of tenure of power. In addition, in this case, would do much to change the design of the political system of Russia with real, not nominal, as of now, redistribution of the levers of power in the direction of the state Duma and the government. And this despite the fact that the presidential post, probably also had to save.
Of course, if Russia would involve a variant of a parliamentary Republic, all the power still remained in the hands of the same Putin, who would be officially headed, say, “United Russia” or some kind of coalition on its basis. But in his view, this design still would be a “dual power”, that is, it would, in his opinion, dangerously unstable, and hence would lead to revolutions, “the limit” which, as he himself repeatedly stressed, “Russia has exhausted”.
We shall not here particularly to object, we note only that “the limits of the revolution” sit in the minds of those who cling to power at any cost. The revolution is nothing more than a jump in the evolution of society. Especially when its development long hampered by the conservatives.
The third option with the addition of special functions such a body as the state Council, also discussed by the expert community, and in the Kremlin. And at some point he, apparently, even considered a priority. It is no coincidence that a special law on the state Council it was decided to take not during the “popular” discussions of amendments to the Constitution subsequent adoption by the state Duma and the consolidation of the “popular vote”, and after all these actions.
Now, after the adoption of the variant with the lifting of presidential terms, it may seem that the idea with the Chairman of the state Council, which continued to pull the strings and control all the authorities and after the formal resignation of Putin as President, thrown away. However, in my opinion, it is possible that she, though in a somewhat modified form can still be relevant to the bearer of Supreme power in Russia. Now as the train, which “is on the siding” and can be used after 2036. Let’s not forget that the law on the state Council no one publicly refused.
Finally, the last option — reset of presidential terms. Hate to ask, but I’m really not just saying that this is one of the most realistic scenarios maintain Putin in power. Over the past two months we have seen that he actually hesitated between “Council” and “reset”. On the one hand, the idea of non-replaceable Chairman of the state Council, a kind of unquestioned national leader, has been worn in a friendly Kazakhstan. There’s this position called Elbasy (national leader). Probably it is no coincidence that on the same day, when Putin addressed state Duma deputies, March 10, arrived in Moscow and Kazakhstan’s Nursultan Nazarbayev.
It is Worthwhile meeting with that day, the Kazakh leader said: “Big events are happening, I’m watching all this and thinking today that raised the question about which I like to think, correctly, there should not be ambiguity in anything, it is our policy”.
However, all this is in the past. Today it is more important to figure out what internal and external policy of Russia after April 22, Putin will get “people” carte Blanche to extend his reign.
There may be some fluctuations, but one thing you can be sure — “the eternal Putin” will not make Russian people happy and prosperous. He did it for the previous twenty years of his reign, most of which were high oil prices will do in the coming 16 years (or whatever he plans to stay in power). This means that on 22 April, the people will come to vote for increasing the hardships of his life and stable well-being of those who will broadcast his name and at his expense.
As an ideology, will grow conservative and traditionalist setup, involving loyalty to the existing government, what would she and her people did.
In foreign policy in the coming years can be continued and even strengthened the bias towards expansion. First, because in domestic politics the power of his people was nothing really positive to offer can not. Second, because the liberal-conservative economic system prevailing in Russia today, not able to modernize the country (she is liberal in terms of non-investment in the economy with the aim of creating, for example, advanced industries, and also in terms of low income tax for the rich, and conservative due to the preservation of institutionalized corruption and the dominance of businessmen with shoulder straps).
Both of these factors mean that intense internal development can be expected. So, will continue the development of extensive — due to the accession of new territories. This version of “development” as we have already pointed out, lies in the new amendments to the Constitution.
On the other hand, external expansion as a way of development of the country at the expense of other States and peoples contains a huge risk. Including to Supreme power. For example, the authoritarian regimes of the XX can be seen fairly stable pattern — if their rulers get into big wars, the period of their rule and life is relatively short. And Vice versa — if the leaders of this kind are closed in their own countries, such as Franco in Spain, their people, of course, have hard times, but the rulers live in this happily ever after, dying in extreme old age in their beds.
What a way to elect Putin, while difficult to say. We can only remind you that the window of atomic twenty-first century. With all the ensuing consequences.
© 2020, paradox. All rights reserved.