Mironov’s Putin criticism should be a wakeup call for Russia's ruling elite
Criticism, whether it is justified and constructive or not, is always seen by those targeted as the first visible signs of looming open confrontations and even revolts against them. This is because such critics are obviously discontent with the state of affairs, and are, consequently, questioning via their disapproval the existing status-quo in their society, business, politics or other spheres of human endeavors, where there are divergent views on the ways to move forward.
This is why the sudden revelation on the First Channel TV by Sergei Mironov, the leader of Just Russia and chairman of the Federation Council (FC), that his previously declared unconditional support for Prime Minister Vladimir Putin is now ‘outdated information’ almost completely imploded the existing political system. It, therefore, was not really surprising that such barefaced criticism of the government’s policies drew largely expected condemnations from Putin’s staunch loyalists in the ruling pro-government United Russia, the party which controls the majority seats in both the State Duma, FC and most regional and municipal parliaments across the country.
Tensions between the two parties labeled in the media as the ‘Kremlin’s sister party projects’ rose in late January, when Mironov, in a rare display of public bravado unseen in this country from top government officials in the past decade, told First TV Channel’s Night talk show host Vladimir Pozner that he does not support most of Putin’s social initiatives and other key policies such as the federal budget and the Cabinet’s anticrisis measures enacted at the peak of the financial crisis to address the negative fallouts from the global economic meltdown. Attacking Putin’s party, Mironov called United Russia’s self-declared mission to build what it calls ‘Russian conservatism’ a ‘questionable ideology’ and also declared that the ruling party awaits the terrible fate of the now-defunct CPSU, the party that once maintained an absolute monopoly over the Soviet Union’s political system.
“To say that our party, and I personally always unconditionally support Putin is now ‘outdated information.’ For instance, we were categorically against the budget submitted by Putin and therefore vetoed it.”
Expectedly, the reaction of the ruling party to the blatant criticism was swift, caustic and comprehensive. This is because United Russia — headed by Putin, who is not a member of the party — has over the years grown used to the absence of an effective opposition, lack of criticism and near-absolute monopolist grip on the nation’s political system that it saw in Mironov’s statements a budding anti-Putin rhetoric, and maybe, even a revolution, and condemned him for betraying the party and the very person that had elevated him into the third highest position in the country’s political ruling hierarchy.
It was only in the middle of February that the political elite finally breathed a sigh of relief, when the United Russia leadership led by State Duma Speaker Boris Gryzlov and Mironov announced that they had buried ‘all old hatchets’ and reaffirmed their commitment to working in a constructive mood for the benefit of their common causes. Most importantly, however, was the United Russia’s recognition of Just Russia’s right to criticism, and Mironov’s reaffirmation of his opposition to the ruling party and right to criticize the government and its socio-economic polices, where and when necessary.
Reasons for Mironov’s explosive criticism elusive
Politics being what it is, and without actually knowing all the reasons that drove the rather careful and previously Putin-loyalist Mironov to say what he said and the public manner he chose to air them, one thing that is clear is the fact that he had actually gone too far. For one, he is currently occupying his seat in the FC and its chairmanship, thanks to his previous avid and unconditional support for Putin and some sort of a gentlemen’s political agreement with the Kremlin and the White House that enabled him to be in that position. This is more so as his party has less members both in the St. Petersburg city parliament that delegated him to the FC, where United Russia holds an overwhelming constitutional majority. Therefore, it is odd that Mironov chose this time, and not after the regional elections in March, when the composition of the regional parliaments and their delegates to the Council will have probably changed, to utter such caustic criticism of the United Russia, its entire leadership and Putin, in particular.
Secondly, it is also equally difficult to understand the real rationale behind Mironov’s reasoning, if he does not intend to relinquish his high FC seat and its chairmanship, as demanded by United Russia’s mid-and grass-level officials, and become one of the country’s few bonafide opposition parties leaders, with the all the attendant negative consequences. In Russia, these often include regular harsh brushes with the police and the OMON special forces, a gradual fading away from the nation’s political limelight into a marginal political force. Finally, the inflexibility of such opposition parties’ stances on key issues could push them into complete oblivion. The fates of the once mighty liberal Yabloko and SPS parties that shaped Russian politics in the 1990s, which now represent only remnants of their once nationwide influence in some cities, give a clear picture of the type of future political life that awaits Mironov and his party, should he choose to completely break ranks with the ‘Medvedev-Putin diarchy’ and go into a head-on-collision with United Russia on key issues of nation development.
Mironov’s political dilemma
Such uncertain future prospects underscore the real political dilemma facing Mironov, as he has been in Russian politics long enough to know that he cannot survive the austere conditions allotted to opposition in the country. And, on the other side, Mironov must have felt that his leadership of a quasi-opposition party and the position of the third person in the country’s political hierarchy entitle him to some sort of independence of opinion on the ways that he really feels the nation should move forward. Unfortunately for him, some of United Russia members’ position on this issue has unequivocally shown that he is not entitled to such basic rights.
On the other hand, and luckily for Mironov is the fact that the highest United Russia leaders, who apart from Putin and Gryzlov, , also include several influential regional governors, have kept mute on the criticism issue or issued relatively less threatening statements, means that a final decision on his fate — both as a political figure and FC chairman, has not been taken. Therefore, one can conclude that the comprehensive condemnations of his criticism by the party’s mid- and low-level officials are to gauge the society’s possible responses and prepare it for some punitive measures, as their leaders weigh various options on how to nip such scathing opposition ranting from non-Putin loyalists in the future.
In his defense, however, one can say that Mironov was probably moved by the positive discussions at the last Kremlin’s State Council meeting with all the nation’s parties’ leaders that was dedicated to the reformation of the existing political system. Remarkably, President Dmitry Medvedev — bent on modernizing Russia — made it clear at the meeting that pluralism of opinions, demonopolization of the political system and the minimization of, and granting all political parties equal access, to the so-called ‘administrative resources’ during public voting, should become the new norms of the Russian electoral process and political system in the 21st century. It is a well-known fact that administrative resources, including power of incumbency, are frequently abused by the ruling party to ensure desired landslide victories in all elections.
Lack of real opposition harmful to balanced policy strategies
Seen from this angle, it seems that Medvedev is gradually realizing that the stark absence of a broad spectrum of different opinions on key policy issues from all the existing political forces, including those that are divergent from the government and United Russia’s views, is seriously limiting his choices and strategic decisions on key policies.
For instance, a quick review of the cutting criticisms raining from all sides of the political isle in the United States on U.S. President Barack Obama’s administration key strategic policies, most notably, the healthcare reform, will show that though such discussions are often unpalatable to the White House, they, however, enable the president and his strategists to see their fallacies and make appropriate corrections or even seek compromises on such issues in order to gain larger political consensus and the public mandate needed to achieve more pressing national goals. This is an example of a real functioning democracy and triumph of pluralism of independent views and opinions on political, social and economic issues.
“United Russia saw in Mironov’s statements budding anti-Putin rhetoric, and even a revolution, and thus condemned him for betraying the party and the very person that had elevated him into the third highest political post in the country.”
Indeed, open debates on key issues in today’s Russia are few or close to nil as most opposition parties are excluded from the political process, while those in parliaments are marginalized by the overwhelming presence of the ruling party — both at the federal and regional levels. For instance, there are only two parties in the 35-seat Moscow City Duma, out of which three belong to the Communist Party and the rest to the United Russia. Other parities, unable to make the cut-off mark to the parliament, are left on the fringes of the city’s politics, despite the fact they represent millions of residents. Such marginalization of opposition is replicated at all levels throughout the nation.
United Russia ought to draw lessons from criticism
Axiomatically, everyone will agree that constructive criticism and pluralism of independent opinions on nation-development issues are vital to progress, and hence are always welcome in all civilized societies. This is because they constitute some forms of effective feedback mechanisms that reflect the citizens’ attitudes and reactions to their leaders’ policies and visions for their countries.
However, such criticisms should come from people that are really independent in their views and owe their high-profile positions in their societies not via some ‘opaque gentlemen’s political agreements. It needs to be noted here that Mironov, by all means, does not fit into this definition, as United Russia was pivotal in his exponential rise to the nation’s political Olympus, and hence his criticism had been rightly condemned by all those that it was directed against, as they probably felt betrayed by their political appointee. On the hand, however, Mironov should not be castigated simply for probably breaking his political agreement with the ruling party and airing his personal views that will most likely resonate with those of millions of others throughout the country. At least, his bravery in criticizing the ruling party in general and, more specifically, its leadership in particular, knowing fully well the full gravity of the negative consequences of the political risks involved, deserves commendation.
This is why instead of condemning and giving all sorts of cat names such as ‘a rat escaping from a sinking ship in trying times,’ it might make more sense for United Russia officials to carefully analyze Mironov’s criticism and millions of other Russians’ dissatisfactions with the current status-quo and see whether their growing discontent in this time of economic crisis do warrant real policy changes in the party and government’s strategic policies that are being executed, first and foremost, as the nation is often told by the Kremlin and White House, for benefits of the citizens.
Web design,