Friday,
January 17, 2020
Johanna Ross, journalist
based in Edinburgh, Scotland
Russian President Vladimir
Putin gave his annual inauguration speech on Wednesday, announcing a welfare
package for women and children which would put the average western democracy to
shame. But it wasn’t the social reform which caused shockwaves across global
media. Instead it was the changes to the constitution aimed at giving
more power to parliament and less to the President, as Putin sets the scene for
Russia’s democratic future once he leaves his post (as it is widely believed he
will) in 2024. Putin’s speech yesterday was followed by the resignation of
Prime Minister Medvedev and his government, a procedure which, although took
many by surprise, was a natural follow-on from the announcements.
Western media however was
aghast. ‘What is Putin up to?’ read the headlines as Russia watchers frantically
tried to work out what was going on. There must be something more to this, the
narrative was spun. ‘The details are murky’ professed The Economist, as it
bought time to figure out what it all meant. The Twittersphere was completely
unprepared and perplexed by the government’s resignation. Many commentators
couldn’t work out whether it was a good or bad thing. The general line was
‘we’re not quite sure what’s happening; more details to follow.’
This then evolved quickly
into the line that the constitutional reforms were all part of Putin’s strategy
to stay in power indefinitely. ‘Vladimir Putin proposed sweeping reforms that
could extend his decades-long grip on power beyond the end of his presidency.”
boasted CNN. This particular article even went as far as to misrepresent what the
Russian President had actually said, by taking it completely out of context.
Although Putin said regarding the resignation of the government: “I want to
express satisfaction with the results that have been achieved. Of course not
everything worked out, but nothing ever works out in full”, the CNN piece quoted
him as saying ‘not everything worked out’ which by itself gives a completely
different meaning, implying Putin was dissatisfied with the government’s work.
The Economist followed suit,
taking up its usual antagonistic stance towards Russia with the headline “How Vladimir Putin is preparing to
rule forever.”
Furthermore on Twitter it alleged ‘Vladimir Putin’s regime has killed too many
people to make it plausible that he would voluntarily give up power’, to which
journalist Mary Dejevsky rightfully responded: ‘why would a president
who, according to you interpretation, is intent on staying in power, be
preparing a transition?’.
Wednesday’s events in Russia
really proved problematic for the western commentariat. For what in essence was
clearly an attempt by Putin to further democratise Russia: reducing the number
of terms a President can run to two, and ensuring the parliament appoints the
Prime Minister as opposed to the President; was perversely portrayed as a sign
of authoritarianism, in a desperate attempt to fit the narrative. Absent from
most analysis was the fact that Putin wants to put his proposals to a public
vote: if that’s not democracy then I don’t know what is.
What has also been largely
ignored by the western media was the implications of certain constitutional
reforms on the future government and President. For arguably most significant
of all was Putin’s proposal that any future President ought to have lived in
Russia continuously for a period of 25 years and that civil servants should be
barred from holding foreign citizenship.
So what should be regarded
as a positive attempt to consolidate democracy in Russia, is being
unfortunately, and rather predictably, interpreted as the opposite. But even if
Vladimir Putin does continue a central role in Russia’s future, with record
approval ratings I don’t see many people having a problem with that. This is
the man who restored Russia as a world power to be reckoned with after the
collapse of the USSR and the ensuing deep economic crisis during the 1990s. Russians
won’t forget that.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.