Lezersrecensie
Putin: A Product of The Putin System
In this book, which I highly recommend if you are interested in the functioning of the Russian regime, Yabloko leader Grigory Yavlinsky maps out his interpretation of the political system in Russia, which he describes as "peripheral authoritarianism," a system that was not created by Putin but used by him.
The book was written in 2015, and the preface and afterword in the English translation were written in 2018, when Russia had already invaded Ukraine.
With the recent invasion of Ukraine in 2022, it's even more intriguing to read Yavlinsky's thoughts on Putin's system, especially since he is one of the few prominent opposition politicians still living and working in Russia.
Just to give you some more context: Yavlinsky was considering running for president in 2024, but he wanted to get 10 million votes first, which he didn't. His party is pretty small in Russia but it hasn't been banned yet. Why? Maybe Yavlinsky himself has the answer by pointing out a key aspect of Putin's system:
"Putin's policy has allowed for the existence of individual opposition-minded media outlets, primarily online. However, these are viewed by the ruling circle as reflecting the feelings and opinions of a negligible fringe that is unable to impact the country's situation in any fundamental way."
This citation is about how the media works, but it can also be applied to political parties. If you're not significant, you still have some room to manifest yourself as a politician or as a party. But with everything happening in Russia, we'll have to wait and see how long Yabloko will be allowed by the ruling group.
Now let's move on to the content of the book.
Russia's political regime can be described as peripheral authoritarianism, according to Yavlinsky, which reflects the characteristics and global role of Russia's peripheral capitalism. The term "peripheral capitalism" suggests that Russia's capitalism is not at the center of the global economy but rather exists on the outskirts. Russia's authoritarian rule is all about staying in power and doesn't leave room for natural change or reform, according to Yavlinsky. The current leadership can't be replaced without completely dismantling the system.
Furthermore, the elites don't want to change the system because it lets them keep extracting rents (power, resources, etc.) from the rest of the population. If things became more democratic, they'd lose that power and control.
Yet, Yavlinsky notes that the system is becoming weaker. In fact, he believes the regime is "doomed," unless the realities themselves are altered in ways that would be catastrophic for the world. Unfortunately, he doesn't go into detail about this.
While the authorities attempt to maintain their legitimacy through "elections" and more aggressive brainwashing, these efforts are risky and could lead to social upheaval, Yavlinsky states. Now, one might wonder whether the system has indeed become weaker or became "stronger" after the full-scale war in Ukraine. By the way, Yavlinsky does not really back up his claim that the system is doomed. After all, not all authoritarian regimes implode. Some of them survive for decades, muddling through somehow, on the periphery or not, war or not.
I agree with Yavlinsky that the nineties didn't bring a truly democratic shift after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Yavlinsky says that the instruments of political power were never really shared among different groups to the extent it should have been. Without it, mutual checks and balances cannot function. The degree of concentration of resources in the hands of the dominant elite group that coalesced around the presidential staff of Yeltsin was sufficient to enable it to manipulate all other groups and to prevent them from getting an opportunity to assert any practical influence upon government, let alone to be able to replace it in the Kremlin.
Vladimir Putin just went along with this system, he didn't make it. Basically, Putin is a result of the system, not its creator. He was simply able to take advantage of the existing system to consolidate his power and maintain the status quo. Yet, Yavlinsky admits that Russia under Putin is morphing more into a totalitarian one.
I don't really agree with this assumption. If we look at the definition of totalitarianism by Friedrich and Brzezinski, it includes an official mandatory ideology for all citizens, mass repression, and full state control over the economy. For example, Putin's system doesn't support a specific ideological agenda; instead focusing on maintaining power. Also, a lack of ideological certainty provides Putin with room to maneuver.
The book was written in 2015, and the preface and afterword in the English translation were written in 2018, when Russia had already invaded Ukraine.
With the recent invasion of Ukraine in 2022, it's even more intriguing to read Yavlinsky's thoughts on Putin's system, especially since he is one of the few prominent opposition politicians still living and working in Russia.
Just to give you some more context: Yavlinsky was considering running for president in 2024, but he wanted to get 10 million votes first, which he didn't. His party is pretty small in Russia but it hasn't been banned yet. Why? Maybe Yavlinsky himself has the answer by pointing out a key aspect of Putin's system:
"Putin's policy has allowed for the existence of individual opposition-minded media outlets, primarily online. However, these are viewed by the ruling circle as reflecting the feelings and opinions of a negligible fringe that is unable to impact the country's situation in any fundamental way."
This citation is about how the media works, but it can also be applied to political parties. If you're not significant, you still have some room to manifest yourself as a politician or as a party. But with everything happening in Russia, we'll have to wait and see how long Yabloko will be allowed by the ruling group.
Now let's move on to the content of the book.
Russia's political regime can be described as peripheral authoritarianism, according to Yavlinsky, which reflects the characteristics and global role of Russia's peripheral capitalism. The term "peripheral capitalism" suggests that Russia's capitalism is not at the center of the global economy but rather exists on the outskirts. Russia's authoritarian rule is all about staying in power and doesn't leave room for natural change or reform, according to Yavlinsky. The current leadership can't be replaced without completely dismantling the system.
Furthermore, the elites don't want to change the system because it lets them keep extracting rents (power, resources, etc.) from the rest of the population. If things became more democratic, they'd lose that power and control.
Yet, Yavlinsky notes that the system is becoming weaker. In fact, he believes the regime is "doomed," unless the realities themselves are altered in ways that would be catastrophic for the world. Unfortunately, he doesn't go into detail about this.
While the authorities attempt to maintain their legitimacy through "elections" and more aggressive brainwashing, these efforts are risky and could lead to social upheaval, Yavlinsky states. Now, one might wonder whether the system has indeed become weaker or became "stronger" after the full-scale war in Ukraine. By the way, Yavlinsky does not really back up his claim that the system is doomed. After all, not all authoritarian regimes implode. Some of them survive for decades, muddling through somehow, on the periphery or not, war or not.
I agree with Yavlinsky that the nineties didn't bring a truly democratic shift after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Yavlinsky says that the instruments of political power were never really shared among different groups to the extent it should have been. Without it, mutual checks and balances cannot function. The degree of concentration of resources in the hands of the dominant elite group that coalesced around the presidential staff of Yeltsin was sufficient to enable it to manipulate all other groups and to prevent them from getting an opportunity to assert any practical influence upon government, let alone to be able to replace it in the Kremlin.
Vladimir Putin just went along with this system, he didn't make it. Basically, Putin is a result of the system, not its creator. He was simply able to take advantage of the existing system to consolidate his power and maintain the status quo. Yet, Yavlinsky admits that Russia under Putin is morphing more into a totalitarian one.
I don't really agree with this assumption. If we look at the definition of totalitarianism by Friedrich and Brzezinski, it includes an official mandatory ideology for all citizens, mass repression, and full state control over the economy. For example, Putin's system doesn't support a specific ideological agenda; instead focusing on maintaining power. Also, a lack of ideological certainty provides Putin with room to maneuver.
1
Reageer op deze recensie
