Vladimir Putin and the Return to Authoritarianism

CPW4U Essay – Final Draft

By: Taylor Forsyth

To: Mr. Woods
Course: CPW4U
Due Date: May 18, 2010
School: Earl of March Secondary School
 “Power, however it has evolved, whatever its origins, will not be given up without a

struggle.” (Shulamith Firestone) Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, born on October 7, 1952 in

Leningrad, USSR (now St. Petersburg, Russia), was appointed Prime Minister of Russia on

August 9, 1999 under President Boris Yeltsin1. This would only be a temporary role though as

Putin became acting president on December 31, 1999 upon the resignation of Yeltsin; this would

become permanent with Putin being elected president on May 8, 2000. In 2004 he was re-

elected for a second term lasting until May 7, 2008.2 After the victory of his successor, Dmitry

Medvedev, in the 2008 presidential elections, he was then nominated by the latter to be

Russia's Prime Minister; Putin took the post on May 8, 2008 and continues to hold it today.

Putin’s rise to power was an interesting one. Upon his graduation from Leningrad State

University in 1975, he joined the Komitet gosudarstvennoy bezopasnosti or Committee for State

Security.3 Upon his resignation from the KGB, his climb up the political ladder began with

becoming an advisor on international affairs to the mayor of Leningrad in May 1990 and

eventually ending with him becoming president in 2000. Despite the emergence of Russia as a

global super power, Vladimir Putin’s leadership has ultimately been a failure.

1
Boris Yeltsin was the first president of the Russian Federation, serving from 1991 to 1999. On June 12,
1991 he was elected president of Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic with 57% of the vote, becoming the
first popularly elected president in the history of Russia. However, Yeltsin never recovered his popularity after a
series of economic and political crises in Russia in the 1990s. "Putin, Vladimir," Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia,
Grolier Online. <http://gme.grolier.com/article?assetid=0239145-0> [1 March 2010], par. 4.

2
Due to constitutionally mandated term limits, Putin was ineligible to run for a third consecutive
Presidential term. Ibid.
3

The Komitet gosudarstvennoy bezopasnosti or Committee for State Security is more widely known as the
KGB. The KGB was the national security agency of the Soviet Union from 1954 until the break-up of the Soviet
Union in 1991. It was also the premier internal security, intelligence, and secret police organization of the Soviet
Union during that time. Putin’s career in the KGB was a long and illustrious one and involved the monitoring of
foreigners and consular officials in Leningrad, combating political dissent in the Soviet Union, and maintaining
surveillance on the student body of Leningrad State University. Ibid, par. 12.
 Why has Vladimir Putin’s leadership been a failure to date? Dmitri Trenin argued that

because Putin is unwilling to give up the reins of power, his legacy as a leader is being

tarnished.4 Yet, he has only had true power in Russia for the past ten years and this argument

may be proven true or false when it becomes evident whether he will run in the 2012 presidential

election. Marshall I. Goldman said that Putin can be looked upon as a failure because he has

more enemies now then when he came into power.5 Nonetheless, making enemies does not

necessarily make Putin a poor leader. This could mean that he has been doing what he felt is best

for his country. However, the most convincing explanation for Putin’s failure is that his strict

policies and all-around belt-tightening6 has led many to feel that he is returning to the

authoritarianism of the earlier Soviet regime. Putin’s political relation with many of his allies has

resulted in an increased amount of bitterness. Furthermore, Putin’s poor relationship with private

enterprise in Russia has resulted in critics questioning the government’s commitment to

democracy. Finally, Putin’s policies and subsequent actions within Russia have been ruthless

resulting in his label as an authoritarian7 ruler.

Firstly, Vladimir Putin’s relationship with the other global super power, the United States

(US), has been inconsistent throughout his time as leader resulting in increased animosity

between the two countries. Putin has become increasingly frustrated with the US over the so-

called “missile shield”8 resulting in increasingly tense relations between the two nations. In
4
Dmitri Trenin, “The Legacy of Vladimir Putin,” Current History 106 (2007): 347.

5
Marshall I. Goldman, Petrostate: Putin, Power, and the New Russia. New York (Oxford University Press,
2008), 75.

6
Belt-tightening involves a reduction in expenditure as a result of financial restrictions.
7

Authoritarianism is a form of government characterized by an emphasis on the authority of state in a

republic or union. It is also a political system controlled by typically non-elected rulers who usually permit some
degree of individual freedom.
8
In February 2007, the US started formal negotiations with Poland and Czech Republic concerning
construction of missile shield installations in those countries for a Ground-Based Midcourse Defence System.
Russia threatened to place short-range nuclear missiles on the Russia’s border with NATO if the United States
April 2007, Putin warned of a new Cold War if the Americans deployed the shield in Central

Europe.9 He also stated that Russia was prepared to “…abandon its obligations under a Nuclear

Forces Treaty of 1987 with the United States.”10 Putin even went as far as to compare the US

plan to the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 stating that, “Analogous actions by the Soviet Union,

when it deployed missiles in Cuba, prompted the ‘Caribbean crisis’. Such a threat is being set up

on our borders.”11 The result of these statements only helped to contribute to the inconsistent and

rocky relationship between Russia and the US.

Moreover, Putin’s unwillingness to aid the US in Iraq led to Washington questioning his

devotion to the war on terror, resulting in further animosity between the two nations. After the

attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001 Putin pledged joint

action with the US, NATO12, and the European Union13 in the war on terrorism; Putin though,

refuses to abandon plans to deploy 10 interceptor missiles and radar in Poland and the Czech Republic. “Putin
Warning Over US Missile Row,” BBC News (4 June 2007). <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6717119.stm> [14 May
2010], par. 3.
9
Ibid, par. 8.
10

Ibid.
11

“Putin: Missile defence shield akin to Cuban missile crisis,” KATU News (26 October 2007).
<http://www.katu.com/news/national/10818826.html> [14 May 2010], par.1. See also: Ibid, par. 2. See also: Ibid,
par. 3.

12
NATO, or the North Atlantic Alliance, is an intergovernmental military alliance based on the North
Atlantic Treaty which was signed on 4 April 1949. The NATO headquarters are in Brussels, Belgium, and the
organization constitutes a system of collective defence whereby its member states agree to mutual defence in
response to an attack by any external party.
13

The European Union, or the EU, is an economic and political union between 27 member countries, located
primarily in Europe. Committed to regional integration, the EU was established by the Treaty of Maastricht on 1
November 1993 upon the foundations of the European Communities.
believed he was already doing his part by fighting the war in Chechnya14.15 This did not sit well

with the Bush Administration in Washington as it felt that the true war on terror was being

fought in Iraq against the forces of Saddam Hussein and not in some internal conflict within the

state of Russia. Putin disagreed as he believed that the Iraq War may have been President Bush’s

biggest blunder stating that, “Democracy cannot be exported to some other place. This must be a

product of internal domestic development in a society.”16 The differing ideals between Putin and

Bush on the war on terror did nothing but harm their already fragile relationship and as history

has shown, differing ideologies between allies is never a good thing. Putin’s inconsistent

relationship with the US has only hindered his country’s development and more importantly, his

credibility.

Secondly, Putin’s poor relationship with private enterprise in Russia has resulted in

critics and opposition questioning the government’s commitment to democracy. First, the

incarceration of Russian oil tycoon Mikhail Khodorkovsky has also revealed the faults in the

post-Soviet economy of Russia.17 It is difficult to justify the methods that Putin used against

14

The Second Chechen War was launched by the Russian Federation starting August 26, 1999, in response
to the invasion of Dagestan by the Islamic International Peacekeeping Brigade. On 1 October Russian troops entered
Chechnya. The campaign ended the de-facto independence of Chechen Republic of Ichkeria and restored Russian
federal control over the territory. The exact death toll from this conflict is unknown. Unofficial estimates range from
25,000 to 50,000 dead or missing, mostly civilians in Chechnya. Russian casualties are over 5,200 (official Russian
casualty figures).
15
"Putin, Vladimir," Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia, Grolier Online. <http://gme.grolier.com/article?
assetid=0239145-0> [1 March 2010], par. 5.
16

Rebecca Leung, “Putin Defends His ‘Democracy’,” CBS News (8 May 2005).
<http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/05/06/60minutes/main693422_page2.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody>
[3 March 2010], pg. 2.

17
Putin had Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the head of the oil group Yukos and one of the world's richest men,
arrested and thrown in jail in 2003 on charges of fraud and tax evasion. This move was widely interpreted as a
declaration of war against the so-called oligarchs, who have amassed phenomenal wealth and power since the
collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Marshall I. Goldman, “Putin and the Oligarchs,” Foreign Affairs
(2004).<http://www.cfr.org/publication/8018/putin_and_the_oligarchs.html?
breadcrumb=/publication/publication_list%3Ftype%3Dforeign_affairs%26page%3D31> [13 April 2010], par. 1.
Khodorkovsky as well as what he did to ensure that Yukos, Khodorkovsky’s company, was

turned over to the state.18 There is plenty of sentiment that the conviction was merely so that the

Kremlin could take control of one of the largest oil companies in Russia which would, in turn,

increase Putin’s power. Many critics outside of Russia came forward to present their objections

to Khodorkovsky’s conviction with claims that “…his trial was part of a Kremlin campaign to

destroy him and take the company he built from privatization deals of the 1990s.”19 The only

result that the incarceration of Khodorkovsky has served for Putin is the increase of criticism

about his belief in democracy and civil liberties.

Furthermore, Putin’s apparent economic success has also brought along extremely

negative effects with regards to the amount of democracy involved. During his time in office,

Putin has led Russia to a significant economic comeback and with the destruction of Yukos Oil

marking a turning point, the Kremlin has reasserted control of the oil and gas sector of Russia.20

Although this “successful” comeback may seem genuine as well as remarkable, it is only through

the authoritarian policies of Putin that it has happened. One of these policies has been the

reduction of private interests, whether Russian or foreign, to a minority status which has had a

hugely negative effect.21 The result of these severe policies has been an economic success marred

by allegations of the loss of democracy, liberty, and freewill. Marshall I. Goldman summarized it

best when he stated, “The way that Putin has dealt with the private enterprises of his country has,

while bringing about some economic success, largely held back the democratic success of

18
State authorities ordered the seizure of 40% of Yukos’ stock. They also sought to force Khodorkovsky
and his aides to transfer control of the company to the state or at least to a more sympathetic owner. Ibid, par. 26.
See also: Ibid, par. 27.
19
Matthew Chance, “Jailed billionaire hits out from cell,” CNN (14 May 2010).
< http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/05/14/russia.yukos.exclusive/index.html?hpt=Mid> [14 May 2010],
par. 3.
20
Dmitri Trenin, “The Legacy of Vladimir Putin,” Current History 106 (2007): 347.
21

Also, private property, while it has grown and developed substantially, remains provisional, subject to
redistribution if an owner experiences conflict with the state or with people who are close to the powers that be. Ibid.
Russia.”22 Putin’s economic policies have, while helping the economy of Russia, hurt the internal

and external credibility of his administration.

Finally, Putin rose to power on the backs of the oligarchs and then promptly destroyed

them upon gaining power. This led to a belief that Putin would do whatever it takes in order to

gain and hold power. Putin’s rise through the ranks of the Russian government had been helped

by the “new oligarchs” of Russia.23 Once in power, however, Putin moved to curb their huge

influence by shutting down television outlets of major media moguls and bringing corruption

charges against rich energy magnates in order to gain control of their companies. This only

furthered the sentiment that Putin was a selfish leader who sought power at any cost and the

effect was two-fold.24 Dmitri Trenin described Putin’s take-over policies when he stated, “Putin

crushed the Yeltsin-era oligarchy by exiling or incarcerating its most rebellious members and

turning the rest into pliant tycoons who were at the mercy of the Kremlin.”25 These hostile

takeovers have further strengthened Putin’s image as an authoritarian leader who has a wish to

return to Soviet-era politics. The relationship that Putin has with private enterprise in Russia has

caused his crumbling credibility to deteriorate further as critics argue that the Russian Federation

has lost its democracy.

22

Marshall I. Goldman “Putin and the Oligarchs,” Foreign Affairs. (2004).

<http://www.cfr.org/publication/8018/putin_and_the_oligarchs.html?breadcrumb=/publication/publication_list
%3Ftype%3Dforeign_affairs%26page%3D31> [13 April 2010], par. 28.

Russian entrepreneurs who had bought up energy, media, and other companies in critical sectors of the
23

economy during the chaotic privatization of the Yeltsin years "Putin, Vladimir," Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia,
Grolier Online. <http://gme.grolier.com/article?assetid=0239145-0> [1 March 2010], par. 3.
24

First, media criticism was essentially suppressed as the last two independent television stations were taken
over in April 2001 and January 2002. Second, the energy assets of the oligarchs, most of who went into vocal exile,
were taken over again by state-owned companies. Ibid.
25

Dmitri Trenin, “The Legacy of Vladimir Putin,” Current History 106 (2007): 346.
 Most importantly, Putin’s policies and subsequent actions within Russia have been

ruthless which has resulted in him being viewed as an authoritarian ruler. First, Putin’s

relationship with his critics within Russia has been extremely icy. A dominating feature of

political life under Putin’s regime has been the assassination of many of his critics.26 Although it

is possible that Putin and his security services have had nothing to do with these murders, it is a

fact that Putin has not pressed for justice.27 What is indisputable though is that Russians live in a

political climate in which those who criticize Putin or his government can be murdered with

impunity.28 This in no way has helped his relationship with his critics as most of the media has

become afraid of criticising Putin. And so, the effect of these murders has been exactly what an

authoritarian ruler would want, the loss of freedom of speech. The Committee to Protect

Journalists has declared Russia, “the third deadliest country in the world for journalists after Iraq

and Algeria.”29 This statement has stained Putin’s administration throughout his time in office as

the fear caused by these crimes has reduced the individual liberty of free speech to a minimum.

26

Some examples of such assassinations: Stanislav Markelov, a lawyer who defended Chechens brutalized
by Russian troops and journalists who wrote about the abuses, shot in the head January 19, 2009 by a masked man.
Opposition journalist, Anastasia Baburova, was also fatally shot in the head. Baburova is at least the 15 th journalist
to be slain since Putin took power with being held accountable in any of the cases. March 2, 2007, respected Russian
journalist Ivan Safronov, who reported on military affairs, mysteriously plunged to his death from the 5 th floor of his
apartment building. “More Moscow Murder: Two critics of Vladimir Putin take bullets in the head,” The
Washington Post (20 January 2009). <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2009/01/19/AR2009011902604.html> [2 March 2010], par. 1. See also: Ibid, par. 3. See also:
Brian Ross, “Russian Journalist Dies in Suspicious Fall from Window,” ABC News (5 March 2007).
<http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/03/russian_journal.html> [10 April 2010], par. 1.

27
“More Moscow Murder: Two critics of Vladimir Putin take bullets in the head,” The Washington Post
(20 January 2009). <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/19/AR2009011902604.html>
[2 March 2010], par. 3.
28

Ibid.
29

Brian Ross, “Russian Journalist Dies in Suspicious Fall from Window,” ABC News (5 March 2007).
<http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/03/russian_journal.html> [10 April 2010], par. 4.
 In addition, Putin’s totalitarian policies and subsequent actions have shown the world the

true authoritarian leader that he is. Dmitri Trenin stated that “Control is the key word of the Putin

presidency,” and this has proven to be true as it has become more and more evident that Putin

does not want to relinquish control.30 During Putin’s time as president, he has centralized power

around the “presidential vertical”, which has effectively subordinated the legislature, judiciary,

regional administrations, and principal media outlets to the Kremlin while opposition, whether

communist or liberal, has been contained or marginalized.31 This theme of control, while subtle,

has proven to many that Putin wishes to return to a communist-style government as he has

progressively taken over nearly all private interests within Russia. Putin’s need for control was

also evident upon becoming prime minister as he filled his cabinet with his own loyalists,

quickly confirming the impression that there would be little change in the balance of power in

the Kremlin.32 This control of power has been cited by many as the reason for Putin being called

a totalitarian ruler with one critic even going as far as saying that “Returning the country to the

mainstream of democratic development can only begin when Putin no longer has control of the

levers [of power] of the state and society…”33 All in all, Putin’s obsession with control has cast a

shadow on the reputation of Russia as a country that can only be lifted when Putin has retired

from dictating the terms of the people.

30
Dmitri Trenin, “The Legacy of Vladimir Putin,” Current History 106 (2007): 346.
31

Ibid.
32

"Putin, Vladimir," Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia, Grolier Online. <http://gme.grolier.com/article?

assetid=0239145-0> [1 March 2010], par. 10.
33

“Petition Calling for Putin’s Ouster Gaining Momentum in Russia,” Radio Free Europe: Radio Liberty (11
March 2010).
<http://www.rferl.org/content/Thousands_Sign_Petition_Calling_For_Putins_Ouster/1980911.html> [11 March
2010], par. 1.
 Lastly, Putin’s obsession with controlling and dictating terms to his borderlands has

resulted in him appearing as a ruthless, Machiavellian ruler. Upon Putin becoming president, a

“Russia of the regions” was looming on the horizon and a “world without Russia” was a distinct

possibility.34 In response to this, Putin reasserted the power and scope of the Kremlin by

confronting head-on the challenge of Chechen separatism35 and ruthlessly suppressing the

resistance and in the process restoring the self-esteem of Russia’s military.36 Dmitri Trenin

summarized Russian policy in Chechnya when he stated, “Through a policy of Chechenization,

Putin has sealed the military success with a political arrangement that turned the former

battlefield into a feudal khanate ruled by an adversary-turned-client.”37 By murdering tens of

thousands of civilians and rebels in Chechnya and turning the region into a place with a Russian

military garrison but virtually no ethnic Russians as residents38, Putin did nothing to help his

image as a ruthless leader. With each terrorist incident39 that occurs involving the Chechens,

Putin’s ability to deal with threats is questioned and dark suspicions about his willingness to

properly investigate what has happened continue to grow.40 Putin’s policies within the country

34
Dmitri Trenin, “The Legacy of Vladimir Putin,” Current History 106 (2007): 346.
35

See footnote #14.

36

Dmitri Trenin, “The Legacy of Vladimir Putin,” Current History 106 (2007): 346.
37

Ibid.
38

Ibid.
39

-October 2002, Chechen rebels seized a theatre in Moscow and held about 800 people hostage; some 120
hostages died from an aesthetic gas used in retaking the theatre, a mishap for which the government was held
responsible
-September 2004, Chechen terrorists seized a school in Beslan, North Ossetia; more than 330 people died as a result
of explosives and gunfire as Russian troops stormed the institution; once again, government blamed "Putin,
Vladimir," Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia, Grolier Online. <http://gme.grolier.com/article?assetid=0239145-0>
[1 March 2010], par. 5.

40
Dmitri Trenin, “The Legacy of Vladimir Putin,” Current History 106 (2007): 346.
that he is supposed to be leading have portrayed him as a deceptive totalitarian ruler and this

portrayal is justified.

Therefore, Putin’s failure within Russia has been a result of his strict policies and all-

around belt-tightening which has led many to feel that he is returning to the authoritarianism of

the earlier Soviet regime. Putin’s unstable political relation with many of his allies has resulted in

an increased amount of bitterness. Furthermore, Putin’s poor relationship with Russian private

enterprise has resulted in critics and opposition questioning the government’s commitment to

democracy. Finally, Putin’s policies and subsequent actions within Russia have resulted in his

label as an authoritarian ruler.