Igor Torbakov from the Finnish Institute of International Affairs in Helsinki has an opinion piece on the Russian tandemocracy of Vladimir Putin and Dmitry Medvedev posted over at EurasiaNet, examining how this political structure may be insufficiently flexible and adaptive to handle the economic crisis.  Torbakov argues that a “brittle and arcane management structure” hampers innovation through a less than meritorious system of promoting on the basis of loyalty, and that Russia’s current power set-up makes it difficult to imagine reform coming any time soon.

But the real question is whether Russia’s paramount leader – Putin -
is ready to admit that the system he built has turned out to be
dysfunctional. Until an answer manifests itself, Russia will find
itself stuck. Putin’s dependence on managed democracy has left the
government ill-equipped to handle the economic crisis, as it can
neither opt for thorough democratization, nor can it effectively follow
the path of authoritarian adaptation.

Democratization, of course,
is blocked by the conspicuous lack of the agent of democratic change:
the current elites are unwilling to give up their privileges, and the
atomized population is incapable of self-organization and purposeful
collective action. But the sad irony is that, due to a peculiar power
arrangement – for lack of a better term, the Medvedev-Putin diarchy -
Russia, unlike other authoritarian-minded states such as China, cannot
resort to a purely authoritarian means of course correction either.

The
thing is that the Medvedev-Putin “tandemocracy” is neither a democratic
division of power, nor is it an efficiently functioning duumvirate.
Under conditions where dwindling resources are fostering competition
among various elites, Russia’s peculiar power arrangement stands to
become a factor of instability.

When Putin anointed Medvedev as
his successor he made sure that Russia’s next president would be
politically and institutionally weak and dependent on him. As a result,
Medvedev is essentially an impotent leader: he cannot sack Putin, his
prime minister, make him responsible for all Russia’s current woes (as
many Russian autocratic rulers did to their predecessors in the past)
and then attempt to introduce certain changes “from above.” For his
part, Putin also appears to be stuck with Medvedev as his presidential
pick. What follows is a virtual political stalemate with Moscow being
unable to come up with a semblance of a coherent policy.

As
Russia’s political system remains largely unreformed (and seemingly
unreformable), its foreign policy is likely to be more of the same. For
the Russian leadership, the notion of the country’s great power status
will stay unchanged. Russia, therefore, is likely to become
increasingly prickly in its dealings with the United States and
European Union due to its own inherent internal weakness.

Last 5 posts by Robert Amsterdam

• Grigory Pasko: Journalists Are Fleeing Russia - November 20th, 2009
• Evgeny Lebedev and the Londongrad Blues - November 20th, 2009
• The Obstacle of Pride - November 20th, 2009
• The Iron (Pipeline) Curtain - November 20th, 2009
• Yurgens: A Taliban-controlled Afghanistan is no picnic for Russia - November 20th, 2009