From obscurity to authoritarianism
“If a fight is inevitable, you have to throw the first punch,” remarked Vladimir Putin nonchalantly in an interview, reflecting on his formative years as a self-described “hooligan” in communist Leningrad (now St Petersburg). By the end of his fifth presidential term in 2030, he will become the longest-serving Russian leader since Catherine the Great, who ruled during the 18th century.
It was 25 years ago, on this day, that Putin first ascended to the presidency of the Russian Federation. Unlike the Russian tsars, who inherited power through primogeniture and far removed from Lenin's revolutionary legacy, Putin’s rise was both unexpected and unprecedented. At the age of 46, this former KGB officer and President Boris Yeltsin’s protégé, flummoxed political analysts worldwide with his rise from obscurity. His ascent came through what was, at the time, a “reasonably free, fair and (as it turned out) the last truly democratic election” in Russia.
One wonders — if Putin was an unknown figure in the political landscape, how did he manage to secure 53% votes in the 2000 presidential election and clinch victory? Putin, along with many of his contemporaries, was part of a generation that rose from the ashes of the Soviet empire. They were disillusioned by the outcome of the Cold War and the dissolution of East Germany, where Putin had served as a KGB officer before resigning in 1991, after 16 years of service, to try his luck in politics.
While Putin referred to the disintegration of the USSR as “the single biggest catastrophe of the 20th century”, he showed political foresight by not supporting the hardline communists who sought to delay the inevitable collapse. Instead, he aligned with the democrats, a move that paid off. After a series of secondary roles in the Kremlin, Putin’s breakthrough came in 1999, when Boris Yeltsin appointed him Prime Minister—the fourth in 17 months. This appointment was a clear indication that Yeltsin was preparing Putin to take the reins and lead Russia into the 21st century.
Two days before his stint as PM was set to begin, hundreds of Russians died in explosions that hit several apartment blocks across the country. For most leaders, this would have been a nightmarish political debut, embroiled in a tragedy that shook the core of national security. however, for Putin, it was the perfect Machiavellian twist to capture the minds and hearts of ordinary citizens. He attributed the bombings to Chechen separatists and launched massive air assaults, sending thousands of troops into Dagestan, where the Chechens had consolidated themselves. Like many leaders before him, he preyed upon people’s imagination, relying on principles of territorial homogeneity and otherization, creating an environment of fear and anxiety and positioning himself as the one and sole saviour capable of eliminating the "other" from the root.
Putin's overwhelming response, laced with vitriolic rhetoric against the Chechens, going so far as to claim he could wipe out the rebels even in the toilet, created a 'rally-around-the-flag' effect. His politics of hate and machismo against a common enemy gave the illusion of a revival of Russia's collective self- esteem, wounded in the post-USSR world. He also positioned himself as an alternative to Yeltsin—a young, sober, decisive leader who took swift actions and aimed to restore the glory of the past, a time when everything seemed perfect. It's a brand of politics that often pays off in the short term- at what cost, though, is up to each one to decide.
Besides the Chechen episode, three other factors contributed to Putin’s victory. First, there was “wall-to-wall television coverage” of his every speech and visit, facilitated by Yeltsin’s close-knit circle of oligarchs who controlled most of the media. Second, there was the smear campaign against key opponents with fake news accusing them of having support from the LGBTQ community or international donors- narratives that did not sit well with the still somewhat conservative Russia of the late 90s. And finally, perhaps most crucially, was what Max Weber described as “charismatic leadership”. This phenomenon, where a leader's charismatic and strong personality (evident in his military campaign against the separatists, for example) and unknown background allowed Russians to project all their demands, expectations and desires onto him, turning him into a symbol of hope and change. It didn’t matter to the public what Putin’s concrete plan was to pull Russia out of its economic slump, or whether he was liberal, communist, pro-Europe, or if his ideologies aligned with theirs. Putin was shrewd enough not to reveal too much about his policy plans, carefully crafting a narrative of a strongman with vague but appealing promises.
In the last 25 years of Putin’s rule, Russia has transformed from a semi-competitive democracy into an authoritarian state. With each passing day, it seems difficult for Russia to escape the shadow of the invasion of Ukraine that began in 2022. Today, Putin is a 72-year-old ageing leader with a struggling economy, marked by a lack of real transformative reforms, corruption and the burden of international sanctions, and far too dependent on its natural resources. One can’t help but wonder: Do those who voted for Putin in 2000 question if he has become just another evolved, worse version of Yeltsin? Does it ever cross Putin's mind that he may have become the same — or even worse—stale, problematic version of the authoritarian leaders he promised to replace, offering a new alternative?
