Putin stays put in saddle

KP Nayar

Strategic Affairs Analyst

The elimination of term limit for Vladimir Putin’s presidency, overwhelmingly approved by the Russian people in a referendum last week, may be the beginning of the end of a bizarre rush in every continent after the end of the Cold War to restrict the rule of presidents or prime ministers to two terms. Assuming that the demise of a multi-polar world had brought about the ‘end of history’, countries from Serbia to Sri Lanka and from Nauru to Namibia copied, with variations, a provision in the US constitution which prohibited the US President from holding office for more than two terms.

Forty-one countries in Africa, 19 in the western hemisphere, 21 in Asia, 35 in Europe and nine in the Oceania amended their statutes to impose term limits on their leaders. Such was the fascination for the US that the presumption across continents was that what was good for America was good for the entire world.

In the Soviet era, only the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic had term limits for office-bearers. Post communism, a two-term limit was included in the statute, copying the US, except that the term of office of Russia’s President was fixed initially at five years, then at four, and now at six. This was not surprising. During Boris Yeltsin’s presidency, subordination to US interests was to such an extent that a US citizen became the gatekeeper to Russia’s foreign minister, restricting access to Andrei Kozyrev who held that post from 1991 to 1996.

Last week’s changes, which enable Putin to remain President for two more terms, when his current tenure ends in 2024, reflect the aspiration of Russians to take back their country and restore its greatness to the heights of Peter the Great’s reign.

That the amended constitutional provisions allow Putin to seek more terms does not necessarily mean he will remain President until 2036. In a January conversation with students at Sochi, Putin expressed his admiration for Lee Kuan Yew, the first PM of Singapore, who bears comparison to the incumbent who rules from the Kremlin. Pointing out that Lee became ‘Minister Mentor’ after he gave up his executive role to guide the generation of leaders after him, Putin said: ‘He was an outstanding man… around 30 years in power, and he founded the country, that is true. You want me to be the Minister Mentor?’ In the same breath, he cautioned against creating extra-constitutional positions which undermine the institution of a strong presidency.

The West has never tired of vilifying Putin because he is the bulwark against their designs on Russia, their plans for controlling Moscow, acquiring vast mineral resources and neutralising its spectacular military might. The main criticism last week was that Putin was unfairly seeking to perpetuate himself in power.

Such criticism ignores the reality that in recent years, as disenchantment with the promise of America has grown, a dozen countries have gone back on amendments that prevented leaders from seeking re-election indefinitely. This includes China, which allowed Xi Jinping to remain President beyond two terms. More countries are on their way to ending term limits.

When Brazil’s President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva stepped down from office in 2010, he had a personal approval rating of 87%. Lula’s rise from a shoe-shine boy makes an inspirational story, but he could not contest because of a constitutional bar on a third term.

His one-time Chief of Staff Dilma Rousseff succeeded Lula. She drove the country downhill, ending eight years of sustained prosperity and was impeached amidst political chaos. If only Brazil had no presidential term limit, it is conceivable that the monumental disaster which that country is now suffering under the leadership of Jair Bolsonaro may not have occurred.

When Bill Clinton demitted office, his approval rating was 65%. The figure was slightly lower than his peak of 73%, which was reached after he admitted to having sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky and was eventually impeached for lying about it under oath. It is possible that if Clinton had been allowed a third term, the world would have been spared of the Iraq war waged by his successor George W Bush and its lingering consequences in West Asia.

The removal of Saddam Hussein, who managed that country’s complexities for many decades, offers salutary lessons to many societies and political cultures. ‘Our country has to be a strong presidential republic,’ Putin once said in a televised conversation with some Russians. ‘That is the first thing. And then, we have so many ethnic groups, nationalities, ways of life, it is practically impossible to integrate in the framework of a parliamentary republic.’

If Putin remains in power until 2036, his legacy will be that of a strong leader who prevented the disintegration of his country, consolidated the Russian state and restored Moscow’s standing in the world, which predates the Soviet Union and goes way back into Tsarist history. He is well on his way to achieving all this, but if he were to step down at the end of his current term, he could well become a lame duck by 2022, interrupting this process.

For India, there could be nothing better for its strategic autonomy than the certainty that Putin will be President for the long term. The Moscow media reported during Defence Minister Rajnath Singh’s recent visit to Moscow that China has been pressuring Russia during the stand-off in Ladakh not to sell high-end weapons to India.

Russia’s decision last week to ward off Chinese pressure and speed up delivery of S-400 missiles as well as supply MiG-29 and Sukhoi Su-30 MKI planes is evidence that Putin remains as much a friend of India as he ever has been, since his earliest interactions with the Consulate General of India in St Petersburg when no one could fantasise that he would one day be Russia’s President.

Join Whatsapp Channel of The Tribune for latest updates.