The next President of Russia: Dmitry Medvedev: "Russia's new Kennedy? Four years younger than Senator Obama, ten years younger than French President Sarkozy, Dmitry Medvedev is a relatively young politician to reach the highest rank in the biggest country of the world. If he is elected Dmitry Medvedev will be the youngest Russian leader for the past 100 years."

While the whole world is watching the development of the American presidential race, the Russian president elections seem to be simple: the Kremlin’s candidate Dmitry Medvedev is supposed to win it. Some believe that Medvedev, being so young, intellectual and reasonable, is the best successor Putin could ever nominate, whereas others consider him merely a bureaucrat to help the ruling class preserve its power and business interests. This newsletter analyses the role that Mr. Medvedev is likely to play in the future of Russia and gives an outlook for the present Russian ideology formulated as Sovereign Democracy.

What is Mr. Medvedev?

Young. Four years younger than Senator Obama, ten years younger than French President Sarkozy, Dmitry Medvedev is a relatively young politician to reach the highest rank in the biggest country of the world. If he is elected Dmitry Medvedev will be the youngest Russian leader for the past 100 years. Dmitry Medvedev has already had several chances to prove that his age is quite a benefit acting as a progressive, modern and flexible leader. For instance he was the first Russian politician to participate in the online Internet conference with Russian citizens. Yet, at 42 Dmitry Medvedev has had a tremendously successful career.

Intellectual. Dmitry Medvedev’s education and academic career at the Department of Law of Leningrad State University greatly contributed to his later success. Medvedev was lucky to graduate it in 1987, right during the culmination of Gorbachev’s policy of Perestroika, which opened the way to many active young people who were ready to perform changes in the stagnated USSR. But Medvedev was lucky twice: after graduation he entered PhD studies and joined the class of Anatoly Sobchak – one of the symbols of Russian democratic changes of late 80’s and early 90’s. Sobchak became the first freely elected mayor of St. Petersburg and Dmitry Medvedev was the one to help him to accomplish this task as he actively participated in his electoral campaign. But theory of judicial science seemed to be as interesting to Medvedev as policymaking. From 1990-1999 Medvedev worked as the professor of law at the Department of Law of his Alma Mater, renamed to St Petersburg State University. Medvedev was considered by his students to be one of their most talented professors. He is said to be fully devoted to lectures and seminars teaching Roman law and Russian civil law. Besides Medvedev became one of the authors of the basic Russian student law book “Civil Law”, where chapters on state and municipal enterprises, credit relations, transport law, and even separate maintenance were written solely by Dmitry Medvedev. Thus Medvedev academic background is to be one of his strongest undeniable personal merits. In fact Russia through its history has not lacked powerful governors, but as for highly educated ones the numbers are not that bright. Dmitry Medvedev is likely to rank first among other Russian rulers in terms of academic achievements.

Experienced. Along with his academic career Dmitry Medvedev rushed into the burning Russian political life of early 90’s, first to work as an expert for Leningrad Municipal Soviet of People’s Deputies (city’s parliament). As it has already been said his former teacher Anatoly Sobchak helped him to implement his skills in policymaking taking him as an expert to the administration of Saint Petersburg. There, Dmitry Medvedev met another person who would later shape his life. Vladimir Putin became his boss for the first time in 1991, as Medvedev became a legal expert for the Committee for External Relations of the Saint Petersburg Mayor’s Office, headed by Putin. They both refer to this career period as a chance to see an expert and a reliable partner in each other. Thus Medvedev’s loyalty to Putin and Putin’s trust in his protégé has lasted for more than 15 years. That’s why Dmitry Medvedev has been considered to be the most likely successor since Putin took real power in Kremlin. First Medvedev was appointed to the position of the chief of president administration – a key but shadow position in the Russian political system. Medvedev also hold key Russian corporate position serving as a Chairman of Board of Directors of Russian gas giant Gazprom. This position helped him to realize all the nuances of Russian business.

But to become a real successor Medvedev needed more publicity, which was granted to him by Putin. In November 2005 Dmitry Medvedev was appointed a first vice-chairman of government and since that time he has gained the responsibility over so-called “national projects” – series of reforms in social sphere. Unprecedented resources then were invested in these projects what made the positive image Medvedev in the eyes of society. As a matter of fact he spent these two years trying to become a politician – a man who can really win elections.

March elections as a mirror of Russian political life.

"Although the election of Dmitry Medvedev means that Russian policy won’t suffer great changes and Dmitry Medvedev will be obedient to Putin, some changes in Russian internal policy are almost certain. Both Putin and Medvedev in their program statements indicated the need to start a new era of Russian development."

Yet throughout his skyrocketing political career Dmitry Medvedev never took elective office. While in the western democracies this fact would be a big barrier for any politician to start a presidential campaign, in Russia facts like that are still beyond serious public attention. Common people seem to respect Putin’s opinion more than their own. The electoral campaign itself has already proved to be a sort of an illusive one, though Russian electoral law is strictly implemented. Dmitry Medvedev is expected to win it with overwhelming majority over a communist, ultra-nationalist and one almost unknown person with zero rating. While in the US we see a battle of ideas, views, programs and approaches in Russia we witness nothing but a perception of one strategy – to preserve present political course by all means. The Kremlin takes the issue of elections so cautiously that it leaves no any chance for constructive opposition.

Former Russian prime minister Kasianov was denied the right to participate in the elections due to the fact that he failed to get 2 millions of signatures in his support. The official decision of the Central Election Commission said 15% of signatures were faked. Kasianov supporters officially denied those allegations and said they were discriminated against because of their beliefs.

Yet Russian democratic opposition deserves criticism for other reasons. In fact it failed to consolidate and to work up unified position. It was already evident during December’s Parliament elections and prior to them. Several parties tried to lead Russian democratic opposition. Yet neither Yavlinsky’s “Yabloko”, nor the Union of Right Forces (SPS), nor Kasianov’s Russian Peoples’ Democratic Union, nor some new liberal parties could act a basis for the opposition to unite. On the contrary they see more differences in each other than in the ruling class. And when it came to choose the unified opposition candidate none of the parties was ready to make concessions. When it was clear that their talks ended in a deadlock, it was decided to organize national primaries to find out whose candidate enjoyed more public support. But when the issue of primaries arose, parties tried to dictate their view of primaries procedure. Again and again their clashes led to nowhere. Famous chess champion Kasparov was declared a winner of primaries, yet other opposition groups failed to support his candidature as they had believed the procedures of primaries were corrupted.

In general it all indicates the problems in Russian democratic system – its inability to generate alternative ideas and leaders who could enjoy large public support. And as we see Kremlin is not the only reason of it. The main reason for it is the apathy of Russian people to participate in politics and be responsible for the future of the country.

Possible scenarios of new Presidency.

Although the election of Dmitry Medvedev means that Russian policy won’t suffer great changes and Dmitry Medvedev will be obedient to Putin, some changes in Russian internal policy are almost certain. Both Putin and Medvedev in their program statements indicated the need to start a new era of Russian development.

Also the fact that Medvedev has never served in structures like the KGB makes analysts hope that some liberal reforms will be conducted during his presidency. In the long run his figure is much more eligible by the western countries which can be assured in Russia’s move to democratic principles.

Yet one of the biggest questions is the new configuration of power between new President – Medvedev and his Prime Minister – Vladimir Putin. There is a widely spread believe that Medvedev is merely a symbolic President to let Putin bypass the constitution and rule two more terms. But even the most devoted supporters of Putin’s third term questioned Putin’s ability to stay as the chief policymaker after short transition period in 2008. The point is the ultimate power which President enjoys in Russia. The glaring example is Putin himself, who was supported and almost crowned by Boris Berezovsky to defend the interests of so called Yeltsin “family”. It took Putin just a little in terms of time to get rid of oligarchs influence and start to rule by himself.

The same might happen to Dmitry Medvedev because of the nature of Russian institute of Presidency. You rule or you fail says the principle of Russian power. Sooner or later he is to become what the Russian President is supposed to be according to the constitution: a person who defines internal and external policy of the Russian Federation.

Thus the question is how long Putin and Medvedev will stay together. Putin and Medvedev in their latest program statements declared a goal which might be interpreted as building a society by 2020 which by its intellectual, innovative and democratic potential will be equal to Europe. The goal is clear but tremendously difficult to achieve taking into account all problems existing in Russia. The first group of problems is to keep law, order and stability in a 145 million-strong, diverse country, a problem which a person like Putin can solve. The second group of issues is the innovative development which is impossible without liberty and democratization, - a problem which Dmitry Medvedev is suited to deal with. Thus Putin and Medvedev seem to form a good alliance to lead Russia ahead and in theory this political union is supposed to function well.

But the problem of modern Russia is not the personality of Putin or Medvedev, it is the system of power itself. Unfortunately Russian people are in a state of some kind of political ignorance. And ruling powers of all levels use it for their benefit. While the court system is still very weak and dependent on those ruling powers, and the freedom of media was reduced to maintain stability and tranquillity the positive development of Russia, its business and people is greatly endangered. And the solution to those problems might be only in the change of the way the whole system is functioning in making it more transparent and purely democratic.

Dmitry Medvedev and his mentor Vladimir Putin are the new Russian tandem.

Whether pre-electoral populism or not, Putin and Medvedev clearly spoke about most grave Russian threats of corruption, red taping, ineffective court and exaggerated powers of officials. Some analysts assumed that a series of some sort of repressions or even a purge against almighty bureaucrats might follow after the election of Dmitry Medvedev.

Other group of analysts is associating the presidency of Dmitry Medvedev with a revival of democratic and liberal ideas and named it the “second thaw”. (Khrushchev Thaw – a period of de-Stalinization and rapid scientific and cultural progress in late 50’s early 60’s) Thus Dmitry Medvedev is associated with a liberal, open minded person who will enforce democratic transition.

The skeptics think that Medvedev might be a “controlled” president who will rule one term, and then he will be replaced by Putin in 2012 elections a fact which won’t violate Russian constitution. But as we said there are other factors not to consider this scenario most probable.

Dmitry Medvedev is not likely to change foreign and security policy of Russia. He is known to be a supporter of Putin’s very pragmatic line. Perhaps Medvedev foreign policy will be even more technocratic and pragmatic and devoted to the direct interests of Russian business and big state corporations. Anyway Dmitry Medvedev has never been associated with Kremlin hawks and always supported open and mutually beneficial ties with other states.

Medvedev hasn’t announced yet his program of future Russian military policy, despite the statement that “Russia deserves a better place in the world”. But the fact that Medvedev is so much concerned with internal economic development of Russia it is not likely that he may be the initiator of a new arms race or any military stand off with foreign countries. Medvedev is likely to understand the importance of positive relations with the Western democracies for Russian business and economy.

Foreign reaction on Medvedev’s nomination has been positive so far. U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on December 11^th at a State Department news briefing that Medvedev, is “a very intelligent person. He is of another generation.” Rice also noted Medvedev’s efforts to diversify the Russian economy and his work “to wire the country with the Internet.”

Yet it is also clear that Medvedev’s policy will be defined by a great number of factors, like the influence of various elite, lobby and business groups and hopefully by Russian people as well.

The ideological background of modern Russian political life

The speech by Vladimir Putin at Expanded Meeting of the State Council on Russia’s Development Strategy through to 2020 that was announced on the 8^th of February stressed the huge progress Russia has achieved during the last 8 years. Modern Russia has overcome economic crisis and default; terrorist threat and territorial claims, regions held against each other; the decline in standard of living and brain drain.

The comparison between the period of the 1990s and the current situation, so vividly depicted by the President, might seem to become a common phrase too often inserted into the speeches of the Kremlin officials or experts.

However the issue is not only in the fact that last years of the 20^th century turned out to be a disaster for Russia. The case is that the decade saw liberal politicians ruling the country. As a result, for the majority of Russians the whirlpool of horror in 90’s became a synonym for liberal ideas. Liberal democratic values proclaimed by those who were in power had no social or economic basis to be brought about and most people couldn’t enjoy them. Therefore in practice political rights and basic needs of people were ignored and violated.

On the contrary, Putin’s presidency again made Russia a strong actor on the world arena, bringing stable development to the state – just what the Russian population was longing for.

The new President will be elected on the 2^nd of March. Is there any ideological heritage left by Mr. Putin to his successor in order to promote stability in the future?

The answer consists of the two crucial elements that are Sovereignty and Democracy. Bringing together these notions form Sovereign Democracy – the set of ideas the Russian political, economic and social systems are based on.

It can be argued that the Constitution of the Russian Federation recognizes ideological diversity and “no ideology shall be proclaimed as State one”. However this legal formula presupposes that no views, values or opinions are obligatory in Russia. Sovereign democracy happened to be an attempt to create a set of ideas that can inspire the nation for future success. Perhaps it is one of the best attempts made by Russian authorities to restore legitimacy of democratic ideas among common people.

Formulated by Vladislav Surkov, the Deputy Chief of Staff of the Presidential Executive Office in several speeches, sovereign democracy can be explained after thorough studying of his article “Nationalization of the Future. Paragraphs pro sovereign democracy”.

The article gives a clear determination of sovereign democracy that is “the way of political life in society when the authorities, their institutions and their acts are elected, formed and directed only by the Russian nation throughout its diversity and integrity in order to provide material prosperity, freedom and justice for citizens, social groups and for people the nation consists of”. Thus this notion attracts social attention and settles the issue of the interrelationship between personal freedom that is democracy and national independence – sovereignty.

Democracy is not an institutional façade; it is the only possible method for open societies to exist. Throughout civilization’s development democracy has proved its competence since it allows the society to mobilize resources more effectively and to speed up the dissemination of information as well as the decision-making process. Thus Russia turned to democracy to provide her competitiveness.

"New Russian leadership should recognize the importance of further democratic transition not only in public speeches but with concrete government actions. Dmitry Medvedev has all necessary preconditions to lead Russia to a completely innovative and open society: a strong economy, vast public support, his own education and experience. Hope he won’t miss this unique chance."

In addition democratic evolvement is logically explained by the European essence of Russian culture. Even a brief look at Russian history (Russia has been a key actor in European politics for centuries), Russian mentality (unlike Chinese harmonic perception of the world, the Russian mentality tends to the European conflict view), Russian philosophical heritage (the political theory “Moscow being the Third Rome” so popular in the 15-16^th centuries) suggests that Russia belongs to European development paradigm.

Moreover, sovereign democracy appears to be a European idea. Mr. Surkov insists that sovereign democracy “is a widespread notion recognized by politicians” and provides readers with quotations from Warren Christopher, a US 63^rd Secretary of State and Romano Prodi, a former President of the European Commission. The matter of vital importance for Russia is to introduce – for the first time in her history – “people conservative technology”. Democracy emphasizes the humanization of political system, the value of personal dignity, opinion, health, property etc. Being a process, democracy asks for a permanent action and the one taken by Russia should be creation of united civil society and nationally oriented intellectual elite. Dashing 90’s left a pattern that can not be easily overcome that is mistrust among population toward power. Reliable leading class is aimed at improving the situation.

As a result the measures are to bring competition and cooperation to the society of free people making it more active. Being a democratic society Russia strives to integrate to the World economy and to the World knowledge system; to benefit from globalization.

Nevertheless openness doesn’t mean a loss of identity. On the contrary, Russia is an independent nation and she tries to find equilibrium between participation in globalization and preservation of sovereignty. Russia wants to be independent and to avoid imposing the transnational or nongovernmental organizations will on her. Sovereign democracy means that the source of power as well as of the control over its natural resources is situated in Russia, in Russian nation.

From the legal point of view such an approach might seem rather antique – most constitutions assert the principle of sovereignty. However the notion means something more than a simple legal formula. The best test of it is the events near the borders of Russia – a series of so-called “orange revolutions” in the CIS countries, which showed a fake of written sovereignty. Therefore what Russia is interested in is the real freedom and independent ruling.

Like other political doctrine sovereign democracy has some imperfections. The most remarkable one is its idealistic character. Once Mr. Surkov said: “Developing democracy in our country we are interested in democratization of international relations as well”. But whether it is possible to introduce fair rules of cooperation to world politics, especially in this period of globalization, becomes a crucial question in the theory of international relations. The answer has not been found yet.

In the last decade of the 20^th century liberal democracy became embezzlement, corruption and the collapse of law and order in Russia. Nevertheless, being a European state, Russia has no other choice but to turn to democracy, a democracy that might correlate with Russian political culture. Thus appeared sovereign democracy. Implementation of sovereign democracy to political life allowed great progress in economic and social development. Now Russia is a stable state willing to cooperate with others and to promote democracy in the world.

Recommendations

1. New Russian leadership should recognize the importance of further democratic transition not only in public speeches but with concrete government actions.
   
   
2. Dmitry Medvedev has all necessary preconditions to lead Russia to a completely innovative and open society: a strong economy, vast public support, his own education and experience. Hope he won’t miss this unique chance.
   
   
3. Despite its present electoral success Russian authorities should realize that the absence of any forms of opposition will lead the country to stagnation first political then economic and social.
   
   
4. Russia should continue its integration into major world economic institutions like the WTO and engage in a greater number of economic projects in Russia and abroad, providing clear rules for foreign investment and investing its resources in mutually beneficial projects.
   
   
5. Russia may start a new fresh dialog on arms control and global non-proliferation with the new American administration.