FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Putin in Strong Position for Sunday’s Vote

by ISRAEL SHAMIR

Moscow

Moscow is shining in the bright spring sun; the golden domes of its churches are a-glitter, surrounded by pure white snow; endless boutiques display the latest Paris fashions; restaurants are plentiful and expensive; numerous theaters are full, at a hundred dollars a seat for a Chekhov play. High oil prices have brought prosperity and crisis is forgotten. There’s a lot of budget money for all sorts of projects, from modern art to kindergartens to universities. Even those old sufferers, the armed forces, have got a big  hike in pay.

In these rather easy circumstances this Sunday March 4 the Russians are going to elect their President. They have no economic grievances requiring desperate solutions. This is good for the incumbent, and indeed the polls indicate victory for Vladimir Putin. But all bets are off for whatever will happen the next day. Some of Putin’s opponents have already called for mass rallies and riots on Monday March 5. It’s  become a tradition of sorts that the electoral victory of a government figure may lead to riots, as happened in Belarus in December 2010 and in the Ukraine in December 2004.

On Sunday there are five candidates applying for the job; a Communist, a Social-Democrat, a Nationalist, a Neoliberal, and Mr Putin. Pollsters say Vladimir Putin will receive above 60 per cent of the popular vote, so he will not need a second round run-off. However, elections are never a sure thing, and it is not impossible that there will be a second round between Putin and the second most likely candidate, Gennady Zuganov of the Communist Party, and then Putin will win anyway.

So fraud won’t necessary. Putin would likely to win even if Hillary Clinton was to personally roll up her sleeves and count the votes. However, there is a sixth candidate, call him X, who does not participate in the elections but commands many followers. His followers – they wear white, but are often and confusingly described as ‘orange’, as in the Ukraine – seized the streets of the capital in December last year, and now are likely to riot whatever the results may be.

This phantom candidate is a creation of the second and recent Putin-Medvedev swap, when Medvedev announced he would not run for a second term but would support Putin and serve as  PM under him. There was a liberal camp around Medvedev, and ir had hoped that  Medvedev would take a liberal course, set the jailed oligarch Khodorkovsky free, privatize state enterprises, sack Putin and become “the only European in Russia”, an enlightened ruler.

This camp has a few oligarchs ready to dish out  their money in much bigger amounts than the State Department could ever manage, notably Mrs Sindeeva and her husband the banker Alexander Vinokurov,  owner of Dozhd TV station, a web-portal and a Moscow giveaway entertainment paper; Alexander Lebedev, an ex-spook and billionaire, owner of the Independent of London and Novaya Gazeta of Moscow; London-based oligarch Alisher Usmanov, once a convicted criminal from Ferghana, Uzbekistan, and now one of the richest Russian oilmen, who owns the Kommersant that previously belonged to the famous London exile  Boris Berezovsky.

This camp has a few think-tanks that were prominent in planning Medvedev’s reforms, notably Mr Yurgens and his fund. A few days ago Yurgens appealed to Medvedev to remain as president, and it is not impossible that some of the ‘orange’ radicals hope it may happen in any fall-out from riots. Meanwhile there are no external signs of a breach between Putin and Medvedev, so there is no candidate X actually running, but the machinery they set up is still in place.

The orange team quite successfully exploited the dissatisfaction of Moscow’s literati and new middle class with their lack of political clout in December 2011, but the public mood changed on that fateful day, February 4, 2012, when the opposition demo at Bolotnaya Moor was bested by the much larger loyalist (or perhaps anti-orange) rally on Poklonnaya Mount, as we reported in a previous dispatch. Previously, Putin had been  seen as a lame duck waiting for a summary arrow; but at that day the Frondeurs discovered to their chagrin that their hold on the streets was precarious.

Now Putin has fully recovered and bounced back. After February 4, encouraged by popular support, he directed the Russian Ambassador in the UN to cast  his veto on the Western UN Security council draft resolution on Syria and stopped the pending invasion. Afterwards, he unleashed seven texts published in seven newspapers disclosing his blueprint for the coming years. He promised more democracy and transparency, less bureaucracy, more prosperity for all and more taxation for the filthy rich. He threatened to ban offshore companies and to re-open the Pandora’s  box of privatization.

In  foreign affairs he was emphatic and certain: he asserted the traditional full sovereignty of Russia as enjoyed by this powerful state since Ivan the Third asserted his independence against the rival claimants of the Horde. He rejected the American quest for total invulnerability  which, as he said, could only  be obtained by the total vulnerability of all other states.  Actually, this was the old script of any Russian Tsar foaming against foreign meddling. It was approvingly accompanied by pieces by Eugene Primakov, ex-PM who famously ordered his plane back on its transatlantic flight when the US decided to bomb Yugoslavia, and by Dmitri Rogozin, a Vice PM and until recently a combative Russian envoy to NATO. Putin has not been softened one little bit by all the offensive of the pro-Western forces.

The rallies and political awakening has been good for the country and good for Putin: activity and drama are likely to bring more voters to the polling booths. Huge efforts to provide visibility and transparency to the counting process including video cameras and internet broadcasting will do the same, while the attacks on Putin – in Russia and abroad – will marginalize other candidates. His position improved after February 4, when the Western media practically ceased their  attacks on him.

For a while, the rebellious liberals could – and did – pretend that only the  “rabble”  supports Putin while all classy people stand with them. But in a striking new development – as the Frondeurs pretended to speak for the whole Russian art crowd and intelligentsia – many important Russian cultural personalities stood up in  support of  Putin. The favourite of the Moscow theatre-going public, Chulpan Hamatova,  declared her support for Putin and so did leading film directors Shahnazarov and Mihalkov, the great conductor Valery Gergiev, along with other brand names of Russian culture. Star-studded people of integrity turned their backs on the self-proclaimed “crème de la crème”. As Vitaly Leibin, the Russian Reporter’s chief editor said: I’d rather be a commoner.

This change was well explained by Eduard Limonov, a poet and a revolutionary, a returnee who lived for years in New York and Paris, founder and leader of the radical National-Bolshevik Party. He has been in strong opposition to Putin’s regime and served a three year  prison sentence for an alleged attempt to arm his followers. He eagerly embraced the liberal upheaval but became disappointed and soon parted ways with the Bolotnaya crowd. In his passionate blog Limonov explained the failure of the Frondeurs to win Russian hearts by their anti-democratism:

“They were associated with the spirit of 1991, the black year for Russian commoners, for 91-ers are considered responsible for the USSR’s break-up, for the loss of their savings, for shock therapy, for the criminal Nineties… I swear that Bolotnaya Moor attracted all sorts of people, and the middle-class were in a minority. But the bourgeois leaders in their greed granted themselves the exclusive  concession on protest… They proclaimed the rising of a new class, the Creative Class, (read: Masters’ Class). They happily and self-adoringly declared themselves – lovable, creative, rich – the only force for protest . And the authorities readily agreed: ‘yes, darlings, it is your protest, the protest of the wealthy, of the middle class, just yours and nobody else’s !’ Now the whole protest wave is identified as a rebellion of pro-Western liberals. And it was isolated, as  became evident on February 4.”

A few days before the elections, Putin appeared at a huge rally in the Luzhniki stadium in Moscow. Its strength was estimated at about 150,000. The stadium was full, a lot of people stood in the arena and many thousands could not get in. Putin appealed to Russian patriotism; he spoke softly. There was none of the expected fire and brimstone. Though electorally, it makes sense to stress the difference between ‘them’ and ‘us’, Putin did not, carefully building the foundation for civil peace after the elections are over.

Will he get it? The X electorate is still there, implacable as ever. Mme Sindeeva’s newspaper promises the results of the elections will trigger vast demos, blood will be shed and the despot will be overturned. This is also the view of Sergei Kurginyan, the initiator of the anti-orange demo on Poklonnaya Mount. On Wednesday, leaflets appeared in Moscow, calling for mass protests on March 5, against future falsifications of the elections, with one slogan: Down with Putin.

The majority of my informants doubt their ability to cause much trouble. Life is too good now in prospering Russia, and these would-be rebels are used to the good life. To quote Limonov, in order to beat the government or even to extract concessions one needs people “with clenched jaws and frowning brows. The perfumed Parfenov, pink pants-clad Troitsky, and syrupy Ulitskaya won’t do.” We shall know the answer soon.

Israel Shamir has been sending dispatches to CounterPunch from Moscow. He can be reached at israel.shamir@gmail.com

Israel Shamir can be reached on adam@israelshamir

More articles by:

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

August 31, 2016
NEVE GORDON - NICOLA PERUGINI
Human Shields as Preemptive Legal Defense for Killing Civilians
Jim Kavanagh
Turkey Invades Syria, America Spins The Bottle
Dave Lindorff
Ukraine and the Dumbed-Down New York Times Columnist
Pepe Escobar
Brazil’s Dilma Rousseff, a Woman of Honor, Confronts Senate of Scoundrels
Jeff Mackler
Playing the Lesser Evil Game to the Hilt
Steve Horn
Dakota Access Pipeline Tribal Liaison Formerly Worked For Agency Issuing Permit
Patrick Cockburn
Has Turkey Overplayed Its Hand in Syria?
John Chuckman
Why Hillary is the Perfect Person to Secure Obama’s Legacy
Manuel E. Yepe
The New Cold War Between the US and China
Stephen Cooper
Ending California’s Machinery of Death
Stacy Keltner - Ashley McFarland
Women, Party Politics, and the Power of the Naked Body
Hiroyuki Hamada - Ikuko Isa
A Letter from Takae, Okinawa
Aidan O'Brien
How Did Syria and the Rest Do in the Olympics?
David Swanson
Arms Dealing Is Subject of Hollywood Comedy
Jesse Jackson
The Politics of Bigotry: Trump and the Black Voter
August 30, 2016
Russell Mokhiber
Matt Funiciello and the Giant Sucking Sound Coming Off Lake Champlain
Mike Whitney
Three Cheers for Kaepernick: Is Sitting During the National Anthem an Acceptable Form of Protest?
Alice Bach
Sorrow and Grace in Palestine
Sam Husseini
Why We Should All Remain Seated: the Anti-Muslim Origins of “The Star-Spangled Banner”
Richard Moser
Transformative Movement Culture and the Inside/Outside Strategy: Do We Want to Win the Argument or Build the Movement?
Nozomi Hayase
Pathology, Incorporated: the Facade of American Democracy
David Swanson
Fredric Jameson’s War Machine
Jan Oberg
How Did the West Survive a Much Stronger Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact?
Linda Gunter
The Racism of the Nagasaki and Hiroshima Bombings
Dmitry Kovalevich
In Ukraine: Independence From the People
Omar Kassem
Turkey Breaks Out in Jarablus as Fear and Loathing Grip Europe
George Wuerthner
A Birthday Gift to the National Parks: the Maine Woods National Monument
Logan Glitterbomb
Indigenous Property Rights and the Dakota Access Pipeline
National Lawyers Guild
Solidarity with Standing Rock Sioux Tribe against Dakota Access Pipeline
Paul Messersmith-Glavin
100 in Anarchist Years
August 29, 2016
Eric Draitser
Hillary and the Clinton Foundation: Exemplars of America’s Political Rot
Patrick Timmons
Dildos on Campus, Gun in the Library: the New York Times and the Texas Gun War
Jack Rasmus
Bernie Sanders ‘OR’ Revolution: a Statement or a Question?
Richard Moser
Strategic Choreography and Inside/Outside Organizers
Nigel Clarke
President Obama’s “Now Watch This Drive” Moment
Robert Fisk
Iraq’s Willing Executioners
Wahid Azal
The Banality of Evil and the Ivory Tower Masterminds of the 1953 Coup d’Etat in Iran
Farzana Versey
Romancing the Activist
Frances Madeson
Meet the Geronimos: Apache Leader’s Descendants Talk About Living With the Legacy
Nauman Sadiq
The War on Terror and the Carter Doctrine
Lawrence Wittner
Does the Democratic Party Have a Progressive Platform–and Does It Matter?
Marjorie Cohn
Death to the Death Penalty in California
Winslow Myers
Asking the Right Questions
Rivera Sun
The Sane Candidate: Which Representatives Will End the Endless Wars?
Linn Washington Jr.
Philadelphia District Attorney Hammered for Hypocrisy
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail