My profile:
 | To Our Readers |
Has something you've read here startled you? Are you angry, excited, puzzled or pleased? Do you have ideas to improve our coverage? |
The few regions whose constitutions or charters had a provision in October 1999 forbidding the governor to run for a third consecutive term must now decide for themselves how their governor's terms should be counted. Saratov region deputies have already decided in favor of the incumbent governor, Dmitry Ayatskov, while St. Petersburg Governor Vladimir Yakovlev, who has declared he may run for a third term, still has to work on his city deputies. He is one of the few who may have real problems getting "permission" to run for a third term.
Murmurs of approval are ubiquitous. "What a wise decision," regional governors and presidents of republics utter in unison. "Absolutely," chime in millions of contented people. The reason is that in reality it is not just the incumbent regional bosses themselves that have a direct interest in the court ruling -- it is many, many more people.
In this country, the governor is much more than the popularly elected head of the regional executive branch of government. The reality is that much greater forces and interests are riding on any governor. There is the multitude of officials who owe their appointment and promotion to him. There are the regional businessmen who owe their success to these officials and the preferential conditions they provide for their "own"; the national business groups that have invested in building relations with the boss and his team; the heads of cities and districts who were elected with his support; the media outlets that toe the line and in return receive subsidies and tax breaks; the teachers and pensioners who get their wages and pensions topped up by him; the construction firms that receive contracts from him; and many others.
Both powerful people and millions of ordinary citizens across the country have a direct interest in preserving the status quo. Their jobs, salaries and positions depend on the stability of the pyramid, at the pinnacle of which sits the regional governor. He is the creator of the system, its patron and guarantor. Competitive, free elections put the whole system in jeopardy and are thus viewed as undesirable.
Today, authoritarian regimes of differing degrees have taken root in at least 60 of Russia's 89 regions. Regions such as Krasnoyarsk where real battles are fought at each election are in a distinct minority.
It is certainly the case that the authoritarian regime type guarantees political stability. Strong provincial bosses, capable of ensuring easy re-election for themselves, are well-equipped to provide a similar service to their president. Furthermore, their loyalty could prove useful for the implementation on the ground of economic reforms.
However, such regimes give rise to three fundamental and insoluble problems. By killing off all political competition, they are no longer under effective public control, while administrative control imposed by the federal center is rarely very effective. The absence of opposition and public control contributes to the inefficiency of regional economies: Once political competition has been suppressed, economic competition is next. Regional and local markets -- from gas to pharmaceuticals -- are frequently carved up between well-connected groups of businessmen. These two problems, in turn, give rise to systemic corruption, and when the authorities and business are closely intertwined, trying to make any changes becomes almost impossible.
Many commentators see the hand of the presidential administration -- and that of President Vladimir Putin himself -- behind the Constitutional Court's ruling. They are of the opinion that a deal was made between the president and the governors, under which the latter are obliged to deliver votes in the upcoming presidential election and to support implementation of economic reforms on the ground. While the first is perfectly possible, the second is unlikely to come to much. Monopolistic, corrupt and unremovable regional regimes are a poor underpinning for economic growth -- rather, they are a major obstacle to it.
A heavy blow has been dealt to democracy. Regional autocrats, once they have gained power through elections, seek first and foremost to control any subsequent elections as far as possible. The Constitutional Court's ruling will only serve to bolster this trend. Regional bosses, having been granted the right to run for one or even two more terms, will redouble their efforts to suppress all alternatives. There are now 53 governors who could rule over their regions for a total of 12 to 20 years.
Of course, the right to run for office again and again does not provide a cast-iron guarantee of political longevity. As the experience of Alexander Rutskoi, Mikhail Nikolayev, Ruslan Aushev and several others has shown, the federal center is capable of throwing a spanner in the works if it chooses to.
The position of governors has been further complicated by the reform of the Federation Council, stripping them of immunity from prosecution, the centralization of the budget and the introduction of party lists for regional elections. While the professional risks have increased sharply, governors' powers are -- as before -- very considerable. Of the 15 gubernatorial elections that took place in 2001, only in two cases did incumbents not run for another term. Eight out of the 13 that ran were victorious -- and that was a relatively bad year for incumbents.
Thus, the Constitutional Court in its ruling has supported the regional authoritarian regimes that are taking root, has hampered the demonopolization and opening of regional markets, slowed down the process of regional elite turnover and rejuvenation, and impeded the fight against corruption. Its ruling will obstruct the democratization of regional political and public life, postponing a change of administration in the majority of regions for six to 10 years. The Constitutional Court could have ruled on the tangled "third term" dispute differently, but instead chose the path of trying to make everyone happy: The ban on governors running for a third term has been confirmed, but it has been deferred to a later date.
It would seem that the highest court in the land is undergoing a worrying evolution right before our eyes. Previously its rulings, for the most part, contributed to the strengthening of democratic institutions, values and procedures.
The Constitutional Court declared an attempt by Boris Yeltsin to merge the KGB and Interior Ministry into a security super-ministry unconstitutional. It allowed a revived Communist Party to return to the political arena. In 1993, it opposed the dissolution of the parliament. In 1997, it ruled against the possibility of Yeltsin running for a third term as president. It also approved a mixed system for State Duma elections, thereby supporting Russia's nascent multi-party system. And it came out in support of local government's constitutional rights in the famous Udmurtia case. In addition, there were liberal rulings on abolishing the propiska system, on the Criminal Procedural Code, etc.
Now, rulings of a different kind are being made with increasing frequency. Regions have been instructed to remove the concept of sovereignty from their constitutions. The president's right to remove elected regional heads, if they violate laws, has been confirmed. And now the ruling on third terms.
As the experience of other countries shows, constitutional courts often play a decisive role in establishing freedom, democracy and an efficient economy. They are capable of neutralizing authoritarian tendencies and spurring democratic changes.
The latest Constitutional Court ruling, irrespective of the motives behind it, is hardly in keeping with these noble aims.
Vladimir Ryzhkov, an independent State Duma deputy, contributed this comment to Vedomosti.
