The 8th Circle

Russian election banner: "Putin's Russia is united and invincible"

The Washington Post today published an article by Leon Aron, a resident scholar over at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), exploring the Russia of today and the Soviet Union of the 1970s under the cliche title: Back in the USSR? Of late, this comparison has become very in vogue. At first, it was fueled by the increased centralization around Kremlin, which led toward greater authoritarian tendencies under Putin; but now, in addition to the political system’s turnaround, with the oil prices hovering around $140 (in comparison to $20 a barrel in the early 2000s), the 1970s period is begging for juxtaposition.

Two things I want to bring up from the article.

(1) After discussing the vagueness of the post-1991 legal environment, Aron argues that:

Not surprisingly, such legal gray areas have given rise to corruption, increased production costs and hampered innovation. Provincial governors, who are no longer elected and answer only to the president, pressure successful entrepreneurs and farmers to “share” with local authorities. A leading industrialist told me that at least six local agencies conduct almost weekly “inspections” of his potato farm. State agriculture subsidies often go to the largest and best politically connected enterprises, not necessarily the most productive ones.

This is true, but I would challenge the implication that it was after the Soviet Union’s collapse that corruption increased. Let me clarify this: Russia, whether under Yeltsin or Putin, had much more corruption than the Soviet Union, but cronyism and specifically “abuse of public power for private gain” was a very distinct characteristic of public officials in the Soviet Union.

When the USSR fell-apart, it did so in part due to the debilitating institutional corruption. Under Yeltsin any constraints on those in power were removed, leading to a rise of the oligarchic clans willing to challenge the center. Putin recognizing how unpopular these were, and came down hard on them, but failed to rein in corruption.

With President Medvedev about to sign into law new anticorruption legislation, it remains to be seen how effective this administration will be in combating Russia’s rampant corruption.

(2) The second part deals with the power of the United Russia:

One-party rule. With its opposition marginalized and demoralized, and election results rigged, United Russia has emerged as the “ruling party,” the term that used [to] be reserved for the Soviet Communist Party.

I think it would be misleading to attribute to United Russia the powers of the Communist Party under the Soviet Union. Whereas the former is a tool of Kremlin’s rulers, and serves at its whim, the CPSU was vertically and horizontally integrated, directed from the top down (at least since Stalin) and had no challenges from even fake opposition parties.

Furthermore, there was never a question whether the CPSU was going to survive in the next election or be voted out - it was in that sense the quintessential “ruling party.” By contrast, United Russia is not secure in its political position, and since it is a means to an end, can be disbanded or reorganized on Kremlin’s orders. On second thought, now that Putin is Prime Minister and Chairman of United Russia, disbanding the modern “ruling party” on orders from Kremlin may not be so easily done.

[UPDATE]: The Washington Post is on a roll. Nicholas at Three Kings blog found another story on corruption in Russia, this one by Peter Finn, that the Post ran the same day as Aron’s. This one has lots of personal accounts of everyday Russians dealing with corruption. It probably won’t be surprising to those who follow the topic regularly, but might still be worth your time to skim.

Image credit: Fred/Incandenzafied (flickr); License: cc-by-nc 2.0