Vladimir Putin’s decision to serve as prime minister should Dmitri Medvedev become Russia’s next president has made their electoral success in March a virtual certainty, while raising serious questions about who will really be in charge. But their power tandem could produce more effective governance than many expect.
Vladimir Putin’s decision to serve as prime minister should Dmitri Medvedev become Russia’s next president has made their electoral success in March a virtual certainty. Although the Communist Party’s leader, Gennadi Zyuganov, and the Liberal Democrats’ Vladimir Zhirinovsky are running – in contrast to 2004, when they fielded stand-ins – neither will get more than 15% of the vote. Even assuming that Mikhail Kasyanov, Boris Nemtsov, and Democratic Party leader Andrei Bogdanov somehow collect two million signatures each to get on the ballot, the outcome will be the same. Indeed, so far, none of them has more than 2% popular support.
But, while Medvedev’s victory in the first round of voting appears assured, the important questions will arise after the ballots are counted. How will power be distributed between Medvedev and Putin? Who will be in charge? Will Russia have to rewrite its laws and Constitution to give the prime minister more official power? Is Putin risking his political future by accepting a formally secondary role and making himself accountable for all socio-economic policy?
Russia’s Constitution does not allow for a “technical presidency.” The head of state has extensive powers, which alone indicates that Medvedev will be a strong president. Moreover, Medvedev is a strong-willed politician and very experienced administrator.
But Putin will be a strong prime minister, if only because he’s Putin. He is set to remain the most popular person in Russia for a long time to come. That implies a system of governance with at least two decision-making centers – perhaps in addition to United Russia, the party of Putin and Medvedev, which won 64% of the vote in the recent parliamentary election up from 37% in 2003. All this represents obvious progress from the standpoint of the separation of powers.
In consenting to become prime minister, Putin is well aware of what to expect. After all, he served as prime minister for several months in 1999.
Many commentators underestimate the prime minister’s powers. According to the Constitution, the prime minister is head of the executive branch, and the government is empowered to determine the main direction of domestic and foreign policy.
Access every new PS commentary, our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – including Longer Reads, Insider Interviews, Big Picture/Big Question, and Say More – and the full PS archive.
Subscribe Now
Much depends on who is prime minister; heavyweight politicians holding the office can potentially eclipse the president. Recall Yevgeny Primakov – or Putin at the end of Boris Yeltsin’s last presidential term, when it was obvious to everyone that the prime minister was running the country. The 2008 version of Prime Minister Putin will undoubtedly be stronger than the 1999 version. So no changes are required to the laws or the Constitution for him to remain a key political player. But Medvedev – youthful and energetic, with a fresh mandate – will be far stronger than Yeltsin was in 1999.
A powerful prime minister seems preferable. One of the chief weaknesses in Russia's constitutional design is that power is separated from accountability: the president has the most power, but the government is held accountable for policy results.
From this standpoint, the American model, for example, is more successful: the head of state also leads the government. While not entirely addressing the flaws in the design, the new situation – with the strongest political figure heading the executive branch – will permit more effective performance by the government, which is still battling to recover from Putin’s administrative reforms of 2004.
Many commentators have reproached Putin for agreeing to take a job that they say is beneath him – assuming responsibility for road-building, social services, inflation, and many other problems that could undermine his popularity. However, he should be thanked rather than reproached.
But how stable will this new polycentric system of governance be? How long will Medvedev remain president and Putin prime minister? What if they quarrel?
Of course, stability requires agreement between the two key actors; and there are sure to be plenty of opponents and allies trying to stir up trouble between them. But Putin and Medvedev have worked together for more than 17 years with no serious conflicts. Moreover, Putin has never made a mistake about the loyalty of the people he promotes.
In the Yeltsin era, sacked officials often took revenge by publishing their memoirs and “telling all” about their ex-boss. In the Putin era, no one has done so. Mikhail Kasyanov, a former prime minister and now an opposition critic, was inherited from Yeltsin. When Putin made the most important appointment of his life – the choice of his successor – one can be sure that his calculations were thorough.
So Medvedev will become the next president, and will hold that office for at least one full term. And Putin will remain prime minister throughout that time, with a good chance of becoming president again in 2012 or 2016 – or after any other presidential election over the next two decades.
To have unlimited access to our content including in-depth commentaries, book reviews, exclusive interviews, PS OnPoint and PS The Big Picture, please subscribe
In the United States and Europe, immigration tends to divide people into opposing camps: those who claim that newcomers undermine economic opportunity and security for locals, and those who argue that welcoming migrants and refugees is a moral and economic imperative. How should one make sense of a debate that is often based on motivated reasoning, with emotion and underlying biases affecting the selection and interpretation of evidence?
To maintain its position as a global rule-maker and avoid becoming a rule-taker, the United States must use the coming year to promote clarity and confidence in the digital-asset market. The US faces three potential paths to maintaining its competitive edge in crypto: regulation, legislation, and designation.
urges policymakers to take decisive action and set new rules for the industry in 2024.
The World Trade Organization’s most recent ministerial conference concluded with a few positive outcomes demonstrating that meaningful change is possible, though there were some disappointments. A successful agenda of reforms will require more members – particularly emerging markets and developing economies – to take the lead.
writes that meaningful change will come only when members other than the US help steer the organization.
Vladimir Putin’s decision to serve as prime minister should Dmitri Medvedev become Russia’s next president has made their electoral success in March a virtual certainty. Although the Communist Party’s leader, Gennadi Zyuganov, and the Liberal Democrats’ Vladimir Zhirinovsky are running – in contrast to 2004, when they fielded stand-ins – neither will get more than 15% of the vote. Even assuming that Mikhail Kasyanov, Boris Nemtsov, and Democratic Party leader Andrei Bogdanov somehow collect two million signatures each to get on the ballot, the outcome will be the same. Indeed, so far, none of them has more than 2% popular support.
But, while Medvedev’s victory in the first round of voting appears assured, the important questions will arise after the ballots are counted. How will power be distributed between Medvedev and Putin? Who will be in charge? Will Russia have to rewrite its laws and Constitution to give the prime minister more official power? Is Putin risking his political future by accepting a formally secondary role and making himself accountable for all socio-economic policy?
Russia’s Constitution does not allow for a “technical presidency.” The head of state has extensive powers, which alone indicates that Medvedev will be a strong president. Moreover, Medvedev is a strong-willed politician and very experienced administrator.
But Putin will be a strong prime minister, if only because he’s Putin. He is set to remain the most popular person in Russia for a long time to come. That implies a system of governance with at least two decision-making centers – perhaps in addition to United Russia, the party of Putin and Medvedev, which won 64% of the vote in the recent parliamentary election up from 37% in 2003. All this represents obvious progress from the standpoint of the separation of powers.
In consenting to become prime minister, Putin is well aware of what to expect. After all, he served as prime minister for several months in 1999.
Many commentators underestimate the prime minister’s powers. According to the Constitution, the prime minister is head of the executive branch, and the government is empowered to determine the main direction of domestic and foreign policy.
Subscribe to PS Digital
Access every new PS commentary, our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – including Longer Reads, Insider Interviews, Big Picture/Big Question, and Say More – and the full PS archive.
Subscribe Now
Much depends on who is prime minister; heavyweight politicians holding the office can potentially eclipse the president. Recall Yevgeny Primakov – or Putin at the end of Boris Yeltsin’s last presidential term, when it was obvious to everyone that the prime minister was running the country. The 2008 version of Prime Minister Putin will undoubtedly be stronger than the 1999 version. So no changes are required to the laws or the Constitution for him to remain a key political player. But Medvedev – youthful and energetic, with a fresh mandate – will be far stronger than Yeltsin was in 1999.
A powerful prime minister seems preferable. One of the chief weaknesses in Russia's constitutional design is that power is separated from accountability: the president has the most power, but the government is held accountable for policy results.
From this standpoint, the American model, for example, is more successful: the head of state also leads the government. While not entirely addressing the flaws in the design, the new situation – with the strongest political figure heading the executive branch – will permit more effective performance by the government, which is still battling to recover from Putin’s administrative reforms of 2004.
Many commentators have reproached Putin for agreeing to take a job that they say is beneath him – assuming responsibility for road-building, social services, inflation, and many other problems that could undermine his popularity. However, he should be thanked rather than reproached.
But how stable will this new polycentric system of governance be? How long will Medvedev remain president and Putin prime minister? What if they quarrel?
Of course, stability requires agreement between the two key actors; and there are sure to be plenty of opponents and allies trying to stir up trouble between them. But Putin and Medvedev have worked together for more than 17 years with no serious conflicts. Moreover, Putin has never made a mistake about the loyalty of the people he promotes.
In the Yeltsin era, sacked officials often took revenge by publishing their memoirs and “telling all” about their ex-boss. In the Putin era, no one has done so. Mikhail Kasyanov, a former prime minister and now an opposition critic, was inherited from Yeltsin. When Putin made the most important appointment of his life – the choice of his successor – one can be sure that his calculations were thorough.
So Medvedev will become the next president, and will hold that office for at least one full term. And Putin will remain prime minister throughout that time, with a good chance of becoming president again in 2012 or 2016 – or after any other presidential election over the next two decades.