How Powerful is Putin? Changes and Continuities in Russia's Political Landscape

At a recent Kennan Institute talk, John Williams, Russia Domestic Affairs Division Chief, U.S. Department of State, and former Public Policy Scholar, Woodrow Wilson Center, argued that although Russian President Vladimir Putin appears to be consolidating his power and establishing an authoritarian regime, in practice he has very limited ability to implement his policies. According to Williams, Putin's power is limited by infighting among political elites, by regional leaders, and by the bureaucracy, all of whom are seeking to control Russia's most lucrative resources. He contended that these constraints existed under President Boris Yeltsin as well, and will affect any future president of Russia.

State officials at all levels, Williams argued, use their political power as a means of advancing their personal interests, and particularly as a means of making money. In an environment where officials are concerned with their own gain rather than the good of the state or society as a whole, they are not likely to cooperate with each other. Putin has not always been able to manage these elite conflicts. For example, Putin's public endorsement last year of a proposed merger of two major energy companies—Gazprom and Rosneft—was insufficient to complete the deal.

A second impediment to presidential power in Russia is conflict between the central government and regional leaders over the control of resources. Williams noted that Yeltsin in his first term handled center-region conflicts by building bilateral relations with the leaders of individual regions. Yeltsin later tried to regain central control of the regions, and Putin continued the process, eventually abolishing regional executive elections and making regional governors presidential appointees. Nevertheless, Williams argued, many governors retain substantial leverage in their regions, and Putin has used his powers of appointment primarily to re-appoint incumbent governors.

A third impediment is Russia's conservative and corrupt bureaucracy. Williams noted that this problem is not unique to post-Soviet Russia; it existed in the Soviet Union as well as under the Tsars. He argued that the problem is getting worse, with entire state agencies now under the control of private business interests. Putin has publicly acknowledged the problem of corruption in the bureaucracy, but his attempts at reform have been easily thwarted, according to Williams. Any Russian leader hoping to accomplish reforms would need to overcome the resistance of the bureaucracy, Williams said, and Putin does not appear to have the political will to do so.

The political system in post-Soviet Russia is unstable and open to crises, according to Williams. Its successful operation depends ultimately on the ability of one man to resist the efforts of the various elites to gain dominance and, at the same time, keep all key groups within the system. However, because the legitimacy of this system requires a popular mandate, the succession issue has become a major elite preoccupation. Most important, Williams concluded, the system does not encourage long-term or strategic thinking, and may not be capable of responding to the changing realities of globalization.