Show Hide image

My dinner with Putin

Putin expressed exasperation with the west and repeated the slights, hurts and pains of the past dec

On the evening of 11 November 2011, Vladimir Putin arrived at Le Cheval Blanc restaurant at the Novyi Vek ("New Age") equestrian centre in the smart Rublyovka district of Moscow. The occasion was a meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club and, for three hours, Putin engaged in a question-and-answer session with a small group of international experts.

The equestrian centre is a former collective farm (kolkhoz) fallen on hard times. It has been transformed into a symbol – if not of the new Russia, then of the opulent lifestyle of the "New Russians".

President Dmitry Medvedev keeps six of his pedigree horses at the centre. Inside, the atmosphere is of an English country house, with a log fire and oak beams. Putin arrived late, tanned and relaxed and not wearing a tie. He was in good spirits and confident, asserting Russia's positions on a variety of issues, from its energy supply to missile defence.

Putin expressed exasperation with the west and repeated the slights, hurts and pains of the past decade. He noted that “it is no secret" (although it came as news to most of us in the room) that not only are Russia's eastern and western oil pipeline networks being joined up but that the gas networks would also soon be connected for the first time.

He conceded that it was tough to bargain with the Chinese but, once a deal was done, they proved reliable partners, with the implication that the same did not apply to those in the west. Rehearsing Dostoevsky's cri de coeur about Russia walking as a slave in the west but as master in the east, Putin said: "We are being squeezed out of the European market, so we are turning to Asia."

On the idea of the Eurasian Union – the proposed political and economic grouping of Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and other states – Putin asked why integration was encouraged elsewhere in the world but, when it was taking place in the post-Soviet space, it was denounced as Russian neo-imperialism.

It is unlikely that the Eurasian Union will be a game-changer and it may be little more than an election gimmick but it does signal a new phase in the development of relations in the region. Russia is advancing a more active integrationist agenda, distinct from the old desire to build relations with the European Union and the US. A new power, Putin implied, is rising in the east, not opposed to the west but no longer oriented to it. Russia would emerge as a European power in Asia, not a Eurasian power in Europe.

On the political front, Putin reassured us that "the screws will not be tightened" but that there would be little to stop the regime if it wished to tighten them. A system has been created in which the institutions of the state are trumped by the informal networks of power, concentrated on Putin personally.

Leningrad cowboy

Asked what new ideas he would bring to the presidency, he said: "Putin is one person and he will not divide. There are certain basic things that cannot change."

At the same time, he said that while a genuine multiparty system needed to be built in Russia, the party fragmentation of the past could not be repeated. Referring to his experience in "Leningrad" (as he called the city now known as St Petersburg) in the early democratic years after the end of the Soviet Union, he said that "even the simplest decisions could not be taken".

He insisted that he and Medvedev had not lied when, for four years, they had insisted that "we would see" about the succession. "We are not concerned . . . to preserve our personal power but to create an efficient and sustainable system," he said. Whether this system can be democratic is uncertain.

Putin's planned return to the presidency for a third term is the defining event of the era. If he wins on 4 March, as seems inevitable, his views will shape the country for at least a decade.

In truth, his "return" is a misnomer, because he never went away. This has thrown a harsh light on the political system that has developed over the past decade. Rather than elections shaping the composition of parliament and the presidency, the administrative system decides everything on behalf of the people.

Elections have become plebiscitary, ratifying decisions already made outside the electoral process. Rather than a set of independent institutions carrying political weight, the power of one man dominates. It is this infantilisation of the people that has been challenged in the protest marches provoked by the flawed parliamentary elections of 4 December 2011.

The main challenge now facing Putin is to recognise and take account of the civic spirit that has been awakened in Russia, while ensuring that the institutions of the constitutional state apply to all equally – including him.

Richard Sakwa is professor of Russian and European politics at the University of Kent

This article first appeared in the 05 March 2012 issue of the New Statesman, The last Tsar

Getty
Show Hide image

The New Times: Brexit, globalisation, the crisis in Labour and the future of the left

With essays by David Miliband, Paul Mason, John Harris, Lisa Nandy, Vince Cable and more.

Once again the “new times” are associated with the ascendancy of the right. The financial crash of 2007-2008 – and the Great Recession and sovereign debt crises that were a consequence of it – were meant to have marked the end of an era of runaway “turbocapitalism”. It never came close to happening. The crash was a crisis of capitalism but not the crisis of capitalism. As Lenin observed, there is “no such thing as an absolutely hopeless situation” for capitalism, and so we discovered again. Instead, the greatest burden of the period of fiscal retrenchment that followed the crash was carried by the poorest in society, those most directly affected by austerity, and this in turn has contributed to a deepening distrust of elites and a wider crisis of governance.

Where are we now and in which direction are we heading?

Some of the contributors to this special issue believe that we have reached the end of the “neoliberal” era. I am more sceptical. In any event, the end of neoliberalism, however you define it, will not lead to a social-democratic revival: it looks as if, in many Western countries, we are entering an age in which centre-left parties cannot form ruling majorities, having leaked support to nationalists, populists and more radical alternatives.

Certainly the British Labour Party, riven by a war between its parliamentary representatives and much of its membership, is in a critical condition. At the same time, Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership has inspired a remarkable re-engagement with left-wing politics, even as his party slumps in the polls. His own views may seem frozen in time, but hundreds of thousands of people, many of them young graduates, have responded to his anti-austerity rhetoric, his candour and his shambolic, unspun style.

The EU referendum, in which as much as one-third of Labour supporters voted for Brexit, exposed another chasm in Labour – this time between educated metropolitan liberals and the more socially conservative white working class on whose loyalty the party has long depended. This no longer looks like a viable election-winning coalition, especially after the collapse of Labour in Scotland and the concomitant rise of nationalism in England.

In Marxism Today’s “New Times” issue of October 1988, Stuart Hall wrote: “The left seems not just displaced by Thatcherism, but disabled, flattened, becalmed by the very prospect of change; afraid of rooting itself in ‘the new’ and unable to make the leap of imagination required to engage the future.” Something similar could be said of the left today as it confronts Brexit, the disunities within the United Kingdom, and, in Theresa May, a prime minister who has indicated that she might be prepared to break with the orthodoxies of the past three decades.

The Labour leadership contest between Corbyn and Owen Smith was largely an exercise in nostalgia, both candidates seeking to revive policies that defined an era of mass production and working-class solidarity when Labour was strong. On matters such as immigration, digital disruption, the new gig economy or the power of networks, they had little to say. They proposed a politics of opposition – against austerity, against grammar schools. But what were they for? Neither man seemed capable of embracing the “leading edge of change” or of making the imaginative leap necessary to engage the future.

So is there a politics of the left that will allow us to ride with the currents of these turbulent “new times” and thus shape rather than be flattened by them? Over the next 34 pages 18 writers, offering many perspectives, attempt to answer this and related questions as they analyse the forces shaping a world in which power is shifting to the East, wars rage unchecked in the Middle East, refugees drown en masse in the Mediterranean, technology is outstripping our capacity to understand it, and globalisation begins to fragment.

— Jason Cowley, Editor 

Tom Kibasi on what the left fails to see

Philip Collins on why it's time for Labour to end its crisis

John Harris on why Labour is losing its heartland

Lisa Nandy on how Labour has been halted and hollowed out

David Runciman on networks and the digital revolution

John Gray on why the right, not the left, has grasped the new times

Mariana Mazzucato on why it's time for progressives to rethink capitalism

Robert Ford on why the left must reckon with the anger of those left behind

Ros Wynne-Jones on the people who need a Labour government most

Gary Gerstle on Corbyn, Sanders and the populist surge

Nick Pearce on why the left is haunted by the ghosts of the 1930s

Paul Mason on why the left must be ready to cause a commotion

Neal Lawson on what the new, 21st-century left needs now

Charles Leadbeater explains why we are all existentialists now

John Bew mourns the lost left

Marc Stears on why democracy is a long, hard, slow business

Vince Cable on how a financial crisis empowered the right

David Miliband on why the left needs to move forward, not back

This article first appeared in the 22 September 2016 issue of the New Statesman, The New Times