Vladimir Velikii
By Sean at 2 May, 2008, 8:39 am
Sandwiched between the Dalai Lama and Barack Obama on Time’s 100 Most Influential Leaders and Revolutionaries is, for some, a rather unlikely figure: Vladimir Putin. Time already ignited insult and outrage in December when it had the gumption to name Putin its Person of the Year. (The hawks in Washington were hoping for General David Petraeus, seeing his possible recognition as praise for their “surge.”) It’s likely that naming VVP as one of the most influential will elicit similar condemnation. I’m sure some of the more paranoiac among the chattering classes will think Putinites have infiltrated Time’s editorial offices.
Also intriguing is the fact that Madeleine Albright wrote Time’s blurb for Putin. Albright, who in 1999 and 2000 described him as “shrewd, confident, hard-working, patriotic, and ingratiating,” sees Putin as someone who has become after eight years in office “more confident” and for his Western counterparts, “less ingratiating.” And though Putin may be Russia’s next Prime Minister, Albright hardly thinks that he views this as a “comedown.” For her, “Putin is more likely to define his job than be defined by it.”
The biggest question, however, is not so much Putin’s influence. His footprint on Russia’s current and future politics is clearly unmatched. The question is: Is Putin a leader or a revolutionary? Or is he both?
The answer might lie in Time’s own blurb on Putin. The accompanying picture shows his head superimposed over Hyppolyte Delaroche’s Portrait of Peter the Great (1838), suggesting that Putin’s impact on Russia might be comparable to that great Tsar. There is also Albright’s mention of Mikhail Speransky. Speransky was the “father of Russian liberalism” and one of the most influential political figures and reformers of 19th century Russia. Like Putin, Speransky, Albright writes quoting Tolstoy, was a “rigorous-minded man of immense intelligence, who through his energy…had come to power and used it solely for the good of Russia.” And also like Putin, Speransky possessed a “cold, mirror-like gaze, which let no one penetrate to his soul [and] a too great contempt for people.” Both quotes are a reminder that a person may be a great leader and revolutionary but that hardly makes them humanists.
Peter the Great and Mikhail Speransky. I think placing Putin in the same historical frame as these two says that at least Albright thinks Putin is both a leader and a revolutionary. The real mystery is what kind of revolution Putin has wrought. Is he more like Peter who tore Russian society asunder by sheer force and authoritarian will? Or is he more like Speransky whose conservative idealism planted the seeds for Tsarist Russia’s gradual and meandering path to (ultimately incomplete) reform?
Or perhaps he is neither. Putin is one of these accidents of history. Hardly a nascent “great man” when he was chosen as Prime Minister and then acting President in 1999. His potential manipulability is what made the Family think he was an ideal choice. Eight years later, it’s hard to imagine the Putin of the winter of 1999. So hard that it’s more comforting to think that Putin had a devious plan all along to vanquish the Family and consolidate his grip on power. But even this is giving Putin too much credit. It suggests that he has some sort of miraculous power to stand outside history and above politics. Both are hardly possible. The truth of the matter is that Putin may be a great leader. He may even be a revolutionary. However, he is the face of a Russian conservative power elite now firmly entrenched in Russia’s political and economic driver’s seat. Recognizing this is a reminder that Putin is more than a mere individual autocrat. Rather he is the chosen representative of and for his class.
Popularity: 3% [?]
Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Assuming it’s not a repeat (I haven’t been a regular viewer) Lil’ Putin will be making his debut next week on Lil’ Bush. The coming attraction shows the former poisoning the latter.
Putin is a good steward. He said so himself in the recent interview that you covered. He said plainly that Gorbachev and Yeltsin were the real reformers, and he would never be able to do anything on such scale.
I don’t agree with the comparison to Speransky. As you said yourself, Putin is “the face of a Russian … power elite”. Speransky was the brain thereof.
I don’t think you can make that distinction (face v. brain). Or, at least, it wasn’t intended. You can’t become president and lead a country like Russia through 8 years if you’re an idiot (same goes for Bush).
Owen
At present, your URL gave this message:
Warning: require_wp_db(/home/opaun/www/wordpress/wp-includes/wp-db.php): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/opaun/www/wordpress/wp-includes/functions.php on line 1564
Fatal error: require_wp_db(): Failed opening required ‘/home/opaun/www/wordpress/wp-includes/wp-db.php’ (include_path=’.:/usr/local/share/pear:/usr/local/lib/php’) in /home/opaun/www/wordpress/wp-includes/functions.php on line 1564
It’s back up again Owen.
Sorry about that, I was in the middle of some site maintenance. Should be working now.
It seems to me Putin was mostly lucky in being in the right place at the right time. Russia had to get better after the 90’s, it surely couldn’t get any worse. That combined with an increase in the price of oil made it pretty hard to screw things up. Even if he had tried to emulate Mugabe, I don’t think he could have made things worse. Still, he did a lot to improve the image of Russia among Russians, which I think should be applauded. Happy Russians are friendly Russians, eventually.
Time gave the finger to Petraeus in this issue as well. Not that it really matters, it’s entertainment news and commentary for the lowest common denominator. Seriously, has anyone ever actually read an article in Time, and not felt their intelligence completely insulted? But then none of the other “middle-of-the-road” (center-left) mags are any better either, with the exception of the Economist. It seems that if you want insightful reading, you generally have to choose one side of the political aisle or other.
Jason:
Somewhat related to your Time point is how some journos (no names) do a double take.
They’ll come out with a muted PC enough critique saying that the Russia coverage can be improved, only to then write pieces which conform to what’s wrong. Some will take it as even handed. Others see it as trying to gain access to a greater market share.
Russia had to get better after the 90’s, it surely couldn’t get any worse.
I disagree with this. Bad though things were, they could have been an awful lot worse. Had Putin tried to emulate Mugabe, famines would likely have followed.
Putin is clearly no idiot, that he was accepted into the KGB is proof enough of that without even considering his political career.
Owen,
I didn’t want to imply that Putin is an idiot. The fact that Alexander I listened to Speransky didn’t make him an idiot. Quite contrary, the smarter the advisors the smarter the leader.
Although I noticed that both Putin and Speransky were doing almost the same job in St Petersburg:
“8 декабря 1799 г. Сперанский одновременно с получением чина статского советника получил важное назначение, став «правителем канцелярии комиссии о снабжении резиденции припасами». Комиссия с таким непритязательным названием занималась весьма важными делами: не только доставкой продовольствия в масштабе всей столицы, контролем цен, но и благоустройством города.”
That seems to be exactly what Putin was doing for Sobchak in early 90-s.
Rather he is the chosen representative of and for his class.
Sean, I think you forgot to write about Putin’s class(es)
)