Opinion Express View on Russia’s elections: Putin, again

Even in a “year of elections” — in which many major countries including the US and India are going to the polls — the Russian presidential election stands out as a symbol of authoritarianism. That Vladimir Putin won in a landslide — with 87 per cent of the vote, the largest margin for any leader since the collapse of the Soviet Union — comes as no surprise. The scale of the win points to Putin’s complete control over the Russian state as well as the country’s elites. All major opposition, including the media and civil society, was suppressed and Alexei Navalny, long seen as Putin’s only viable challenger, died under mysterious circumstances earlier this year.

As he embarks on his sixth term, a question must be asked: Is Russia better off as a result of Putin’s rule? In this regard, too, the man who is set to surpass Joseph Stalin as the longest-serving Russian leader since Catherine the Great has, at best, a deeply mixed record. Before Putin began his expansionist drive — first with the annexation of Crimea and the prolonged war in Ukraine — he was regarded by sections in Russia as something of a “saviour”. In the 1990s, in the aftermath of the Soviet Union’s collapse, the erstwhile superpower was in free fall: It was riven by law and order issues, its economy was spiraling as national assets were privatised for pennies on the dollar under Boris Yeltsin’s leadership. Putin’s early years, from 2000 onwards, were about bringing stability to Russia and, enabled by a huge rise in energy prices, reviving its economy. The hope was that this would be followed by democratisation and Russia taking its place in global affairs as a responsible power. But the opposite has happened.

Advertisement

Putin’s idea of “Russkiy Mir” — or a Russian zone of influence — is revanchist and harkens to Czarist notions of empire. Domestically, this has been accompanied by a clampdown on dissent as well as on the rights of linguistic, religious and sexual minorities. Putin has sought to justify his attack on Ukraine by citing NATO expansionism. But rather than halt the US-led alliance, it has pushed many countries — from Finland to Sweden and even Georgia — to seek NATO membership. The invasion has also cut off Russia from its partners and well-wishers in Europe, while making it a junior partner to China. It has made the world more volatile, and global supply chains have been disrupted. Even India, which has continued to engage with Moscow, is rapidly diversifying its arms suppliers. Putin’s victory, then, may well be a Pyrrhic one for Russia and its people.