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.
