I have good news and bad news, but since I don't know which is which, I will convey them in their logical order. First, the name of Russia's next president is now known. Second, his name is Dmitriy Rogozin, the Motherland Party's most famous politician.
Naturally, everything can change in the future, including Russia's constitutional norms. But for now, Rogozin is the only Russian politician who has both genuine prospects of winning and the corresponding, albeit not publicly stated, ambition to do so.
There were many more candidates in 1997, three years before the 2000 presidential election, a veritable parade of names representing different sections of the nomenklatura and political spectrum: Victor Chernomyrdin, Grigoriy Yavlinskiy, Alexander Lebed, Yuri Luzhkov, Boris Nemtsov, Vladimir Zhirinovsky. Not all of them had realistic chances, but every one of them had the backing of a specific political force.
And now? None of these former candidates remains a serious political contender, although some are still quite young. Nor is a presidential candidate likely to be found among the regional governors, or among the leaders of the "old" or "new" parties. Except Rogozin. Why?
Russian voters tend to vote according to three main sentiments: anti-liberal, anti-oligarchic and anti-Western (more precisely, anti-US). It is Rogozin who articulates all three in the most spectacular, persistent, and public manner. In addition, Rogozin is a pro-Putin politician, which is also very important to the bulk of voters, and he has managed to confirm this not only verbally, but also bureaucratically, by his work as the president's special representative for Kaliningrad Oblast affairs.
Prior to Motherland's sensational victory in last year's general election, Rogozin wanted the post of minister of foreign affairs. But now he is playing for higher stakes. He will most likely nominate himself during the 2008 presidential election campaign, even if the Kremlin nominates another successor, although naturally he will try to ensure that he is anointed.
So far, things are going extremely well for Rogozin. He is young, vigorous, charismatic, and educated, a patriot advocating a strong state. His electoral platform will remain the most promising in the immediate future, particularly since United Russia lacks the courage and flexibility to embrace contemporary Russian conservatism. At this point Rogozin is the most freethinking and freedom-loving politician in Russia.
For example, Russia's most urgent foreign policy problems are its relations with the US and the conflict over South Ossetia with neighboring Georgia. Rogozin very clearly articulates his positions on these issues, which are in variance with official policy -- at least the one presented to the public. He reacts to Russia's domestic problems -- widespread poverty, the situation in Chechnya, the fight against oligarchs -- just as clearly, promptly and explicitly, while most other politicians either keep silent or mumble incoherently.
The so-called liberals are entirely invisible, and nobody cares about their opinion anyway. The Communists attract attention only by their internal squabbles. The nationalist warhorse Zhirinovsky looks old and lifeless compared to Rogozin. The United Russia leaders are maneuvering between the president's contradictory remarks.
The problem for United Russia is that Rogozin is already a master at their game. He remains a firm Putin supporter, skillfully combining criticism of virtually all aspects of Russia's foreign and domestic policy with a loyal -- but not glorifying -- attitude toward the president himself.
In essence, Rogozin is currently the only real political orator in Russia -- a highly advantageous position, particularly in an era of mediocrity. People have recently compared him to Georgia's President Mikhail Saakashvili -- whether as an insult or as a compliment. Either intuitively or rationally, people feel that Rogozin, like Saakashvili, wants to assume the main post, is prepared to do so, and would start solving the state's territorial problems immediately.
Parallels between Rogozin and Saakashvili appear even more logical in view of the current situation in the Caucasus. It is increasingly likely that Saakashvili's policy is aimed at instigating bloodshed in South Ossetia or Abkhazia and putting all the blame on Russia -- a strategy that appears designed to bring the US to the region eventually. Against the backdrop of Russia's completely ambiguous policy in the Caucasus, this will give Rogozin an opportunity to remain at the top of public opinion polls.
If the next presidential election in Russia were held this year, and if no decision were made to banish him from Russians' TV screens, there can be little doubt that Rogozin would win. Details will change by 2008, but not trends, and Rogozin has mastered these trends better than anyone else. In fact, he is the only person who has mastered them so far.
It can be dangerous to start one's electoral campaign before other candidates, but sometimes if one starts much earlier than everyone else, serious rivals never appear.
Vitaliy Tretyakov, a Russian political analyst, is a former editor-in-chief of Nezavisimaya Gazeta.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under