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
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS