Putin's departure: how the “2024 problem” will be solved
In the West, they spoke very significant about the so-called "problem 2024." The point is that just then the next term of office of President Vladimir Putin expires. Moody's, an American rating agency, described Putin’s “unorganized regime change” as a “remote but tangible domestic political risk.” Previously, such judgments were not allowed there. What is it, a veiled threat or something completely different?
To be honest, 24 years in power with a small symbolic “castling” is a lot, and this has its advantages and disadvantages. The positive aspects of the factual irremovability of the top leader of the state include the notorious “stability” and predictability. As the comedians joke, we will all die with the same person.
The flip side of two decades of Vladimir Putin’s power is the emasculation of political system, and its "cleaning" from potential competitors, with its simultaneous conservation. A power vertical is built for one particular person. At all key posts in the country, people from the inner circle of the president were appointed not by the principle of competence, but by acquaintance and personal loyalty to him. The same people change from one power seat to another, but the overall result of their activity is not impressive, which is quite natural. If we turn to the Moody's report, then its analysts quite rightly pointed out the problems of domestic economics: the dominance of the state (corporations), the outflow of capital from the country, the reduction in the number of able-bodied people and Western sanctions. At a minimum, the first three are a direct consequence of the activities of their own government, and not some external forces, since they began long before the conflict with the West.
The results are disappointing: the head of the executive branch of Dmitry Medvedev is supported by 7,6% of Russians surveyed, despite the fact that he leads the pro-presidential United Russia party. The ratings of Vladimir Putin fell to a record low 33%. The pension reform, which was extremely unpopular among the people, “dropped”, but you must clearly understand that the need for its implementation is directly determined by the results of the previous “economic activity”.
Is it any wonder that amid the extremely difficult internal situation and the conflict with the West for all those involved in the “vertical”, the issue of “transit of power” is extremely important. The options are called different:
"Castling"
Again. The only question is with whom to “castle”, since the ratings of Dmitry Anatolyevich do not leave him any chances. The famous public figure Maxim Kalashnikov answers as follows:
Council of State
There is a version that “under Putin” the powers of this structure can be radically expanded, in fact, all the threads of government are transferred. The presidency will then become decorative. However, this scheme contains the danger of the emergence of dual power in the country, which is fraught if you look at the situation in Venezuela.
Union State
It’s a working scenario in which the real outlines of this supranational entity appear, where Vladimir Putin could go on increasing, leaving Russia to a person entrusted to him.
Constitutional changes
Mr. Volodin spoke of something like this, clearly hinting at rewriting the Basic Law “under Putin” to enable him to be reelected again and again. If earlier the “spirit of the law” was violated about the need for a shift of supreme power in the country with formal observance of the “letter of the law”, now the letter itself can be radically rewritten.
One can understand the desire of officials and all those who are well settled under the “vertical of power” to maintain the status quo. It is just right to ask a sacramental question: if not Putin, then who? Mentioned Maxim Kalashnikov answers like this:
According to Kalashnikov, while maintaining the economic model as an “export pipe” no positive transformations are possible, only cosmetic, decorative changes. The famous historian and social activist Nikolai Starikov speaks about the need to transform the political system for the time remaining until 2024:
Starikov wants to see new faces in domestic politics who will serve the Motherland. It remains only to join this wish.
To be honest, 24 years in power with a small symbolic “castling” is a lot, and this has its advantages and disadvantages. The positive aspects of the factual irremovability of the top leader of the state include the notorious “stability” and predictability. As the comedians joke, we will all die with the same person.
The flip side of two decades of Vladimir Putin’s power is the emasculation of political system, and its "cleaning" from potential competitors, with its simultaneous conservation. A power vertical is built for one particular person. At all key posts in the country, people from the inner circle of the president were appointed not by the principle of competence, but by acquaintance and personal loyalty to him. The same people change from one power seat to another, but the overall result of their activity is not impressive, which is quite natural. If we turn to the Moody's report, then its analysts quite rightly pointed out the problems of domestic economics: the dominance of the state (corporations), the outflow of capital from the country, the reduction in the number of able-bodied people and Western sanctions. At a minimum, the first three are a direct consequence of the activities of their own government, and not some external forces, since they began long before the conflict with the West.
The results are disappointing: the head of the executive branch of Dmitry Medvedev is supported by 7,6% of Russians surveyed, despite the fact that he leads the pro-presidential United Russia party. The ratings of Vladimir Putin fell to a record low 33%. The pension reform, which was extremely unpopular among the people, “dropped”, but you must clearly understand that the need for its implementation is directly determined by the results of the previous “economic activity”.
Is it any wonder that amid the extremely difficult internal situation and the conflict with the West for all those involved in the “vertical”, the issue of “transit of power” is extremely important. The options are called different:
"Castling"
Again. The only question is with whom to “castle”, since the ratings of Dmitry Anatolyevich do not leave him any chances. The famous public figure Maxim Kalashnikov answers as follows:
The whole pyramid of power is suspended on one person. Anti-selection was carried out, as a result, only grayish, rather faceless figures around Putin were around.
Council of State
There is a version that “under Putin” the powers of this structure can be radically expanded, in fact, all the threads of government are transferred. The presidency will then become decorative. However, this scheme contains the danger of the emergence of dual power in the country, which is fraught if you look at the situation in Venezuela.
Union State
It’s a working scenario in which the real outlines of this supranational entity appear, where Vladimir Putin could go on increasing, leaving Russia to a person entrusted to him.
Constitutional changes
Mr. Volodin spoke of something like this, clearly hinting at rewriting the Basic Law “under Putin” to enable him to be reelected again and again. If earlier the “spirit of the law” was violated about the need for a shift of supreme power in the country with formal observance of the “letter of the law”, now the letter itself can be radically rewritten.
One can understand the desire of officials and all those who are well settled under the “vertical of power” to maintain the status quo. It is just right to ask a sacramental question: if not Putin, then who? Mentioned Maxim Kalashnikov answers like this:
It was necessary to do earlier. To begin with, it was necessary to take a course towards a new industrialization, plus protectionism. This would allow, in principle, to change the situation in the country. This would put forward new people not by the principle of proximity to superiors and the ability to please him, but by the principle of the ability to create and manage modern production.
According to Kalashnikov, while maintaining the economic model as an “export pipe” no positive transformations are possible, only cosmetic, decorative changes. The famous historian and social activist Nikolai Starikov speaks about the need to transform the political system for the time remaining until 2024:
The emergence of new political forces. Because today, the existing ones clearly do not cope with their duties.
Starikov wants to see new faces in domestic politics who will serve the Motherland. It remains only to join this wish.
Information