On the day of Vladimir Putin’s re-inauguration I was thousands of kilometres from Russia, in Latin America. I sent him my congratulations and wished him success:
In the recent election, the voters reaffirmed their trust in you and their hopes. They see that your thoughts and concerns are about the people and the future of Russia. I hope the next four years will see firm steps on the road of democracy, economic growth, strengthening of the rule of law and the building of civil society. May you continue to enjoy the broad support of the citizens of Russia.
Those were what I saw as the priorities for Putin’s second presidential term. Sustained economic growth is impossible without a strong democratic state under the rule of law and an active civil society. Subsequent events were to show, however, that for Russia’s leaders developing and strengthening democratic institutions was not a high priority.
It was soon clear that the new Cabinet, headed by Mikhail Fradkov, had no coherent strategy for modernizing the Russian economy, overcoming our dependence on exporting raw materials and making the transition to a ‘knowledge-based economy’. This despite the fact that conditions were favourable for introducing worthwhile reforms. The global price of oil and gas continued to rise, generating increased revenues which could have been used not only for building up reserves (which was, of course, important and necessary), but also for infrastructure projects, supporting sectors crucial to the future of the economy, and to finance science, healthcare and the social sphere. It did not happen.
The armed forces too were left in their unreformed state. In the last years of the USSR we had instigated profound changes in the army on the basis of a new defence doctrine and agreements with the West to reduce nuclear and conventional weapons. A start was made on converting the defence industry to peaceful purposes. During the 1990s, the army was forgotten. Far from being reformed, it was simply deprived of funding and left to wither on the vine, abandoning tens of thousands of discharged servicemen to fend for themselves. Little changed in the 2000s. Failing to take painful but necessary measures, the government paved the way for what was to come in later years when, under the pretext of modernizing the armed forces, an exclusive group of individuals dismantled them in circumstances of large-scale corruption.
I was disturbed also by the situation in the Caucasus. In Chechnya the government managed to achieve a military victory over the separatists, but failed to restore any semblance of normality to the politics of the region. Acute problems of interethnic relations remained unresolved. The separatists were able to exploit this, as were extremists and terrorist gangs.
In September, we were all appalled by the tragedy in Beslan. Terrorists acted with monstrous brazenness and brutality. On 1 September they captured more than 1,000 hostages – children, their parents and teachers. For two and a half days they held them in terrible conditions, refusing them everything and tormenting both children and adults. The security forces, having failed to forestall the attack, proved incapable of reacting effectively. The assault on the buildings and crossfire, which began in the afternoon of 3 September, proved to be a disaster, with 334 people killed, 186 of them children.
Vladimir Putin arrived in Beslan on 4 September. He visited the hospital where the wounded were being treated, expressed condolences for those killed and that evening made a televised address to the nation, speaking of the need to defend the country and urging people not to panic. At the same time he announced that action would be taken in the near future to strengthen the country’s unity and establish an effective crisis management system. Then, on 13 September, he announced a programme of political reforms, of which the most important were abolishing the direct election of governors and doing away with constituencies electing candidates to the State Duma who were not affiliated to any political party.
I found these measures extraordinary and stated my position in an article for Moskovskiye Novosti:
I still cannot believe what happened in Beslan. It was a terrible tragedy, after which none of us can carry on living our lives the way we did. The first priority must be help for the victims. The Gorbachev Foundation has already transferred money to the account of the Red Cross and now we will try to help particular people and particular families.
I find it wholly unacceptable that the professionals in the special services failed to prevent the terrorist attack in the first place, or the bloody conclusion of the events. I am in no doubt that Patrushev and Nurgaliev must be held personally responsible for what happened. I think the president also understands that and will do what is necessary.
I expected the government to react decisively to what had occurred, and much of what President Putin said in his address strikes me as important and necessary. It certainly is essential to reorganize the work of the special services, to combat corruption and deal with the social problems of the North Caucasus. Terrorism has to be defeated primarily through politics, not by force.
Unlike the president, however, I believe the terrorist acts of recent weeks are directly related to the military operations in the Caucasus. Back in 1994, during the first Chechen war, I could see only too clearly the catastrophic consequences it would have. Unfortunately, I was right. That means that we need once more to seek political solutions, to negotiate with the moderate militants and separate them from irreconcilable extremists.
I have no doubt that today the government needs public support for its actions. How is it to overcome all the corruption without a properly functioning parliament or free press, without society at large keeping an eye on everything? Unfortunately there is no sign of movement in that direction, rather the reverse. Under cover of the need to combat terrorism, they are proposing a major retraction of democratic freedoms and to deprive citizens of the ability to give direct expression of their attitude to the state authorities in free elections. We are invited to acquiesce in the effective appointment of governors by the Centre and to give up the election of independent parliamentary deputies, and all this despite the fact that today nearly all the parties are subservient to the Kremlin. I know what I am talking about: when we were trying to set up a social democratic party, we ourselves had the bureaucracy attempting to bind us hand and foot. A system of that sort is going to be a fat lot of use in the fight against terrorism. On the other hand, it will undoubtedly make it easier to impose measures that hurt voters, like abolishing welfare benefits.
I very much hope this is only a possible policy being considered by President Putin, an idea under discussion rather than a final decision. Our common task is to do everything possible to stop proposals gaining the force of law that are effectively a retreat from democracy. I hope our politicians, voters and indeed the president himself will preserve the democratic freedoms that were so hard won.
Regrettably, it was soon apparent that the president had no intention of listening to doubts and warnings being expressed not only by me. Nurgaliev stayed on as Interior Minister and Patrushev as head of the FSB, while the changes to the political system, with the acquiescence of a docile parliament, were firmly implemented.
My mention of the cutting of welfare benefits was entirely deliberate. On 22 August 2004 Putin signed a law which began with the words: ‘This federal law is being adopted for the purpose of protecting the rights and freedoms of citizens.’ If only! Whatever the intention of those who drafted the law, its sloppiness was all too obvious. The ‘monetization of benefits’ variously affected more than 40 million people: people with disabilities, members of the armed forces, veterans of the Second World War, veterans of labour, pensioners and other citizens whose benefits were paid out of federal and regional budgets. Taking decisions affecting such a large number of people, who were already living in difficult circumstances, would only have been reasonable after the fullest possible consideration and public consultation to ascertain the views of those affected by the decision. Instead, the government swooped, adopting wholesale the blueprint of the principal ideologist of monetization, Mikhail Zurabov. The Duma and Federation Council rubber-stamped it and the president, overlooking the fact that this was a political rather than a financial issue, signed it off! Public reaction was extremely hostile!