The period of the 2010s brought new controversies to the politics of bad governance in Russia. On the one hand, the rapid economic growth that had served as a driver of Russia’s development before the 2008–2009 global crisis was exhausted, and over the last decade growth has been sluggish. On the other hand, the Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the subsequent rise of international tensions amid domestic isolationist trends have contributed to further aggravation of bad governance. The political leaders who invested a lot of effort into the preservation of the political status quo easily sacrificed the quality of governance for the sake of keeping political “stability” at any cost, and have tended to prioritize political loyalty over efficiency in all layers of government.110 At best, improvements of quality of governance have affected various issues of secondary importance, and their effects have been rather modest. More important, overall, the goals of economic growth and development have been consigned to the periphery of the Russian leadership’s agenda, being overshadowed by geopolitical ambitions.111 In effect, the consolidated authoritarian regime in Russia112 has become the main (although not the only) pernicious factor in the further deterioration of the quality of governance in the country. However, unlike in the case of Soviet collapse, this deterioration looks not like a sudden breakdown but rather like a gradual yet steady decay.
The present-day low-level equilibrium of bad governance in Russia is also maintained by the high costs of overcoming it, which may increase over time. These costs are related not only to the complexities of possible political regime changes (if and when they occur) but also to the need for major elite turnover. In fact, the short-term beneficiaries of bad governance in Russia are numerous: they are not only limited to top state officials and oligarchs, but also include the staff of law enforcement agencies and many public sector employees, so it is difficult to expect that their resistance to revision of the politico-economic order will be eradicated easily. Meanwhile, even small steps toward democratization are not on the agenda of Russia’s political leaders, as they tend to find other recipes to maintain “bad enough” governance. These recipes may be summarized as “3D”—deregulation, digitalization, and decentralization—but they can affect only technical rather than substantive issues of the quality of governance in the absence of a “4D” solution, which should include democratization as the number one item on the political agenda. However, the recent experience of democratization in some other post-Soviet countries (most notably, Ukraine) as well as the recent resurgence of bad governance in some East European countries (Hungary may serve as a prime example in this respect) tells us that democratization, though necessary, is not a sufficient factor for improving the quality of governance. This is why bad governance in Russia should be considered to be not just a short-term side effect of the one-off “poisoning” efforts of Putin and his entourage. By the 2020s, the consequences of this “poisoning” (which has continued over time in a systematic manner) have turned into a major long-term chronic disease that may be curable only with serious systematic treatment and outstanding efforts by the Russian political class and Russian society at large. The detailed analysis of causes, mechanisms, and possible evolution of bad governance in Russia, as well as lessons from the Russian experience for other states and nations, will be discussed further.
Plan
of
the
Book
This book begins by setting the stage for exploring the politics of bad governance in Russia and beyond in terms of definitions, theoretical claims, and applications of these arguments to analysis of the trajectory of bad governance in Russia after the Soviet collapse. Chapter 2 focuses on mechanisms of bad governance in Russia and major factors in its maintenance. Apart from emphasis on the self-interest of major political and economic actors and on the instrumental use of bad governance by Russia’s elites, it also focuses on the use of various “legacies of the past” as tools for legitimation of bad governance and as ideational role models for Russia’s rulers and many citizens. It also discusses attempts at building efficient institutions aimed to improve the quality of governance in Russia in parallel to the existing mechanisms of bad governance and the limits of possible changes.
The following two chapters examine the origins of bad governance in post-Soviet Russia and attempts to constrain it via mechanisms of policy changes under conditions of authoritarian politics. Chapter 3 discusses the project of “authoritarian modernization” consciously and consistently pursued by the Russian elites after the Soviet collapse in the 1990s and especially in the 2000s. It focuses on the controversies of this project in terms of ideas, institutions, and policies, and the major flaws of authoritarian modernization that greatly contributed to the rise of bad governance. Chapter 4 examines one of the key elements of authoritarian modernization in Russia, namely the politics of policy reforms of the 2000s aimed at facilitating Russia’s economic development and improving the quality of governance. It provides an explanation for why these reforms resulted in only partial and temporary improvements and how this experience played a role in the subsequent building and consolidation of bad governance in Russia.
The next two chapters concentrate on other elements of the mechanism of governance in Russia, which aims to prevent major failures and bring certain advancements despite the overall gloomy picture of the quality of governance. Chapter 5 focuses on the role of technocrats in governing Russia—those policymakers who conduct certain policies reasonably well and perform functions of fool-proofing against the most dangerous vices of bad governance. Still, the influence of technocrats on policy-making in Russia is limited, and its effects should not be overstated. Chapter 6 examines “success stories,” or outstanding examples of state-directed programs and projects aimed at major achievements in certain policy fields during both the Soviet and the post-Soviet periods of Russian history. Although a rare combination of top-level political patronage and effective policy entrepreneurship sometimes results in major breakthroughs, these success stories often prove short-lived, and rarely contribute to major diffusions of advancements beyond “pockets of efficiency” cultivated under special conditions. This is why hopes for spreading elements of good governance beyond certain limits appear illusory.