After outlining his position on the future course of the country’s development (in the photo), Vladimir Putin exercised Mikhail Kasyanov’s (below) civil right to prompt knowledge of the proposed composition of the highest executive body.
Photo: Dmitry Azarov
|
 |
Fired in the Public Interest
At 16.20 on February 24, Russian president Vladimir Putin appeared on Russia (Rossiya) and Channel One (Pervy kanal) television and announced he was dismissing Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov. It was the first time in 12 years that a prime minister had been fired neither for being a threat to presidential power nor for any other political or economic reasons but purely for the sake of publicity. The feeling is now that Vladimir Putin pulled off a good PR stunt three weeks before the elections.
Talk of the inevitability of Kasyanov’s dismissal began a long time ago, and after Aleksandr Voloshin quit the presidential administration, people started treating it almost as a fait accompli. The only uncertainty was when the president would officially announce it—before or after March 14. The second option seemed more reasonable, since under the Constitution, the government must resign in any case after presidential elections. This provision in effect exists to ensure that a newly elected president can nominate a new head of the cabinet.
However, Vladimir Putin preferred to dismiss the government by his presidential will rather than let it happen automatically. He even explained why: “This decision…was dictated by the wish to once again emphasize my position on the question of the future course of the country’s development after March 14, 2004. I believe that the citizens of Russia have the right and the need to know the proposed structure of the supreme executive body in the event I am elected President of Russia. “
This was the first statement of its kind from a Russian president. Boris Yeltsin appointed and fired prime ministers more for bureaucratic rather than for political reasons. To put it more simply, he replaced the head of his cabinet only when he sensed a threat to his personal authority or, later on, to his comfortable existence after leaving power. Chernomyrdin and Primakov suffered for their excessive independence and political ambitions; Kirienko was a ritual sacrifice that allowed Yeltsin to avoid imminent impeachment over the collapse of the ruble; and the spineless Stepashin could not guarantee the safety of the president and his family after Yeltsin resigned.
Putin bid farewell to the prime minister at a time when there was no personal threat to him. Even the text of his address shows that the decision came from within and was not forced by outside factors. As an honest person, the president simply believed that he had no right to conceal the name of his candidate for prime minister from the citizens. Apparently it has never occurred to the citizens to take an interest in prime ministers, because thank God, there’s a president. It was a noble act by the president, who could have remained silent but did not.
Still, there are nagging doubts about Vladimir Putin’s show of frankness. Here are two simple observations that are difficult to explain on the basis of love of truth.
First, if Putin the candidate wanted to name the person he would nominate for prime minister if he won the election, there was no immediate need to fire Kasyanov, since there is no connection between these things. Kasyanov could have completed his term knowing that he would no longer be prime minister after the elections. Using one’s official position to further one’s objectives as a candidate does not seem very noble at all. Unlike the president, the other candidates cannot fire a government and interrupt the regular programming of two national television stations to announce it.
Second, if Putin went on television as president and announced to the citizens that he had decided to replace Kasyanov with a new prime minister, nothing would prevent him from naming the new person right away. Instead, the citizens were expected to sit in suspense for several days and watch TV broadcasts of the president visiting the ex-prime minister and the suspended government in the White House or meeting with deputies for a leisurely discussion of the new candidate (even though there is a standard procedure for presenting and approving a candidate, which, given the makeup of the present Duma, would not take more than five minutes).
Thus, there is good reason to consider the president’s address as a PR rather than a political move. Besides the president himself, some prominent politicians and officials also considered it their duty to give their opinion of the government’s dismissal; most of them praised the president’s wisdom. All the media (both Russian and Western) will be packed with debates about the new prime minister, the members of his cabinet, and the structure of the government right up to the elections. No one is calling election campaign 2004 boring and disgustingly trivial any more.
In the end, it does not really matter who heads the government. The Kremlin maintains that there will be no major changes in economic policy. “Ordinary” policy, both foreign and domestic, will obviously remain the same as before, since the president and not the prime minister will determine it. Of course, you can try to estimate the new prime minister’s chances of succession (everyone, including us, will be asking, “Just how long will he last?”), but the recent dismissal is the best evidence that there is nothing to prevent Vladimir Putin from firing the prime minister, say, six months rather than three weeks before the elections next time. PR stunt 2007 will probably be just as successful as the present one.
&
Dismissals as a Form of Election Campaign
Dismissals or shifts in governments are not uncommon, of course. In some countries, it long ago became routine to shuffle ministers, including the heads of major departments. This happens about once every two years in Britain and once a year in Japan. However, dismissals are very rarely directly connected with election campaigns. If this happens, it is usually because a president is trying to get rid of someone he considers a dangerous opponent.
In 1997, President of France Jacques Chirac suddenly fired one of his closest associates, Prime Minister Alain Juppé. Experts linked this move with the president’s hopes that firing an unpopular politician accused of corruption would help his center right coalition win the parliamentary elections. This did not happen. Despite the prime minister’s dismissal, the right-wing coalition lost both rounds of the elections and socialist Lionel Jospin formed the new government.
In 2001, just before the parliamentary elections President of Senegal Abdoulaye Wade fired Prime Minister Moustapha Niasse. The president claimed that the prime minister had been fired for his “antipopular actions”. Local observers testified that Niasse’s “antipopular actions” consisted of wanting to play a more important role in national politics. The parliamentary elections ended in victory for propresidential parties.
In June 2002, President of Togo Gnassingbé Eyadéma, one of the world’s longest-serving heads of state (he has been in power since 1967), suddenly fired the government of his oldest associate Agbeyoma Kojo, who by that time had been prime minister for almost ten years. In announcing Kojo’s dismissal, the president claimed he had done it to facilitate preparations for the parliamentary elections. Experts testified that in the last few months before his dismissal, Prime Minister Kojo had actually become an opponent of the president, repeatedly speaking of the need for reform, and had pointedly refused to condemn the actions of politicians who opposed the president.
In May 2003, President of Algeria Abdelaziz Bouteflika unexpectedly fired the government headed by Ali Benflis. The dismissal was interpreted as the start of the president’s election campaign. The prime minister had long been considered one of Bouteflika’s closest associates. Relations began to sour as the date of the presidential elections scheduled for April 2004 approached. Besides being prime minister, Ali Benflis was also secretary general of the ruling party, the National Liberation Front, whose popularity with voters was steadily dropping. In addition, Benflis had repeatedly hinted that he would like to run for election. Thus, by firing Benflis’ cabinet, the Algerian president solved two problems as once by getting rid of a possible opponent and distancing himself from a party that was losing popularity.
Range of Officials’ Opinions about the President’s Decision to Dismiss the Government
bold
necessary
logical
right
justified
timely
strategic
constitutional
very timely
God knows best
Accompaniment
Oratorio for the president and combined chorus of legislative and executive officials
President’s recitative (lento)
V. Putin. Dear citizens of Russia! In accordance with Article 117 of the Constitution of Russia, I have made the decision to dismiss the government.
Election Committee’s recitative (molto tranquillo)
A. Beshnyakov. The government’s dismissal will make the upcoming elections for head of state more interesting and meaningful.
Majority party (presto)
V. Pekhtin. The United Russia (Edinaya Rossiya) Party supports the president’s timely decision to dismiss the government.
Collateral party (prestissimo)
V. Zhirinovsky. The president was right to dismiss the government. You have to make the voters enthusiastic that the president is setting a new course, and now 20 days before the elections, the voters will see that there really will be a new government.
The redundant’s aria (assai moderato)
G. Bukaev. It’s a very timely decision. Well, maybe not timely so much as sound.
Acting trio (con spirito)
V. Yakovlev. The president made the right decision.
A. Kudrin. The president’s decision was right.
Yu. Shevchenko. It was the right decision and a necessary one.
Speaker’s duet (risoluto)
B. Gryzlov. The decision to dismiss the government was a strategic one. It was a bold decision, but justified.
S. Mironov. I welcome this decision. The president was satisfied with the Kasyanov government’s work, and in this context its dismissal was a logical step.
Vice-soprano’s aria (dolce)
G. Karelova. This shows that the president of Russia reacts quickly to the public mood. This is a new level of responsibility for conducting politics.
Officials’ duet (con doppia bassezza)
S. Stepashin. I support the president of Russia…. Dismissing the present government ahead of schedule is much more logical than waiting for it to resign after the elections according to the Constitution.
S. Yastrzhembsky. It was a constitutional decision. I think that by dismissing the government, President Putin sent the citizens and voters of Russia a clear message.
Acting trio (ostinato)
V. Yakovlev. The president made….
A. Kudrin. The president’s decision….
Yu. Shevchenko. It was the right…and a necessary….
Kyrie eleison** (maestoso)
V. Bochkarev (governor of Penza Region). The president’s decision is aimed at carrying out reforms intended for the majority instead of a minority as before… It’s said that God knows best. The president’s authority comes not only from the people, but also from God and we have to respect the president’s decision.
* The score of the oratorio is based on actual comments made by its dramatic personae right after the announcement of the RF government’s dismissal.
** Lord have mercy upon us (Gr.).
All the Article in Russian as of Mar. 01, 2004
|
|
|
