Russia. A History

The Putin regime used that parliamentary majority to change the political system. Arguing that a plethora of small parties can lead to political instability, in 2001 the Duma passed the government-sponsored ‘Law on Parties’ which restricted electoral participation to ‘national parties’—that is, those which not only had a minimum number of members, but which had branches all across Russia. The goal was to empower a few national parties and to eliminate small parties representing a particular region, ethnicity, confession, and the like. That same logic underlay the decision to replace the 1993 electoral system, which allocated one-half of the Duma seats to ‘single mandate districts’ (with the election of individuals, regardless of party affiliation), and the other half by ‘proportionate representation’ (allocated on the basis of a party’s share of the general vote). At Putin’s suggestion, in May 2005 parliament made proportionate representation the sole basis of the electoral system, thereby reinforcing the power of registered national parties. To marginalize small parties still further, parliament raised the minimum share of votes (from 5 to 7 per cent) as a precondition for representation in the Duma. The changes were controversial; critics complained that it denied some voters any representation, while advocates argued that these rules precluded the representation of radical fringe groups, promoted the formation of viable parties, and thereby ensured political stability and a productive parliament.

The ongoing war in Chechnya, which initially raised Putin’s popularity, began to arouse mounting criticism, especially from Western governments and human rights organizations. Although Russian forces established some semblance of control, they failed to crush all resistance or to end devastating terrorist acts. And the war took a heavy toll—on the Russian military (at least 4,572 killed and 15,549 wounded, with other counts running much higher), insurgents (at least 13,000), and civilians (low-end estimates ran between 30,000 and 40,000). This carnage eroded popular support in Russia itself (with 69 per cent, by 2005, favouring an end to the fighting and peaceful resolution), impelling the Kremlin to ‘Chechenize’ the conflict by putting pro-Moscow Chechens in charge and relying on Chechen, not Russian, forces. Moscow arranged for Ramzan Kadyrov to succeed his father (killed in a terrorist attack) as the president of Chechnya; the young Kadyrov quickly earned a reputation for brutality and the ‘disappearances’ of 2,000 to 3,000 fellow Chechens. The repression in Chechnya, even if provoked by criminal acts of terrorism, elicited sharp criticism in Western circles and reinforced criticism of Putin for ‘authoritarian’ tendencies.

Criticism of ‘human rights’ violations also gained currency from the well-publicized prosecution of leading oligarchs. The most sensational cause célèbre commenced in 2003, when Mikhail Khodorkovskii, the richest man in Russia and the sixteenth richest in the world, became the target of police investigations and prosecution. Khodorkovskii, by all accounts, had amassed his fortune during perestroika and the Yeltsin years by dubious means; during the ‘loans for shares’ phase, he acquired the oil company Yukos—worth billions of dollars—for a fraction of its real value. But it was not Khodorkovskii’s past but his political ambitions—including financial support for oppositionist forces—that reportedly triggered a full-scale investigation by the procuracy. In October 2003 he was arrested by a squad of special forces as he boarded a private jet and brought to Moscow for prosecution on charges of fraudulent privatization, use of an illegal offshore company to conceal profits, and corporate and individual tax evasion. Authorities claimed that Yukos owed 15 billion dollars in back taxes and fines, and that Khodorkovskii personally owed another 2 billion dollars. Convicted in May 2005, he was sentenced to nine years in a corrective labour camp—triggering outcries by Putin’s critics, at home and abroad, that the prosecution was purely political.