The Telegraph publishes an article by Dmitry Varnavin appeared on Rossiyskaya Gazeta. Here's the link:
Varnavin proposes a parallel between the political duet represented by Dmitry Medvedev and Vladimir Putin in Russia and the new British coalition government that sees the conservative David Cameron to join efforts with the lib-dem Nick Clegg. The comparison might make some sense, but is not presented in the right way. According to the author 'two men (are) in charge of the country' in Russia, and so it is likely to be in the UK. The problem with his assumption is that he gives a wrong evaluation of the state of the Russian political system. Medvedev lacks that sort of power that would make of him an equal partner in the hypothetical political tandem described. The functions of the current president of the Russian Federation are much more similar to those of an Italian president of the Republic: to condemn through speeches the evils of the society and to promise to solve them.
As far as the political situation in the UK goes, it is certainly too early to judge and make forecasts, but the coalition does not seem to be established on solid bases, and the differencies between the two parties making part of it could easily bring the government down. The possibility of an effective government of two, however, should not be precluded. But even in this case it would be wrong to say that Clegg would have as much power as Cameron. A situation in which liberal democrats manage to be influencial in shaping government policies is certainly a possible scenario, but that would be due to the ability of the entire party to make its voice heard. Otherwise, Mr Clegg might end up being just another figurehead. In politics, after all, the big fish is always ready to eat the little fish.
You understand UK and Russian politics far better than I do, but as I read your point, it is that the UK "duo" is not comparable to the Russian duo and I agree. The only thing they have in common is the duality; the actual power relationships are completely different. In USA some people think Medvedev is just a placeholder for Putin. Nobody says the puppet word aloud, but it's what we think. The more Medvedev creates new initiatives (such as trying to professionalize the police or fight endemic alcoholism), the less we think this. But still we think it. For this reason, I personally was amazed by the nuclear weapons agreement and began to wonder how much of that reflects Medvedev's power and how much Putin's. That is an open question in my mind. Maybe it doesn't need an answer, but if Putin runs for President again and wins, the day might come when knowing that answer could make a difference in scrutinizing Russian intentions in the future. Notice the Russians got what they wanted from USA: stand down the missile shield. That looks like Putin's hand, not Medvedev's.
ReplyDeleteIn the UK there are no such factors; one "half leader" certainly is not wearing the other's face. The differences between the two parties in coalition are too fundamental to last through any real crisis and someday both parties will point across the aisle to call each other fools on one crucial policy or another. All they have in common is to keep the Labor party out of power. And if this unholy alliance fumbles the ball somehow, Labor could have its rebound. None of this scenario resembles Russian politics.
So analysis that draws parallels between the two is probably specious. Even a rather politically obtuse American can see that.