{"id":260964,"date":"2020-07-08T20:57:19","date_gmt":"2020-07-09T00:57:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/?p=260964"},"modified":"2020-07-08T20:57:19","modified_gmt":"2020-07-09T00:57:19","slug":"putins-contentious-victory-could-mean-dark-days-ahead-for-russia","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/2020\/07\/08\/putins-contentious-victory-could-mean-dark-days-ahead-for-russia\/","title":{"rendered":"Putin’s contentious victory could mean dark days ahead for Russia"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a>
FILE: MOSCOW, RUSSIA – DEC 23, 2016: The President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin at the annual press conference in Center of international trade (ID1974 \/ Shutterstock.com)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The final plebiscite results on a huge package of Russian constitutional amendments that resulted in a 78 per cent \u201cYes\u201d vote<\/a> must have seemed like \u201cmission accomplished\u201d to President Vladimir Putin.<\/p>\n

Yet celebrations and triumphant statements by the Kremlin<\/a> that \u201ca plebiscite on trust in Putin ended with victory for the head of state\u201d are likely much too premature. In fact, this victory may prove to be Pyrrhic \u2014 in other words, a win that takes such a devastating toll on the victor that it amounts to a defeat \u2014 and a turning point in Putin\u2019s rule.<\/p>\n

Certainly, outrage from opposition politicians like Aleksei Navalny<\/a> was to be expected. What\u2019s more surprising is that so many others raised doubts about the results. Both internally and externally, there are disturbing signs of trouble to come.<\/p>\n

On June 30, in an urgent national address, Putin characterized the vote<\/a> on more than 200 amendments as utterly transformative and said it was about \u201cthe country in which we want to live \u2026 and want to pass on to our children.\u201d The plebiscite was about saving Russia and securing the country\u2019s future, he said.<\/p>\n

President for life<\/h2>\n

What the Yes or No binary choice sought to camouflage, though, was the plebiscite\u2019s central purpose: keeping Putin in power in perpetuity (or at least until 2036, when he would be age 84) by resetting the clock on his presidency.<\/p>\n

Cynics about Russia may dismiss the criticism, contending that the Russian electorate may be sullen but that ultimately it\u2019s supine. Certainly, there were outcries and even mass demonstrations following highly suspect elections in 2011, 2012 and 2018, but these were all brutally suppressed and the opposition was contained<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Yet 2020 is significantly different. The energy-dependent Russian economy is in dire straits, both because of COVID-19 and the dramatic fall in energy prices.<\/p>\n

Not surprisingly, the tacit social contract that Putin seemed to have worked out with the population \u2014 namely that they would continue to benefit from an improvement in their standard of living in exchange for political acquiescence \u2014 has dissipated.<\/p>\n

Popularity has dropped<\/h2>\n

The economy has tanked. Putin largely withdrew to his own lavish safe space as COVID-19 infected wide swaths of the country. Correspondingly, his popularity, according to the independent Lavada Center<\/a>, declined dramatically to a new low of 59 per cent in the weeks before the vote. In this context, Putin\u2019s personal appeal to the electorate conveyed more a sense of desperation than of confidence.<\/p>\n

The fact that the government had to sweeten the non-divisible amendments package by introducing indexed pensions into the constitution, as well as offering lottery prizes for voting<\/a>, all point to a significantly less assured Kremlin.<\/p>\n

What may also prove most damaging to the Kremlin over the long term are careful, measured assessments that are beginning to percolate throughout Russia. These include the analysis by Sergei Shpilkin, a distinguished electoral researcher who performed a very sophisticated data analysis from Russia\u2019s Central Election Commission figures. He concluded the level of fraud in the plebiscite was \u201cunprecedented,\u201d with 22.4 million falsified ballots<\/a>. Without those votes, the turnout would have been only 43 per cent \u2014 a damming comment on the plebiscite\u2019s legitimacy.<\/p>\n

Exit polling showed different results<\/h2>\n

Furthermore, the anti-amendment \u201cNyet\u201d campaign<\/a> credibly claimed that their exit polling showed that in Moscow and St. Petersburg, 55 per cent and 63 per cent respectively had voted No in the plebiscite. Because these are the centres of power in Russia, so many anti-government votes would be profoundly influential in terms of shaping current and future attitudes about Putin.<\/p>\n

Externally, Putin also has problems. The day after the results of the plebiscite were announced, the European Union called on Russia to probe reports of massive irregularities<\/a>, including voter coercion, double voting and police violence.<\/p>\n

The amendments also create an additional problem that is both external and internal.<\/p>\n

The plebiscite constitutionally enshrined the principle that Russian territory cannot be \u201cexpropriated.\u201d That makes it impossible for the current or future Russian governments to vacate the illegal annexation of Crimea.<\/p>\n

If Putin\u2018s goal was also to enhance his legitimacy in the eyes of world leaders, this will create a momentous impediment to any future negotiation because no Western country has recognized the Russian annexation of Crimea.<\/p>\n

What the Kremlin portrayed as an enormous victory that saved Russian culture and the country\u2019s future may turn out to have dire unintended consequences. It should not be surprising then that Putin\u2019s much manipulated \u201cvictory\u201d could turn into ashes.\"The<\/p>\n

Aurel Braun<\/a>, Professor, International Relations and Political Science, University of Toronto<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

This article is republished from The Conversation<\/a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The final plebiscite results on a huge package of Russian constitutional amendments that resulted in a 78 per cent \u201cYes\u201d …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":44,"featured_media":205659,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,17],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-260964","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-news","category-news-w","mauthors-aurel-braun-university-of-toronto","mauthors-the-conversation"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/260964","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/44"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=260964"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/260964\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":260965,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/260964\/revisions\/260965"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/205659"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=260964"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=260964"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=260964"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}