Putin and Megawati: Trial by public support

Dmitri Kosyrev Political Columnist RIA Novosti Moscow

"Political twins" -- that's how this writer have described the Presidents of Indonesia and Russia in Jakarta's media some months ago. It's not mystic fate that constantly brings Megawati Soekarnoputri and Vladimir Putin to very similar situations -- it's the surprising likeness of our two countries, both passing from the authoritarian regimes to some unknown bright future via the trials of democracy.

Right now the oncoming presidential elections in both countries show the same likeness. In both Indonesia and Russia we are witnessing the complete breakdown of a predicted pattern "the democrats defeat the old authoritaritarians". Rather, Indonesia and Russia are both repeating the fate of the East European countries, where the classic liberals, after initial victories, are loosing to the more traditional powers, the offsprings of the previous regimes.

The election of Vladimir Putin for the second term is to be in March, while the test-run of the new political situation -- the elections to Parliament -- already happened in December. Indonesia will follow, holding parliamentary elections on April 5, and its first direct presidential election on July 5.

So there is yet another chance for Indonesia to look at the similarities of our political landscape -- and learn. The similarities are many, among them the fact that both contenders are going to run against a woman, and most probably defeat that woman easily. In the Russian case it's a liberal candidate -- Irina Khakamada, half-Japanese. In the Indonesian -- Siti Hardijanti Rukmana

The similarities do not end here. Both presidents are enjoying economic success after years of crisis, therefore both are counting on voter's support. Russia leads. An unusual problem for Vladimir Putin is too much of popularity, too much of public support.

The Russian president is considered to win the election hands down, and that may cause a peculiar problem: There will be no voter's turnout, and hence -- no elections, or at least an insufficient legitimacy of the president. Therefore the biggest problem for Putin's electoral headquarters is how to make the voters get out of their houses and head for the polls in March.

The voters may succumb to that. But can there be decent elections without a decent opposition candidate at all? Putin does not want to be unopposed. The problem is in the funding. At least three formerly big and powerful Russian parties -- namely, the Liberal Democrats, the Communists and the Alliance of the Right -- are not likely to receive any funding for their campaigns from any big Russian companies.

Nobody wants to waste money. Therefore some candidates with relatively respectable results in the previous presidential elections have announced their decision not even to try it this time. Putin will be a very lonely candidate in March.

Should President Megawati contemplate the same trick in July? It can be done, if what I read in the Post is true -- namely, that President Megawati's PDI-P and Golkar, likely to occupy the top positions in the April elections, will nominate a joint team for the presidential elections: A presidential candidate from one party, a vice-presidential from the other. A Megawati-Golkar team would dominate the Indonesian political scene, and if the economic growth goes on, that kind of team may try to rival Putin's success.

It's interesting to see how it happened to Russia. The December election resulted not only in the huge win for the "Putin's party", called United Russia, now commanding about 2/3 of the seats. It has brought an expected defeat for the Communists, now reduced to a minority parliamentary faction after years of dominating the House. And -- significantly -- a complete disaster for the power that was supposed to rule Russia after the Communists, the Russian pro-Western, pro-Globalist liberals, now called the Alliance of the Right.

In the eyes of many the "democratic process" in Russia meant the transition of power from the "old regime' -- the Communists -- to the liberals. But the Rightists have been thrown out of the Parliament completely. The Putin centrists captured all the stage.

The underlying reasons of all these changes is that the Russian voter wants stability, not the party struggle, not the debate. The voter makes the connection between the arrival of Putin (around 2000), the economic growth that started around the same time, and the ensuing reduction of all political struggle and competition.

The greatest irony of it all was the pre-December reluctance of the Liberals to oppose "Putin's party" in the campaign: The Liberals knew very well that opposition to Putin promised no votes. But, if so, if there is a complete public support for one ideology -- ideology of stability and consent -- what are the Liberals for? Thus spoke the voter and elected something akin to a one-party Parliament.

The West -- whatever goes by that name -- have been grooming the Russian Liberals for power for many years. The miserable result of these efforts have been a profound shock for many outside Russia (and inside America or Europe). You can hear the effects of this shock in the rather feeble talk that Putin has put an end to the Russian democracy.

But what can you do if the voters, not Putin did it? What can you do if the Russian society itself has now a profound dislike to one of the fundamentals of any democracy -- the political competitiveness, associating it with chaos, economic crisis and loss of national territory? Should you establish the dictatorship of the liberals, maybe? The sorry state of the Alliance of the Right gives a good answer to that.

At the end of last week they hold a party congress where they learned that many local party cells are in favor of voting for Putin in March and not for the very liberal Khakamada lady. Which means that the Alliance is as good as dead.

So this is what may -- just may -- happen in Indonesia if the country discovers that there is no basic difference between Golkar and PDI-P, that there is a chance of their alliance, if not merger. If the voter sees that this merger means stability and economic growth, his support to the new alliance may be overwhelming. Russia's experience shows it very well.

The current winner of the December elections, the United Russia, had in fact been two parties only four years ago, and one of it's halves even did not support Putin at the previous elections. Only now Russia is witnessing the full impact of that merger.

The last question is: Are the Putin critics right? Are we witnessing the willing, democratic reversal of Russia to an old authoritarian regime minus the Communism? If so, should -- and could -- Indonesia revert to the old authoritarian ways if it finally achieves the similar stability?

The answer to it is that nobody can return to the past, even if the voter wants it. Stability and economic development does not need to be authoritarian. In fact, the economy is the most irreversible thing in the world.

If you look at the economic plans of Russia presented by the Vice-Premier Alexey Kudrin at the Davos World Economic Forum conference, you'll see that it's as liberal and future-oriented as any liberal's dream. While the politics...if Vladimir Putin is Russia's future disguised as it's past, and if the voter likes it this way -- then why not elect him for the second term ? And why not study his experience even in Indonesia?