The Medvedev Interregnum

6.1. What was the significance of the Medvedev interregnum?

I think the greatest significance of the Medvedev interregnum was that the period signaled to the world and the country itself that Russia would at least continue to give the outward appearance of democracy, even while ultimate political power continued to be wielded by Putin. For all of the ink (apparently) spilled in considering the extent to which consigning Putin to a term as prime minister as Medvedev ascended to the presidency would change the power dynamic, I don't think that the period was all that significant in terms of genuine changes implemented by Medvedev. Perhaps in making this assessment I am relying too much on knowing the outcome in the five years since Putin has returned to the presidency.

Here, Alexander Baturo and Slava Mikhaylov seem to have made a strong case for Medvedev at least believing for some of the period that he might be an independent actor from Putin in establishing his own policy initiatives. They emphasize his liberalization and modernization schemes, for example, although they note that he mainly enunciated these goals in speeches and writing rather than in concrete proposals. Thus, they conclude, Medvedev "could be regarded as neither a figurehead nor a fully-fledged successor."[1] Simultaneously, they note, Russian regional governors drifted more into Putin's orbit during Medvedev's presidency. Thus, in the end, Medvedev was more of a placeholder than perhaps he himself realized at the time.

What I'm left wondering is why Medvedev stayed on with Putin after the latter returned to the presidency. Ola Cichowlas wrote in March of this year that Medvedev had made himself a millionaire several times over via corruption as part of Putin's team, but he was increasingly being seen as a scapegoat for the government as economic misfortune has led to dissatisfaction among the population. "While Putin’s approval ratings have soared as a result of his efforts to play tough with the West and secure military victories abroad," Cichowlas writes, "Medvedev has taken the blame for falling living standards at home. For the past few years, the Russian public, and even some within Putin’s hard-line inner circle, have considered Medvedev both weak and dispensable."[2] Nevertheless, at this writing, Medvedev remains the prime minister. Perhaps he poses more of a danger to Putin's hold on power as a potentially popular figure than as the unpopular man he is today.

======

[1] Alexander Baturo and Slava Mikhaylov, "Reading the Tea Leaves: Medvedev's Presidency Through Political Rhetoric of Federal and Sub-National Actors," Europe-Asia Studies, 66, no. 6 (2014): 974.
[2] Ola Cichowlas, "The Most Hated Man in Russia," Foreign Affairs, March 28, 2017,
http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/03/28/the-most-hated-man-in-russia-dmitry-medvedev-protests-putin/, accessed November 27, 2017

Greece, Rome, Democracy

Although the Constitution of the United States borrowed from both Athenian democracy and the Roman Republic, I believe that, while Athenian democracy more closely resembles what most people think of when they consider democracy, the U.S. Constitution, particularly in its original form, more closely resembles the Roman Republic, particularly with regard to the institutions established to govern and the manner in which the people obtained representation through these institutions.

Ancient Athens operated on a model of direct democracy, in which the people regularly participated in aspects of governance, including legislation and trial by jury. In this regard, it differed significantly from the United States, which operates on a model of representative democracy, in which deputies are elected to represent constituencies of citizens every two years (although some states, notably California, in implementing extensive plebiscite systems, have adopted aspects of direct democracy). Regarding participation, only between 10% and 25% of the Athenian population -- consisting entirely of free, property-owning, adult men -- could participate. In this regard, Ancient Athens perhaps most closely resembled the early U.S., in which it was also true that only free (i.e., white), property-owning, adult men (21 years old) could vote.[1]

The Roman Republic, in contrast, endowed the greatest power in the Senate, which was a legislative body whose members were appointment by the consuls (the executive powers of the state), who in turn were elected by the patrician class, who in turn were the descendants of the original 100 members of the Senate. In this fashion, the Senate was a sort of closed society with a feedback loop of power concentrated in the hands of around 5% of the population. Eventually the plebian class was enfranchised through the creation of its own legislative assemblies and the office of tribune, although the Senate retained more power.[2]

In these regards, i.e., separation of executive and legislative power and a bicameral legislature with power unevenly distributed, the resemblance between the Roman Republic and the U.S. is clearest. However, the Athenian system is closer to what most people would regard as democracy. Neither had anything close to resembling universal suffrage, but the direct participation of  citizens in Ancient Athens and the greater equality among citizens without regard to class seem more democratic. In particular, because of its direct democracy, Ancient Athens actually seems more democratic than the U.S. today, in part because the U.S. is more a republic than a democracy.

=====

1. Mark Cartwright, "Athenian Democracy," Ancient History Web site, accessed December 12, 2015, http://www.ancient.eu/Athenian_Democracy/

2.  Jerry Bentley and Herbert Ziegler, Traditions and Encounters, Volume 1: To 1500, 3rd ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2012), 146.

Stuff I'm Reading

A History of Fascism, 1914-1945, Stanley G. Payne
Fascists, Michael Mann