Best Post-Soviet Leader of Russia

[Expat]

Among those who could have reasonably taken the reigns of power post-Gorbachev, who had the best chance of accomplishing the following:

1) Make them a good neighbor to all
2) Curb corruption
3) Promote stable liberal democracy

I leave it up to you to determine if one person would be the best for all three, or if different people could best tackle each point.

Obviously "best" is a relative term.

And just curious: does anyone think it was Yeltsin?

 

[Kome]

And just curious: does anyone think it was Yeltsin?

Nope! Not at all!

As far as democracy is concerned Yeltsin helped in that he was so unpopular that he wasnt able to run for more terms. A certain degree of electoral chaos is probably necessary to keep a democracy changing. But then Yeltsin was so unpopular that whoever got elected after him would have became ridiculously popular simply for not being Yeltsin and due to rising energy demand. And then the question becomes how to prevent Yeltsin's successor (whether Putin or otherwise) from constantly being reelected on that popularity.

 

[Expat]

Nope! Not at all!

As far as democracy is concerned Yeltsin helped in that he was so unpopular that he wasnt able to run for more terms. A certain degree of electoral chaos is probably necessary to keep a democracy changing. But then Yeltsin was so unpopular that whoever got elected after him would have became ridiculously popular simply for not being Yeltsin and due to rising energy demand. And then the question becomes how to prevent Yeltsin's successor (whether Putin or otherwise) from constantly being reelected on that popularity.

No names to put forward, though?

 

[Kome]

No names to put forward, though?

Well its more complicated than simply saying if we just had the right person in power we could have turned post Soviet Russia into heaven on earth (maybe if Bukharin had gotten the pick back in 1924 tho...).

Putin gets blamed for turning Russia back to authoritarianism, but honesty Putin is only a symptom of the problems with Russia's political establishment rather than the cause (and Yeltsin was already doing that anyways).

 

[MarshalBraginsky]

Not to mention that the other two possible candidates aren't what you call candidates with credible democratic credentials, from the unapologetic communist Zyuganov to Mad Vlad Zhirinovsky.

 

[Kome]

Not to mention that the other two possible candidates aren't what you call candidates with credible democratic credentials, from the unapologetic communist Zyuganov to Mad Vlad Zhirinovsky.

Well we have people like Lebed (like a younger saner Zhirinovsky, so not much better) and various other members of the siloviki bloc as possibilities (Zhirinovsky might even count there, since somehow this man became a Colonel ), even Rutskoy as a possibility in an alternate 1993 parliamentary coup. There's a lot of options for leaders on the table after the fall of the USSR and chaos of the 1990s, but none of them are particularly good for the creation of a liberal democracy though, because they all had illiberal upbringings from growing up in the Soviet Union, doubly so for ex-military men. Russia is already a democracy, but it definitely has an illiberal atmosphere, so pretty much all candidates would come from an illiberal background and would be working in an illiberal political environment if they got elected. In a scenario like that its hard to imagine anyone not acting similar to how Putin did.

And then thats not even getting into the fact that eliminating corruption is even harder. Anti-corruption platforms are pretty much the holy grail of politics.

 

[SlideAway]

Well we have people like Lebed (like a younger saner Zhirinovsky, so not much better) and various other members of the siloviki bloc as possibilities (Zhirinovsky might even count there, since somehow this man became a Colonel ), even Rutskoy as a possibility in an alternate 1993 parliamentary coup. There's a lot of options for leaders on the table after the fall of the USSR and chaos of the 1990s, but none of them are particularly good for the creation of a liberal democracy though, because they all had illiberal upbringings from growing up in the Soviet Union, doubly so for ex-military men. Russia is already a democracy, but it definitely has an illiberal atmosphere, so pretty much all candidates would come from an illiberal background and would be working in an illiberal political environment if they got elected. In a scenario like that its hard to imagine anyone not acting similar to how Putin did.

And then thats not even getting into the fact that eliminating corruption is even harder. Anti-corruption platforms are pretty much the holy grail of politics.

Right. Also, I think many of us know too little about what alternative Soviet figures might have come to power if not for Yeltsin.

Agreed about what you write about the background of most of the Russian ruling class not being conducive to democracy as well. That said, I do think Putin was, in hindsight, uniquely able to bring about an authoritarian relapse. There's his relative youth, his background in the security services, his (early) support from liberals and technocrats as better than the alternatives, his early alliances with key oligarchs. He was able to assemble an unusually broad coalition early on which helped him stifle dissent and transform the political system.

Even another corrupt figure, if older and less able to unify the various constituencies, might have been less secure and less able to govern as an autocrat. And given the 2000s oil boom and increasing distance from communism, by now you might have seen a class of more democratic-spirited public figures in political contention.

 

[Expat]

Kome makes a lot of good points, and I'm also inclined to agree with SlideAway's take on Putin.

So beyond corruption and liberal democracy, are there any Russian political figures who might pursue more neighborly policies? Any Russian figures whose ideology doesn't begin with "Pan-" something?

 

[Hoist40]

So beyond corruption and liberal democracy, are there any Russian political figures who might pursue more neighborly policies? Any Russian figures whose ideology doesn't begin with "Pan-" something?

You mean someone who would turn a blind eye to

1. Russian peacekeepers being attacked by a foreign government which had agreed to those peacekeepers?

2 a democratically elected president in a neighboring country being overthrown which threatens a major Russian naval base?

 

[Thande]

This isn't quite what the OP was asking for, but I was watching some topical news programmes from the 90s and found it interesting that several people picked out Boris Nemtsov as a possible successor to Yeltsin (this was before Putin became PM). Nemtsov briefly became somewhat famous in the West after he got into a fight with Zhirinovsky on a debate programme in 1995.

 

[Expat]

You mean someone who would turn a blind eye to

1. Russian peacekeepers being attacked by a foreign government which had agreed to those peacekeepers?

2 a democratically elected president in a neighboring country being overthrown which threatens a major Russian naval base?

I mean whatever terms don't involve a change of borders or call for a change of borders after the fall of the SU and don't result in an argument with you, Hoist40, because it's not worth it.

 

[Expat]

This isn't quite what the OP was asking for, but I was watching some topical news programmes from the 90s and found it interesting that several people picked out Boris Nemtsov as a possible successor to Yeltsin (this was before Putin became PM). Nemtsov briefly became somewhat famous in the West after he got into a fight with Zhirinovsky on a debate programme in 1995.

He's a great one for opposition (from the few editorials I've read) but I honestly don't know what his policies are beyond that opposition. His anti-war stance seems like a better place to start than other mentioned candidates.

 

[Kome]

Kome makes a lot of good points, and I'm also inclined to agree with SlideAway's take on Putin.

So beyond corruption and liberal democracy, are there any Russian political figures who might pursue more neighborly policies? Any Russian figures whose ideology doesn't begin with "Pan-" something?

It needs someone who doesn't want to take risks and rock the boat too much or is more focused with internal development. An alternative USSR breakup with Gorbachev in power and the New Union treaty would be great (if not optimistic).

1999 complicates things since the Russian media was crying for blood after the Chechen bombings. Increases the chance of a 'strong' candidate being elected who believes in realpolitik and keeping Russian influence. The Second Chechen War really boosted Putin's popularity.

Crimea is a point where Putin edges out of realpoltik and into the land of outright belligerent expansionism though. Other Russian leaders might have still intervened, but the idea of annexation would have seen as extremely risky (even if they all want it). So if someone besides Putin was in power chances are that might not have happened.

 

[Expat]

It needs someone who doesn't want to take risks and rock the boat too much or is more focused with internal development. An alternative USSR breakup with Gorbachev in power and the New Union treaty would be great (if not optimistic).

1999 complicates things since the Russian media was crying for blood after the Chechen bombings. Increases the chance of a 'strong' candidate being elected who believes in realpolitik and keeping Russian influence. The Second Chechen War really boosted Putin's popularity.

Crimea is a point where Putin edges out of realpoltik and into the land of outright belligerent expansionism though. Other Russian leaders might have still intervened, but the idea of annexation would have seen as extremely risky (even if they all want it). So if someone besides Putin was in power chances are that might not have happened.

Obviously the current crisis is on everyone's mind. It would be interesting to imagine Ukraine's destiny in the Union of Sovereign States.
Though the first crisis I can imagine in such a world isn't Crimea or Chechnya, it's Transnistria, since Russian influence extends right up to that border.

 

[Kung Fucious]

Among those who could have reasonably taken the reigns of power post-Gorbachev, who had the best chance of accomplishing the following:

1) Make them a good neighbor to all
2) Curb corruption
3) Promote stable liberal democracy

I leave it up to you to determine if one person would be the best for all three, or if different people could best tackle each point.

Obviously "best" is a relative term.

And just curious: does anyone think it was Yeltsin?

What's our POD? I mean, there's a handful of people I can think of who could have succeeded Gorbachev that wouldn't have run the country into the ground (like Yeltsin) or turn it into a money/hype machine for him and his buddies (Putin).

Post Yeltsin is difficult, though. You'd also need leadership in the US that looked at post-Soviet Russia as a trading partner/potential ally than as a defeated enemy, otherwise you're just sowing the seeds for a Putin-like figure.

 

[Kome]

Obviously the current crisis is on everyone's mind. It would be interesting to imagine Ukraine's destiny in the Union of Sovereign States.
Though the first crisis I can imagine in such a world isn't Crimea or Chechnya, it's Transnistria, since Russian influence extends right up to that border.

Transinistria was pure peacekeeping, though carried out in the traditional Russian manner without hesitating to use force. To quote Lebed, Russia said stop killing each other or we will destroy both of you. And both sides stopped fighting and it worked.There were Russian military officers supporting Transnistria but they were considered renegade and their actions weren't supported by the government.

The problem was that while they were good at peacekeeping no one was willing to commit to peacemaking. Since Russia took unilateral action other nations were unwilling to support any peacemking process and we ended up with a frozen conflict and neither side wanted to compromise and reach an agreement. So in the end the only thing that could be done was to keep a ceasefire by force.

 

[Expat]

What's our POD? I mean, there's a handful of people I can think of who could have succeeded Gorbachev that wouldn't have run the country into the ground (like Yeltsin) or turn it into a money/hype machine for him and his buddies (Putin).

Post Yeltsin is difficult, though. You'd also need leadership in the US that looked at post-Soviet Russia as a trading partner/potential ally than as a defeated enemy, otherwise you're just sowing the seeds for a Putin-like figure.

Post-Gorbachev would be fine. Which of course is still vague, because you could change the circumstances/timing of Gorbachev's fall.

I'm hoping that by keeping things vague people can come up with the best candidates for the challenge.

 

[Expat]

Transinistria was pure peacekeeping, though carried out in the traditional Russian manner without hesitating to use force. To quote Lebed, Russia said stop killing each other or we will destroy both of you. And both sides stopped fighting and it worked.There were Russian military officers supporting Transnistria but they were considered renegade and their actions weren't supported by the government.

The problem was that while they were good at peacekeeping no one was willing to commit to peacemaking. Since Russia took unilateral action other nations were unwilling to support any peacemking process and we ended up with a frozen conflict and neither side wanted to compromise and reach an agreement. So in the end the only thing that could be done was to keep a ceasefire by force.

But imagine the situation if Ukraine is still pretty firmly in the Russian camp, as per your Union of Sovereign States idea.

 

[manav95]

The best leader would be Gorby himself. He is democratically-minded since he tried to establish several of his own parties in Russia. Under his rule, the Soviet Union became a more democratic and free country. He allowed people to protest and criticize the Communist Party rather than locking them up in jail. He loosened the Soviet grip on the Eastern bloc, letting them transition to democracy. While its probably ASB for him to be the leader of post-Soviet Russia, I feel that he would be the best person for the job.

First he wouldn't have to deal with all the nationalist uprisings. It would just be Russia, with the Chechens as the biggest source of trouble. He would then try to move the Russian economy and government towards a Scandinavian style social democracy, which would be much better than Yeltsin's shock therapy policies. He would also fight the oligarchs and try to stop them from taking over Russia's economy, curbing corruption. Finally he wouldn't bully the neighboring countries like Putin does. After a decade of his rule, Russia has a good shot at being a modern, vibrant democracy with a booming economy.

 

[Kome]

Post-Gorbachev would be fine. Which of course is still vague, because you could change the circumstances/timing of Gorbachev's fall.

I'm hoping that by keeping things vague people can come up with the best candidates for the challenge.

It's possible the leader you are waiting for is just in the future. Well its only been about 24 years since democracy was bought to Russia. To compare it to another example it took America 200 years to stop being hilariously corrupt, and depending on who you ask American government is STILL corrupt with the influence money and business have, its just depressing instead of hilarious this time. The same length of over 200 years for America to learn to he a good neighbor. And it was a bit late for the Indians by the time they found out. And unlike Russia, American democracy even had the advantage of being born in victory instead of the Soviet breakup.

These things take time and only one man could cram over two centuries of development into 20 years, but he was long dead by 1990.

The man of steel.