Vladimir Putin 3.0

Russian President Vladimir Putin has been in power for 20 years now since been appointed firstly as the successor of Boris Yeltsin on December 31 1999 under whom he served as Prime Minister and winning all subsequent elections since 2000 which have often been seen as a rubber stamp to legitimise his rule which has often come under scrutiny of late, particularly the Kremlin’s heavy handed approach to the Russian opposition. However, he came into power at a time of turmoil in the country following almost a decade of upheaval under Yeltsin and was seen by many Russians as someone who would bring order. The Russian constitution stipulated that the President serve two terms only and in 2008 Putin stepped down as President as he had served his two terms and Dmitry Medvedev (Who was previously endorsed by Putin) was elected President following the 2008 elections. Putin was never going to make himself fade away from the political scene as he was soon appointed Prime Minister for a second time, and it is without a doubt that most executive power remained in his hands. Putin also has a grand strategy for Russia to ‘reclaim’ its status as a superpower which was found waning under his predecessor Boris Yeltsin who’s rule coincided with the fall of the Soviet Union and loss of territory and sphere of influence which Putin has stated was “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20^th century”.

Hence, his ambitious strategy to recreate Russia to its former powerful place in history through a variety of well-constructed and controversial means as it goes through a period of revision. Russian Irredentism (a claim to reclaim so called “lost” territory) seems to have been revitalised following the annexation of Crimea from Ukraine which was in violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty and it appears this ideal could be on Putin’s agenda in the 21^st century, something that resembles ‘neo-sovietism’. In 2012 he was back at the podium as President after previously accepting a proposal to stand as President in the 2012 elections as the Russian Constitution allowed him do so as Article 81, Section 3 of the Russian Constitution clearly states that: “One person may not hold the position of Russian president for more than two terms in a row” according to The Brookings Institution. There were also constitutional amendments which allowed the new president to have a six-year mandate rather than four years as before and will be able to serve no more than two consecutive terms, allowing Putin to stay in office until 2024, an era I call ‘Vladimir Putin 2.0. By this time, it was evident that Putin was preparing a way to expand his rule well into the 21^st century and astonishingly the constitution is undergoing an amendment yet again to allow him to rule until the year 2036, a third way for Putin to reinvent himself as ‘Vladimir Putin 3.0’.

This opinion piece will discuss how Putin will attempt to reinvent himself for a third time as President and what will this next stage of his Presidency in Russia bring to his country as he attempts to create a ‘greater Russia’ through well thought out plans and strategies that he has constructed.

Putin’s ‘surprise’ announcement- ‘No not really’

This began in January 2020 when President Putin proposed plans to change the constitution which includes amending the rules that limit presidents to two consecutive terms and weakening the powers of the presidency. His current term expires in 2024. Following this decision by President Putin Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev announced that the government was resigning to help facilitate these changes proposed by the President. According to some sources the government’s resignation caught some ministers by “surprise”. The surprise resignation should not be confused with an internal revolt or some apparent chaos which often inflicts even the most well managed governments. Make no mistake of it, President Putin likes stability, hence his somewhat military and authoritarian style of leadership which were likely influenced by his previous background in the Soviet-era security agency, the KGB, where he served as a nondescript midlevel officer.

Putin appears to want to strengthen the State Council which he has called “highly effective” and comprises the heads of Russia's federal regions and is also chaired by him. Long time ally and Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev resigned but Putin asked him to serve as deputy of the National Security Council which is also chaired by Putin. This could be interpreted by some that Medvedev could be a possible successor to Putin since Medvedev has served as both President (2008-2012) and Prime Minister (2012-2020), which signifies Putin’s “trust” in him. Putin himself previously served as Prime Minister under Medvedev but it is widely believed that he still held most power and with a weakened presidency being proposed he could once again claim the position as Prime Minister yet again for a third time after his current term as President ends in 2024 but this remains to be seen and he could still have “other surprises” up his sleeve as he has gained a reputation of being a man of mystery.

The state duma (Russia's Parliament) passed this proposal unsurprisingly given the fact that Putin’s party, United Russia, dominates the duma and have been very loyal voters to Putin in the past. According to House Speaker Vyacheslav Volodin no members of the duma voted against it, although there were 43 abstentions.

What are Putin’s future plans, and will they succeed?

Putin’s relationship with the west continues to be frosty due to a number of factors, some of which includes interfering in other countries affairs, mainly those who were once under its sphere of influence when it was the Soviet Union. This includes Georgia (not to be confused with the US state of Georgia) following a brief conflict between the two in August 2008 following Georgia’s concerted air and ground campaign on Tskhinvali, the main city in South Ossetia (a disputed territory of Georgia), following clashes between Georgian troops and separatists and tensions were already high prior as in April 2008 Russia strengthened ties with South Ossetia while Moscow was angered by Georgia’s desire to join the European Union (EU) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), (does the 2014 Euromaidan revolution in Ukraine ring a bell?). The Georgian forces were later pushed out by Russian forces who allegedly entered South Ossetia to aid its citizens and not long after Russia recognised South Ossetia’s independence, one of a few countries in the world to do so.

The most high-profile takeover was Crimea which violated international law and it is alleged that Russia is also supporting separatists in eastern Ukraine in the disputed regions of Donetsk and Luhansk . The conflict in these regions appear to be in a stalemate and there are fears by some observers that Russia may want to freeze the conflict to what is termed a “frozen conflict” in a similar manner as the Transnistria conflict to Russia’s benefit. Putin’s “dream” of uniting the self-declared separatist republics in eastern Ukraine under the name Novorossiya, or New Russia, was halted in 2015 following a Minsk ceasefire agreement and he argued that the territory which also consists of Novorossiya and even parts of what is now sovereign Ukrainian territory once belonged to the Soviet Union in a televised Q&A session on television. Russia has also been strongly accused of meddling in the 2016 US presidential elections allegedly in favour of Donald Trump. Russia’s place in the world is increasingly alongside the regimes of authoritarian rulers which include Bashar al-Assad of Syria, Hassan Rouhani of Iran, Alexander Lukashenko of Belarus, Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela, and Xi Jinping of China to mention a few, and much can be said about someone by the company they keep.

Some of these leaders that Putin has close ties with are involved in increasing their influence in their region, whether through supporting disputed regimes or military expansion in a specific area, to interfering in the domestic affairs of a territory and not to mention cracking down on the opposition or any political dissent. This gives us a bit of an idea as to what Putin will be busy doing should he stay in power. Yet another interesting piece to this “political jigsaw puzzle” for advancing Russia’s sphere of influence is the Union State consisting of Russia and Belarus, which is a supranational union which Russia appears to want to deepen further so that the two countries can integrate into one country.

Russia appears to be the one pushing for this deeper integration with discussions on this deeper integration going on for about 20 years and it appears that Putin has become impatient with the progress and has put conditions on gas discounts that Belarus has heavily relied on for its energy needs. There is speculation that Putin will head this union should the ongoing talks succeed in deepening integration between the two countries as a way of staying in power once his term finishes in 2024 and this union project could be key to why Putin wants to change the constitution and help him achieve this highly likely endeavour to stay in control of the Russian Federation and perhaps “grow” its national boundaries. However, cracks in deepening this union are already showing as the President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko feels Russia is bullying his country into joining this union and has gone as far as quipping that Russia should rather join Belarus than the other way round before controversially saying “Russia is part of Belarus”. Belarus has also developed “cold feet” over further integration with Russia following the takeover of Crimea.

There have also been fears in Kazakhstan that is northern regions could be taken over by Russia in the event of instability due to its large ethnic Russian population where it suspects Russia could annex the region under the pretext of “protecting” Russian citizens “Crimean style”, but most analysts argue that there is no imminent threat although it is without a doubt that Russia wants Kazakhstan to continue to be in its sphere of influence. This sphere of influence that Russia wants to increase can be linked to its much proposed Eurasian Economic Union which is argued to be the brainchild of Putin and was ratified in 2014 and came into force in 2015 and consists of some countries which were previously part of the Soviet Union and is seen as “the most advanced organisation for regional cooperation the former Soviet bloc has seen” and an alternative to the EU. However, this union just like its union with Belarus has also developed cracks, and my analysis of this is due to some of its members which include Kazakhstan and Belarus being well aware of Putin’s “grand plans” with Kazakhstan going as far as stating this economic union being a economic and not a political undertaking.  There are many other plans that Putin will want to implement as part of his strategy for strengthening Russia globally but in this opinion piece I have focused more on his desire to “expand Russia’s borders”. This is part of the revision of Russia as stated by Chester A. Crocker in his article, The Strategic Dilemma of a World Adrift, Survival (2015) as it seeks to expand its sphere of influence much to the chagrin of its immediate neighbours.

“Despite Russia’s internal weaknesses, Putin has boosted the country’s global standing. The lack of constraints on his power, his investment in modernizing his military, and his ability to exploit asymmetries of interest between Russia and the West have allowed Putin to seize opportunities, even those that violate international laws” according to Andrea Kendall-Taylor in Foreign Policy. Hence, his desire to "strengthen" Russia's position as a global superpower. He had been able to do this particularly from 2000 to 2008 thanks to high oil prices which enabled him to expand Russia’s influence. However, following the coronavirus pandemic this may well have slowed down his plans or at least put them aside to tackle this pandemic which has hit Russia hard as it has amongst some of the worlds highest infection rates. The recent drop in oil prices and economic growth have added to his woes and he might have to change cause drastically to maintain Russia’s stability. Russia has moved away from liberalism under Putin in favour of a more realist narrative. What I find interesting though is one of his most closest allies, Dmitry Medvedev did embrace liberalism to a lesser degree during his presidency and with Russia finding itself in a tumultuous period Putin could do yet another surprise like Yeltsin and step down and prepare the way for his intended successor, but unlike Yeltsin choose a more moderate figure like Medvedev or perhaps someone more authoritarian than himself. Although according to my analysis of how Putin has projected himself, it appears he is likely going to remain the kingmaker of Russian politics and remain in an influential position for some time to come, only time will tell.

Burundi after Nkurunziza

The East African country of Burundi is a country with a long history of conflict since gaining its independence from Belgium in 1962 but it has also been a country of resilience in the face of untold human suffering with its last civil war which lasted for almost 12 years from 1993 to 2005 as a result of the assassination of its democratic elected President Melchior Ndadaye in October 1993 and led to widespread civilian casualties with up to 300000 killed. The decade long civil war ended as warring parties saw the need for a peaceful settlement in 2005. Former rebel leader Pierre Nkurunziza won the 2005 elections and finally brought what the citizens of Burundi, the African continent as a whole and the international community were all longing for, a ‘lasting peace’ as the country took positive steps towards peacebuilding initiatives to help the country heal from its wounds of the past and ‘look to a brighter future’ where conflict would hopefully be absent. However this was never going to be a ‘smooth road’ and bear in mind that this country is located in the great lakes region which has long being a hotspot of militia activity as the country also borders the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and often has felt the effects of conflicts there as is evidenced by the frequent spill overs.

In the year 2015 the already fragile peace the country was in became severely affected by anti-government protests as the Nkurunziza regime went ahead with a vote for the President to govern for a third term which caused a lot of political upheaval to the point that the country precipitated towards a civil war, particularly when President Nkurunziza won the disputed elections which many election observers said was neither free nor fair. It is estimated that over 1000 people were killed and hundreds of thousands fled the country to neighbouring countries. The Nkurunziza regime has held on but not without severe criticism, including from fellow African states. Negotiations have been on-going to end the violent political stalemate that has heavily eroded what little was left of the country’s democratic political space and Nkurunziza being aware of this decided not to go for a fourth term to the surprise of many but did hand pick his successor which without surprise won the 2020 election which was not only disputed yet again but was held in a precarious time as the coronavirus pandemic has affected the whole world, including Burundi which received a lot of criticism for holding and for the government not taking the pandemic seriously enough. The new president was scheduled to be sworn in August 2020 but following President Nkurunziza’s untimely death from a ‘heart attack’ according to the Burundi government this appears to have left some sort of ‘power vacuum’ as Nkurunziza was without a doubt the ‘kingmaker’ and would have still influenced the country’s political sphere for a long time to come. This leaves the country in a period of uncertainty and a need for all its political players to respect the rule of law, support a democratic alternative rather than a military one to move forward during this time as the country finds itself in a catch 22 situation yet again in its history where it is in need of national healing, a peaceful solution to its political situation and for democracy to prevail in the country.

I will discuss three scenarios the country could take, and it is my hope that the country takes the right path to peace and allow for a truly democratic narrative to be at the forefront of this journey.

Scenario one: Another Civil War could erupt

The Burundi military has had a significant influence over the affairs of the country and are deeply embedded in the ruling National Council for the Defence of Democracy – Forces for the Defence of Democracy (CNDD-FDD) party which in itself is a product of such a system as it was previously a rebel movement and thus consists of a number of military officials many of whom ‘most likely’ harbour presidential ambitions if the country’s history is anything to go by. Evariste Ndayishimiye was handpicked by Nkurunziza as the ruling party’s candidate for the 2020 election as a compromise candidate due to his military background but has also been viewed by some political analysts as moderate and not engaging in identity politics. Although he was due to be sworn in as President in August, following the outgoing Presidents death a power vacuum was created leading to the country’s Constitutional Court to name president-elect Evariste Ndayishimiye as the country’s president with immediate effect and is due to be sworn in on June 18. This decision by the Constitutional Court appears to be in violation of the country’s constitution which stated that in the event of a president’s death the speaker of parliament should take over, as stated in Article 121 of the Burundi constitution (2018).

The speaker of parliament or the National Assembly is none other than Pascal Nyabenda who was actually Nkurunziza’s first choice. As a result of the Constitutional Court ruling this 'could' trigger a power struggle between the two and this could worsen the already precarious situation in the country which has experienced political instability of civil war proportions since 2015. This was accompanied by bloodshed and an attempted coup, and unless tensions are not diminished by more respected organisations such as the East African Community (EAC), the African Union (AU), the United Nations (UN) and other international bodies as soon as possible given the country’s unfortunate track record of plunging into a crises, the country risks being exposed to another genocide. Hence, the need for a peaceful transition to power is extremely important and it is my hope that these two parties and any other ‘unknown’ parties who may already be planning to react or respond to protect their interests will set aside any of their differences amicably for the benefit of the country.

Scenario 2: A Democratic dispensation prevails

This scenario may look rather unlikely given Burundi’s deeply entrenched authoritarian system which epistemically can trace its origins to colonialism which created the animosity that prevailed particularly in the past between the ethnic Hutu’s and Tutsi’s and still lingers today. However, Evariste Ndayishimiye could change all that and use his moderate political views to unite the country beyond tribal designations so as to place the right people in government positions that are qualified to do so. It is said that Ndayishimiye abhors corruption, a ‘disease’ that has entrenched the country’s levels of poverty to appalling levels, leading the country to be one of the worlds poorest nations as result, and this view by the newly elected president is indeed welcomed and this could give a glimmer of hope that his disdain for corruption could hopefully be also translated into respect for the rule of law and thus a support for a democrat dispensation where by the rule of law will be respected, something that has largely been absent in the country as a number of human rights violations and extrajudicial killings have occurred under the administration of his predecessor.

The late President still wanted to have significant influence over the country’s political future and was even given a new political role known as the ‘supreme guide to patriotism’ as a way of influencing the running of state affairs. This arrangement would have weakened Ndayishimiye’s presidency but now that Nkurunziza is no longer around this effectively gives him much needed political clout to carry any of his plans through and seek to unite the country and repair its dented international image as the country is in great need of foreign direct investment. However, the election he won has largely been disputed by the opposition and the international community and the way it was held was far from democratic as rights groups say the vote took place under continuing repression of the opposition, independent media and civil society. According to Human Rights Watch “The elections took place in a highly repressive environment with no independent international observers”. Hence, Ndayishimiye has his work cut out for him and without a doubt he has to engage with the opposition as failure to do so will risk the country plunging into an ‘abyss’ which could engulf the whole region, hence the need for the international community to monitor this transition closely and understand the complex political situation in the country to enable them to handle the situation effectively and appropriately and not out of ignorance. Preferably as insider–partial mediators as they originate from the region where the conflict is occurring and have intimate knowledge of and connections to the disputants as defined by Ole Elgström, Jacob Bercovitch and Carl Skau in their journal article titled: Regional Organisations and International Mediation: The Effectiveness of Insider Mediators (2003), which would be a satisfactory start to any peace initiative that I encourage should occur to put Burundi on the right trajectory.

Scenario 3: ‘Rwanda as a development model’

This scenario is rather more of an outlier of scenario 2 but can nevertheless be also deemed as another scenario or sequence of events that could occur. I state this scenario as the best-case scenario for the country given its similarities to neighbouring Rwanda as the two countries share same cultures and histories. At one point in their histories both countries were part of a single territory called Ruanda-Urundi during colonialism before separating after their independence in 1962. Rwanda went through a brutal genocide in 1994 but has since been transformed into ‘a poster child’ for development in Africa and has experienced substantial economic growth as it has undergone rapid industrialisation due to the successful policies of the Kagame administration since 2000 which was influenced by Singapore’s rise and according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), poverty in Rwanda plunged from 56.7% in 2005 to 39.1% by 2014. According to the World Food Programme 65% of the Burundian population lives in poverty in 2018 and is ranked 185^th out of 189 countries in the 2019 Human Development Index.

The country has attempted to make economic gains since the end of the civil war but due to socio-economic issues, corruption and other economic malpractices this has not been forthcoming. The country has also been in turmoil since 2015 when Nkurunziza was allowed to rule for a third term leading to civil unrest that has significantly dented the already fragile economy which has witnessed international donors cutting financial support which accounted for 42% of the country’s budget due to the human rights violations caused by the Nkurunziza regime. This means the country desperately needs to improve its human rights image under the new administration to remove these sanctions to attract international investors and have policies in place to be a safe place for investments like neighbouring Rwanda which has pulled out the red-carpet to welcome investors and has even gone as far as creating a state agency to accelerate investment called the Rwanda Development Board. The new administration in Burundi will do well by replicating the Rwandan government on such initiatives to bring back investors through a creation of a ‘Burundi Development Board’.

It is very interesting to note that some observers see links between Rwanda’s development model and Rwandan President Paul Kagame as “the story of Rwanda’s economic emergence remains closely intertwined with the personal narrative of President Paul Kagame” according to African Business. Kagame’s rule has also brought stability which is what investors are looking for as opposed to Burundi, despite some of the Rwandan governments’ own accusations of human rights violations. This evidently shows how Kagame’s own ‘hands-on approach’ on the economic front has been extremely beneficial to the development of Rwanda and there are similarities between Paul Kagame and Burundi’s in-coming President Evariste Ndayishimiye as both have their origins in the military and both appear to be against identity politics and perhaps Ndayishimiye could be Burundi’s 'Kagame' in terms of improving the country’s dire economic situation, but not neglecting the democratic reforms as well for the country to truly reach ‘a turning point’ for the better.