Governor without a statute of limitations: who needs to change the management system and why

Of course, it will do without sailors in Petrograd and tanks at the White House, but otherwise the changes in the system of regional government cannot be called. When the bill of Senator Andrey Klishas is approved, the heads of the regions will reach a new level of responsibility and opportunities.

Victoria Pavlova

The only question is - is this new level always better than the previous one? The governors will receive both a carrot and a carrot: they will have all restrictions on the number of terms of being in the status of the head of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation canceled (after the "zeroing" of 2012, the rule is in effect - no more than two terms), but the list of reasons for dismissal is expanding. The President will be able to remove the heads of regions not only due to “loss of confidence”, but also due to non-fulfillment of KPIs (key indicators). They were approved back in December 2020: these include objective indicators of achieving national goals and the results of sociological surveys of the population. But the dismissal of the governor due to non-fulfillment of the KPI is not an obligation, but the right of the president. With this approach, it is likely that not so much effective people as extremely loyal people will be able to stay at the helm for an infinitely long time. Novye Izvestia interviewed leading political scientists of the country to understand why these changes were needed and what they would bring.

Everything for Sobyanin and Kadyrov

The first and most obvious reason is the need to leave in place the heads of the regions - heavyweights, whose second term is coming to an end. Among them are Sergei Sobyanin, Andrei Vorobyov, Ramzan Kadyrov - notes political scientist Yekaterina Shulman:

- The draft law shows a tactical instrumental desire to avoid immediate problems in those regions where the second terms of hard-to-replace governors are coming to an end. Moscow and Chechnya are the first to come to mind. In addition, the same problem is in the Moscow region. And in fact, many governors who have now been re-elected for a second term want to be sure that this term will not be their last. For others who hoped to move to Moscow to a higher post as a result of their administrative successes, this may, on the contrary, be a sobering reminder that a regional business trip can drag on for as long as they want...

Political scientist and director of the Institute for Political Studies Sergey Markov also sees guarantees of preserving their places for the brightest heads of regions:

- The second term of a number of key governors is coming to an end - such heads of regions as Sobyanin, Minnikhanov, Kadyrov. You need to make decisions on them. It is clear that the departure of both Sobyanin and Minnikhanov, and especially Kadyrov, could mean the destabilization of these regions. Considering the enormous importance of Moscow, it is critically important, so to speak, "the vastness of Tatarstan" and the great passionarity of the Chechen population.

But this is only one side of the issue. The overall situation is much more multifaceted. Sergey Markov believes that the lifting of restrictions on the number of terms for governors is a response to the threat posed by the West, which will worsen before the presidential elections in 2024. All for the sake of preserving the integrity of Russia:

- Ahead is a very difficult period - 2024, when, apparently, the government expects a sharp increase in the aggressiveness of Russia's western opponents, who will in every possible way undermine the political situation, and may try to organize mass unrest in the Belarusian version with the transition to the Ukrainian version, which implies a coup d'etat, the establishment puppet regime, dismemberment and liquidation of Russia in the form in which it has existed for the past several centuries. This is a very big and serious challenge, the government is forced to maximize control over political systems in general.

Back in 2002, the Supreme Court ruled that the principle of the change of power is a derivative of the constitutional principles of a democratic rule-of-law state with a republican form of government, which is written in Art. 1 of the Constitution. But with the new bill, turnover is a big question. Everybody knows how they know how to clear the space from political competitors before the elections. So Sergey Markov admits the fact of limitation of rights. But all for the sake of the great goal of preserving Russia:

- The actions of the Russian authorities often contradict the spirit of the constitution, but are created within the framework of its letter. Yes, this is indeed a limitation of a number of legal elements that are usually inherent in democracies. Undoubtedly, we do not have such a strong separation of powers: the legislative and judicial powers in our country are largely subordinated to the executive power. I think that limiting the political rights of supporters of Navalny and others goes beyond normal law enforcement, the normal functioning of democratic foundations. There are also elements of censorship, I agree with that. But they, these restrictions, are a response to the hybrid war that is being waged against Russia.

They should take and cancel the election of governors

Director General of the Center for the Development of Regional Policy Ilya Grashchenkov also sees the lifting of time limits as a guarantee of security for the current government. But this is security not from an external threat, but from an internal one:

- Each election makes such a lame duck out of the government. If there is a feeling that Sobyanin's term will now end, he is no longer interested in anything, everything is not needed, then you can wet him, you can do something else. And here everything always turns out to be suspended. Now they will work against the governor, but he will still remain ... This allows not to rock the regional boat. Well, in general, the whole law, in my opinion, says that governors are cogs of the system, a corporate model. Therefore, even the names "governor", "president" are an atavism. Head of the region, subject. I would even say "object". In general, such a caretaker. So what, as much as I want, I appoint the caretaker. It seems to me that the cancellation of the gubernatorial elections will be a logical continuation.

Indeed, why not abolish the elections that have survived in 75 regions at all? The essence of this does not change much. In the Khabarovsk Territory, the protest governor Furgal was sent to jail, and in the Vladimir region, residents themselves are not happy that they chose an alternative Sipyagin - no cardinal changes for the better in the region have happened.

But Yekaterina Shulman explains why it is impossible to just take and cancel the elections:

- Why not cancel the elections forever? Why not dissolve the parliament? And why not turn off the Internet at all, and also ban electricity in Russia? These are all good, frequently asked questions. A physicist friend of mine calls it a question like "Here you are a physicist, prove why you can't shoot down the moon with a bottle?" For a complete answer, you need not just a lecture, but a training course. In the most general form: because we have a different regime type, and it is called electoral or competitive autocracy. Regimes of this type can neither get rid of elections, nor win them honestly. This is their curse. Regular elections are a source of confirmation of legitimacy, for no power rules by force, it rules by consent. Consent is achieved in a variety of ways. The main two are: electoral and economic, that is, a demonstration of popular support and economic success. The worse with the economic way of confirming legitimacy, the less (and not more, as many think) opportunities to get rid of the electoral way.

Whatever the regime is, the authoritarian essence will not change

However, Sergey Markov believes that the people will not be against such an electoral infringement of rights, no one will go to demonstrations for the mandatory change of power and will not show any discontent. And not at all because of humility and obedience, but because the people themselves want it:

- Such actions of the authorities are based on the main democratic principle - the will of the people. Because it is the will of the people that is the key democratic principle. And the will of the people is this: presidents should change regularly, and supreme commanders in war should not change. Since Russia is in a state of war, it is forced to repel the aggression of a huge coalition, very aggressive, then the leadership should not be replaced either. The new law is a continuation of the functioning of the regime, I would call it "Caesarism", which is well known in the form of the rule of such great statesmen as Charles de Gaulle, as Franklin Delano Roosevelt...

"Caesarism" - sounds beautiful and proud. But Ilya Grashchenkov does not see anything outstanding in this. Rather, even the other way around:

- If you remember Gaius Julius Caesar himself, who was killed in parliament, then yes, there are some common features. What is Caesar? This is the man who bridled the Senate. All institutions exist, but they are so subordinate to Caesar that they actually execute his will, that is, they are puppet ones. In the modern world, this is called a “hybrid authoritarian regime”.

And Yekaterina Shulman does not agree with the fact that we have "Caesarism". From her point of view, everything is much more banal here:

- There are a lot of political regimes like ours on planet Earth. We are very mediocre in this regard. There is nothing original about personalist autocracies, where power and property are concentrated in the environment of an irreplaceable leader. There are a lot of them. Turkey has such a political order, with some variations. He was in Mexico, albeit with more reliance on the party than on the leader. He was and is in a large number of countries in Southeast Asia, in Indonesia, in the Philippines, in North and Central Africa, in the Arab East. Many such countries are gradually democratizing, others are stuck in their regimes for decades, but the general limit of their validity is the physical existence and / or personal popularity of the leader.

The only thing experts agree on is that the current regime is by no means a monarchy. It is still far from her. Maybe this will reassure someone and give hope. But whatever the name of the regime is, one thing awaits us - absolute stability until 2024. And there... either the continuation of stability, or the struggle for it according to the Belarusian-Ukrainian format.