Putin’s silent coup: Russia reacts to prospect of lifelong rule

The move was classic Putin: turning a heavily anticipated announcement into a surprise, while buying time and leaving the future somewhat indefinite.

In Russia, the immediate discussion following the Russian president’s “agreeing” to scrap term limits has centred less on outrage and more on his intentions. Was he doing it to avoid becoming a lame duck, and leave at a date of his own choosing? Or, as seems even more reasonable, to extend his presidency well into his eighties, and past the three-decade rule of Joseph Stalin?

What is clear is that the announcement was both the simplest and most brazen way of opening up a route to stay on past 2024.

On one level, that brings risks. The last time Russia’s leader attempted to circumvent constitutional restrictions – swapping jobs with Dmitry Medvedev in 2011-12 – Russians came onto the streets in their hundreds of thousands to howl in protest.

But changed realities a decade on mean few expect a serious reaction from society.

First, the move comes sandwiched in the middle of several layers of crisis: coronavirus, an oil war and a currency devaluation. That is unlikely to have been accidental. Second, it follows a decade of increasingly blunt politics and anti-protest regulations which have outlawed all but the most manageable forms of dissent.

The immediate reaction on Tuesday evening was accordingly underwhelming, with several dozen protesters taking part in “one-man pickets” against the changes outside the Kremlin. A move to hold more significant demonstrations, which require permits, will likely be blocked by city authorities on account of coronavirus.

Even more fundamentally, sociologists report widespread indifference among the Russian population.

Speaking with The Independent, the veteran pollster Lev Gudkov said public opinion may be evenly split when it comes to the idea of Vladimir Putin staying on (45 per cent for, 46 per cent against). But the split does not translate into a desire to protest, or even to vote against constitutional changes when they are tested in a vote on 22 April.

“The educated and Moscow populations are largely and very negatively inclined to the idea,” Mr Gudkov says. “But only 10 per cent of Russians say they would vote against the changes. Most understand the proposals as no more than a recognition of the status quo.”

In time, history books may well write 10 March as a significant date in Russia’s slide from democracy. But so far, there is no sign the nation’s demoralised opposition intends to use it to trigger mass protests.

Journalist Tikhon Dzyadko, who was leading figure in the protest movement of 2011-12, said the major difference between then and now is “the absence of any illusion of change”. Mr Dzyadko, who now heads the liberal TV network Dozhd, said the return of Vladimir Putin in place of Dmitry Medvedev in 2011 was interpreted as a “symbolic shift”.

This year’s constitutional changes on the other hand represented “a paper formality … legitimising Putin’s absolute power and eternal rule”.

“Of course, it’s another protest irritant,” Mr Dzyadko said. “But it’s unclear when and how this may grow into anything significant.”

Liberal commentary so far has largely focussed on the impact Mr Putin’s manoeuvres will have on the constitution.

In a system of “telephoned law”, bribes and compliant judges, Russia’s fundamental law has at best had a limited practical application. But until recently Russia’s leader had consistently argued against changing the 1993 document – saying that it was not something politicians should fiddle with.

That has now changed, with the president introducing several “revisions” that in fact reverse key tenets of the document. They introduce the idea of God to replace the notion of a secular state; stamp a conservative ideology on the issue of marriage; and effectively introduce a back door on any issue deemed controversial or difficult.

Speaking at parliament on Tuesday, Mr Putin insisted he was staying within the letter of the law. He would only agree to annul presidential terms if the constitutional court agreed it was legal, he said. But given that Russia’s long-time leader will hold the power to fire judges at will, it was not immediately clear how he was offering them a choice.

Russia’s online community has been quick to respond to such moments with trademark wit and sarcasm.

“Putin comes to parliament and asks Putin if Putin would like to stay on for many more terms,” said the prominent blogger Alexander Gorbunov, writing under the moniker Stalingulag. “Putin replies by thanking Putin, and says he, Putin, is tired of being Putin but since you, Putin, are asking him, Putin, to stay, then he, Putin, will, of course, remain Putin.”

Other users said it was time the State Duma debated annulling mortgages and Mondays.

Maxim Trudolyubov, a senior fellow at the Kennan Institute and longtime Kremlin watcher, said such cynicism represented the reverse side of a “wider disconnect” with politics.

“I don’t see an upsurge in protest – just an upsurge in cynicism, jokes, memes and sarcasm,” he said.

“Yet this is precisely how Putin works and stays in power. He is a special kind of guy – introducing a special kind of nastiness while rendering you absolutely indifferent to what’s going on.”