To each his own

The decision of the Milli Majlis (parliament) of Azerbaijan that the president can be elected an unlimited number of times, of course, did not become a sensation. Moreover, this decision is routine, there is zero new information in it. Azerbaijan is not just a de facto monarchy. It is much more interesting that Azerbaijan, the first and so far the last, managed to successfully solve the main task of post-Soviet political philosophy. Namely: to establish a hereditary monarchy.

This is a problem that the leaders of many post-Soviet republics are struggling with, primarily, of course, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan.

In general, there is reason to compare the political structure of the “15 free republics” that were formed in the place of the USSR when Great Rus' released them (14).

Well, each republic is happy in its own way.

The Baltic countries - Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia - are known to have achieved a goal that others are only licking their lips at. All of them are members of NATO and the EU.

Normal European parliamentary republics (though with “abnormal parades of former SS”). They haven't had any PROBLEMS of changing top management since 1990. Parliaments calmly meet and elect presidents, no one can sit in office for more than two terms in a row, leaving the presidency is perceived not as a national/corporate/personal DISASTER that must be avoided at all costs, but as a routine procedure. Everything is like in Europe.

Estonia. The presidents were A. Rüütel (former secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Estonia), L. Meri (during the USSR - a former exile, then a writer and director), now T. Ilves, an Estonian born in Sweden, living in the USA, in Estonia since 1991 year.

Latvia. The head of state (first chairman of parliament, since 1993 - president) were: A. Gorbunov (former secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Latvia), G. Ulmanis (spent his childhood in exile, under Soviet power - director of a consumer services plant in Riga), V. Vike -Freiberga (former professor of psychology at the University of Montreal, member of the Royal Society (Academy of Sciences) of Canada, came to Latvia in 1997), and now V. Zatlers, a former orthopedic doctor.

Lithuania. The leaders of the state (chairman of the Seimas, then president) were: V. Landsbergis (professor at the conservatory, specialist in the work of Čiurlionis), A. Brazauskas (former first secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Lithuania), R. Paksas (former chairman of the Aeroclub, removed for corruption and violation of laws ) and two terms (1998-2003 and from 2004) V. Adamkus (fled from Lithuania to Germany in 1944, lived in the USA in 1949-1992, US citizen, government official, member of the US Republican Party ).

The professions and biographies of these people speak – in my opinion, quite clearly – about what the political elite of these countries is like, how it differs from the political elite of other ex-USSR republics.

Let's follow the map below.

Belarus. Presidential republic, i.e. The president is elected by popular vote. Since 1991, it has had two leaders - the chairman of the Supreme Council, Doctor of Science, physicist V. Shushkevich, and since 1994 the president (with an unlimited number of terms) A. Lukashenko (former director of the state farm). The change of leadership from Shushkevich to Lukashenko took place calmly, without violence. Further elections of President for Life Lukashenko and the Supreme Council are each time accompanied by accusations of incorrect vote counting, suppression of the opposition, etc. - however, there is much more noise in Europe than in Belarus. There have been a number of high-profile political murders and kidnappings in the country.

Ukraine. Presidential republic.

The first president is L. Kravchuk, former first secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine. The second is L. Kuchma, former director of the largest missile plant in the USSR, Yuzhmash, in Dnepropetrovsk. The third is V. Yushchenko, during the USSR he worked as the head of the department of Agroprombank. His wife is Ukrainian, US citizen. There is no talk of any lifelong presidency. As you know, presidential elections are accompanied by loud scandals - but without blood (except for the ongoing investigations into the “Gongadze murder” and a series of strange suicides of senior officials). The entire political life is completely described by the famous painting “The Cossacks” by I. Repin, only they write letters not to the “Turkish Sultan”, but exclusively to each other - and constantly, non-stop.

Moldova. Parliamentary republic. The first president is M. Snegur (former secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Moldova). The second president is P. Lucinsky (former first secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Moldova). The third is V. Voronin, the leader of the communists (the last Soviet position was the Minister of Internal Affairs of Moldova). In 1992-1993 there were military clashes with separatists in Transnistria. Parliamentary elections take place with constant accusations of fraud, but without violence.

Armenia. Presidential republic.

The first president is L. Ter-Petrosyan, a former researcher.

The second president is L. Kocharyan, in Soviet times he was a party organizer at a silk factory.

The third president is S. Sargsyan, in Soviet times - head of the department of the city party committee.

All three presidents are activists of the “Karabakh movement”.

There is no talk of any “lifelong presidency”. Presidents each time came to power as a result of public elections. The presidential elections are taking place in a regime of street clashes; at least 10 people were killed during the last elections.

Georgia. Presidential republic.

The first president is a researcher, “repentant dissident” and nationalist Z. Gamsakhurdia. He was forcibly overthrown from his post, then died (died? Committed suicide?) under unclear circumstances - they are still unclear.

The second president is E. Shevardnadze, former first secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Georgia, former member of the PB Central Committee of the CPSU, former Minister of Foreign Affairs of the USSR. Came to power as a result of an armed coup, then elected president, overthrown during the bloodless “Rose Revolution”.

The third president, M. Saakashvili, came to power during the “Rose Revolution”, then elected, then re-elected. He was a student in the USSR (born 1967), then lived and worked in the USA and Europe. The wife is a Dutch citizen.

Every time elections are accompanied by loud accusations of dishonest vote counting. The constant political background is demands for the resignation of the president (Shevardnadze, for the last 2 years - Saakashvili). Eternal accusations of political murders (Zhvania), imitation of attempts by the president on his own life (addressed to Shevardnadze).

Azerbaijan. Presidential republic.

The first president is A. Mutalibov, former first secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Azerbaijan. Overthrown by force.

The second president is A. Elchibey, a repentant dissident, nationalist, and researcher. Came to power through rebellion, then elected, then overthrown by force.

The third president is G. Aliyev (since 1993). Former first secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Azerbaijan, former member of the PB Central Committee of the CPSU, twice Hero of Socialist Labor, professional security officer. Came to power by force, then elected, re-elected. Before his death, he managed to make his son, I. Aliyev, his successor. The fourth president, Aliyev-2, graduated from MGIMO during the Soviet era, and began doing business during the years of “perestroika.”

Elections in Azerbaijan are taking place in the mode of street clashes, but bloodless.

Now we move to Central Asia.

All countries there are presidential republics.

Turkmenistan. First President, President for Life, Turkmenbashi, S. Niyazov, former first secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Turkmenistan. He died in 2006, leaving no successors. G. Berdimuhamedov became the heir. A former dentist, he is considered the illegitimate son of Turkmenbashi, but this version has not been officially confirmed. Turkmenistan is a country a little more open than the DPRK; elections there are held calmly, “in an atmosphere of unheard-of enthusiasm,” but from time to time the insidious conspiracies of traitors are exposed.

Tajikistan. The first president (1990-1991) is K. Makhkamov, former first secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Tajikistan. Resigned after the events of August 1991. In 1991-1992, the president was R. Nabiev (formerly also the first secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Tajikistan). Overthrown during the 1992 civil war, which killed thousands of people. Since 1992, President E. Rakhmonov (former director of the state farm).

Kyrgyzstan. The first president (1990-2005) - Doctor of Physics and Mathematics. Sciences from Leningrad, A. Akaev. After the 2005 revolution (the number of deaths is estimated differently), K. Bakiev, who was the director of the plant in Soviet times, became president.

Uzbekistan. President for life since 1990 - I. Karimov, first secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Uzbekistan (since 1989). As is known, there were several street protests against the president; those who spoke were shot; the total number of victims is unknown. Now the 71-year-old Karimov’s successor is considered to be the president’s eldest daughter, Gulnara, who studied in Moscow, Harvard, etc.

Kazakhstan. President for life since 1990 N. Nazarbayev, first secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Kazakhstan since 1989. There have been no public protests or armed suppressions over these years. It is unclear who will succeed 69-year-old Nazarbayev. Previously, it was believed that this was most likely the eldest daughter, Dariga. But recently, in connection with the scandals surrounding her ex-husband, other names have been mentioned - the president has three daughters, and his eldest grandson is already more than 20 years old...

And finally, the Russian Federation. The first president (since 1991) is a former candidate for the PB of the CPSU Central Committee, first secretary of the Moscow City Committee of the CPSU B. Yeltsin. In 1991 he was elected president. It is believed that in the 1996 elections he lost to the leader of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation G. Zyuganov. However, this version was never proven; Zyuganov wisely did not make too much noise. On December 31, 1999, Yeltsin transferred power to his successor, former KGB lieutenant colonel V. Putin. Putin did not run for a third term and in 2008 declared D. Medvedev his “semi-successor”, establishing a duumvirate.

Even this elementary enumeration of well-known facts, it seems to me, is instructive.

1990-1991. In the Baltic republics, national democrats come to power, led by the leaders of local communist parties, who in the course of subsequent elections gave power to nationalists from among the emigrants. Everything is going smoothly in a European way (except for Moscow’s senseless attempt at the beginning of 1991 to “restore Soviet power” by force - the first failed rehearsal of the State Emergency Committee). By the way, it is interesting that with a high (for the former USSR republics) level of GDP per capita, this same population is constantly declining in all three republics. Especially in the most economically prosperous Estonia. Over 20 years (since 1989) it has decreased by 13% (for comparison: in Russia there is a decrease of 5%).

In the same years, dissident nationalists came to power in Transcaucasia. A period of instability, riots and other “shaking of the ground” begins in Georgia and Azerbaijan. In Azerbaijan it ends with the arrival of Aliyev (1993), and in Georgia the fading instability continues to this day.

There were slight vibrations in the soil at the same time in Moldova under the communist-nationalist Snegur. They also ended in 1992-1993, when the “status quo” with Transnistria was established.

There were no armed clashes in Belarus and Ukraine. Quiet Belarus peacefully came to the dictatorship of Lukashenko (although this dictatorship in the 1990s used, as they say, “death squads”). And in Ukraine, just as “feudal democracy” began, it continues. Of course, this Zaporozhye freemen has nothing to do with the “collapse of Ukraine”, and if it has anything to do with “European democracy”, it is very peculiar. At the same time, the population of Belarus decreased by 6% over 20 years, in Ukraine over the same years - by 12%, largely due to emigration, labor migration, etc.

There has never been any talk of any “European democracy” in Central Asia. But in Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, from the very beginning, power was firmly held by the former first secretaries of the Central Committee of local communist parties, and in Tajikistan there was a “micro-stroke” - a small civil war in 1992, after which Rakhmonov’s power was established. In Kyrgyzstan, Akaev turned out to be too weak to establish a dictatorship, and the country is not at all “conducive to democracy.”

Russia quite naturally fits into this general context.

The same fluctuations as everyone else, 1991-1993, then a semi-authoritarian regime, which ossifies over time, becomes more and more authoritarian - but still does not risk openly switching to the Azerbaijani-Central Asian-Belarusian models. In front of the White House... uncomfortable.

Well, “everything that exists is rational.” Apart from the small “national democracies” of the Baltic states (with great difficulty they can pass for “European” democracies), the rest of the countries of the former USSR are still wavering between monarchy and feudal freemen... By the way, if we look inside Russia, we will see the same thing most.

From the “pure” (or not so pure!) democratic leaders elected in 1990-1991, all these priest-sobchak, etc., there is a smooth transition to ordinary “business executive” officials. Moreover, if the governors elected in the 1990s are former party economic activists, then in the 2000s there are more and more “Russian businessmen”. However, “democratic chips” are not sewn into Brioni suits. If we take Tatarstan, Bashkortostan, Kalmykia, etc., then we see a very close resemblance to the “Central Asian-Azerbaijani democracies.”

This is the objective picture.

What about the people?

Well, basically, he’s probably happy, since he doesn’t show political dissatisfaction! Of course, there is fear and coercion here, but it is obvious that it does not play a decisive role - after all, when there were cases of MASS discontent, the presidents left (Kyrgyzstan, Georgia) - however, then no “real democracy” appeared either, but speech that’s not what it’s about... The point is that if there was such mass discontent, then power would change in other republics - in Russia, Belarus, Azerbaijan, Central Asia. But there was no dissatisfaction.

But does “absence of discontent” really mean “presence of contentment”?

Without engaging in casuistry, one thing can be said. The absence of discontent means a very certain degree of correspondence between the political culture of former Soviet citizens and the forms of political culture of the states in which they live.