Translated material
Governor's leave of absence
The story of the supposedly voluntary resignation of one of the most effective (as was considered) Russian governors, Mikhail Prusak, completely confuses the situation with the criteria by which regional heads are appointed and dismissed in today's Russia.
For his great contribution to the socio-economic development of the Novgorod region in 2006, following the results of a competition among the regions of the North-Western Federal District, Mikhail Prusak was just awarded the honorary title “Governor of the Year 2006” in March. The organizers of the competition for this title were seemingly reputable organizations - the St. Petersburg Scientific Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences, the Institute of Regional Economics of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the St. Petersburg Academy of Management and Economics. But already at the beginning of August, the “governor of the year,” who has ruled the region for 16 years and has been easily (and, apparently, deservedly) re-elected to this post by the population more than once, writes a statement “of his own free will.” This is happening in the wake of accusations of rampant crime in the region, after a criminal case against the mayor of Novgorod, as well as the dismissal of two vice-governors. One of whom was also quickly found an “article”, having lifted from the archives an already closed case from four years ago.
What has changed so radically in less than a year in the quiet, mineral-poor Novgorod region, which does not seem to be at the epicenter of the commercial or political struggle of pro-Kremlin groups? I think nothing. And Mikhail Prusak is not the first “governor of the year” to be dismissed from his post without reasons understandable to the population. Also, at one time, the laureate of the “National Olympus” award (where the federal government is listed among the founders) in the “Governor of the Year” category, Boris Govorin, who formally (at least in terms of socio-economic indicators) relatively successfully governed the Irkutsk region, was dismissed. Again, it’s strange: Mikhail Prusak, who was fired due to accusations of “rampant crime” in the region, was offered a job in the Russian presidential administration, as Putin’s plenipotentiary representative in the Northwestern Federal District Ilya Klebanov announced yesterday.
What are the new rules for the appointment and dismissal of regional authorities? Yes, we have already learned that a governor can be removed by quickly initiating a criminal case against him or his entourage. But even if a case has been opened, this, it turns out, is not a criterion either. For example, criminal cases were opened against the Yaroslavl governor Lisitsyn, Samara Titov, Saratov Ayatskov - and although in the end all the cases were closed, the first two retained their positions, and Ayatskov was fired. But no one doubts that a criminal case can be opened against every Russian governor at any time. And that relations with the law, in principle, are not an important circumstance when deciding on the appointment or removal of the head of a region, like any other Russian government official (after the cancellation of elections, governors automatically became officials).
The popularity or unpopularity of a leader in the region is not such a criterion. In the absence of popular elections, it is impossible to measure the popularity of the head of the region: even the elections of regional parliaments, which seem to indirectly provide such an opportunity, are not indicative. If only because, in addition to the governor, United Russia at the present time may include local political forces hostile to it. And the population does not always associate the head of a region with a specific party.
The President recently signed a decree according to which the activities of regional heads will be assessed according to 43 criteria. The point is not that these 43 are still inferior in importance to one and only one, but the main thing: the will of the voters, which quite objectively changed or retained the current governors, despite the well-known corrupt charms of provincial election campaigns. The fact is that now nothing depends on the assessment of regional authorities by ordinary people. If the governor manages to come to an agreement with the Kremlin, he will stay. If he fails, goodbye.
Needless to say, the main consequence of this attitude towards regional authorities was their devaluation in the eyes of the population. The president, at least purely theoretically, can be replaced by people through elections, and the governor in the territory entrusted to him is forced to “endure” as long as his superiors deign. In exactly the same way, if people like the governor, the authorities can still fire him at any moment - for their own reasons from the area of shadow politics, unknown to the population.
In such conditions, governors only think about how to please the presidential envoy, United Russia, and officials of the presidential administration, and how not to quarrel with the main state-forming companies. And they don’t even care about the population. Because it is not the population that determines the governor’s fate today.