Two years ago this week, Chechen militants besieged a theater in Moscow, taking more than seven hundred civilians hostage. Attacks by Chechen rebels are nothing new in Russia, but after the siege of Middle School No. 1 in Beslan early this fall led to the deaths of nearly 350 hostages, the country began a new chapter in its dealings with terrorism. In the days afterward, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced new political measures that will allow him to appoint all regional governors and hold all elections for the Duma—the lower house of the Russian parliament—on national party tickets.
Members of Putin's party, United Russia, already occupy two-thirds of the Duma's 450 seats, and although Putin is not encountering opposition from within his party, leaders outside the party have questioned his motives, suggesting that he is seeking to usurp a dangerous amount of power. Putin himself, however, asserts that he is simply trying to overcome the problem of Russia's ineffective counterterrorism policies, and to reassert the state's power in a land that has known democracy for only thirteen years.
A selection of recent Atlantic articles on Putin and contemporary Russia offer insight into the uneasy relationship between the war on terrorism and the experiment of Russian democracy.
In "Russia is Finished" (May 2001) Jeffrey Tayler, an Atlantic correspondent who has lived in Moscow since 1993, painted a dismal picture of the social and political atmosphere in Moscow just a little over a year after Putin's ascension from Prime Minister to President. In a section of his article entitled "Putin the Terrible," Tayler bluntly laid out the history of Putin's role to date.
At the time Yeltsin left office, Tayler explained, Russia was crippled by widespread corruption in the business and political realms, and was still reeling from the 1998 economic meltdown. To keep the situation under control, Yeltsin had thought it best to appoint a strongman as his successor. As a former head of the Federal Security Service (FSB), and a former KGB agent—who therefore, in Tayler's words, had a history of helping to keep "the Soviet regime in power through mass murder, expropriation, exile, torture, surveillance, violation of individual liberties, blackmail, and lies"—Putin seemed ideal for the job.
Putin recognized that democracy in Russia was still a fragile and uncertain thing. In a recent public address, he had observed that the Russians had thus far created only "the carcass of a civil society." But Putin was also a firm believer in retaining a strong government grip on the country: he had recently asserted in a different address that Russians were "not ready to abandon traditional dependence on the state and become self-reliant individuals." Instead, he suggested, they wanted "a restoration of a guiding and regulatory role of the state." He wasted little time in fulfilling this alleged desire on the part of his people:
He has set about strengthening the vertikal' vlasti, the "vertical line of power"—an oblique way of saying his own authority. Though the President's power was already czarlike, owing to Yeltsin's constitution, it was not enough for Putin. He has redrawn Russia's administrative boundaries along the lines of those of imperial Russia, and in five out of the seven "new" federal regions he has put former military or intelligence officers in charge. He has launched a campaign to oust governors on corruption charges—governors opposed to the Kremlin, that is.
In addition to placing his party faithful in high offices, by mid-2001 Putin had also consolidated all but one television station under government control, had introduced a "slightly modified" version of Joseph Stalin's national anthem, had embraced the paramilitary tactics of the tax police, and, in dealing with terrorism, had "prosecuted the war in Chechnya to the point of obliterating that republic."
Just four months after Tayler's article appeared, terrorists struck dramatically inside the United States. As the world was acclimating itself to post-9/11 realities, Putin was one of the first world leaders to express solidarity with America in its counterterrorism efforts. In "Putin's Policy of Realpolitik" (December 2001), Tayler offered his analysis of the situation. At first, he explained, the Russian populace had been almost unanimously in favor of their President's support for America. But over the course of just a few weeks, that support had mostly dissipated. The Russians Tayler interviewed gave a variety of reasons for this—ranging from dissatisfaction with America's foreign policy to international conspiracy theories. Some interviewees cited a fear that if Russia were to enter into a major anti-terrorism campaign, the country might become a target of further attacks, especially in light of the fact that the Russian population includes twenty-million Muslims.