Expediency always wins over ideology: Putin’s attitudes toward the Russian Communist Party

Vladimir Putin provides us with an excellent example of a politician whose attitude toward ideology is instrumental to his political longevity. He has shown that in the fight between ideology and political expedience, to maintain authority and control within the country, or to achieve geopolitical ambitions in the international arena, ideology will almost always lose the battle. It is well known that the major threat to political power stems often not from the adversary who holds diametrically opposite views, but from the rivals who share almost the same ideological position. The closer the ideological position is of a rival, the more intense the competition. For just this reason Putin is implacable toward Communists who share many of his views. He tries as much as possible to reduce the political role of the Communist party - the most serious opposition to the regime - by using the same underhanded tactics which are used against the liberals.     

Diversification of rural incomes and non-farm rural employment: Survey evidence from Russia

The results of a rural survey in two Russian regions demonstrate that agriculture is no longer the main source of income for rural families. Rural families are diversifiers, earning non-agricultural income through both non-agricultural wage employment and non-farm self-employment. The rural population is risk-averse, preferring the relative security of wage employment to individual entrepreneurship. Although all respondents would like to earn more, they are reluctant to consider the option of changing their place of work and are afraid of losing their current job. It may be difficult for new profit-oriented employers to offer equitable solutions to all segments of the rural population without properly designed government support programmes, which furthermore should be targeted to the labour force of the future, i.e., the Russian youth.     

Putin's first year in office: the new regime's uniqueness in Russian history

The author analyzes Putin's first year in office by comparing it to the last fifteen regimes in Russian history. Putin shares many common features with the leaders of the past. He belongs to the group of leaders who were not so concerned about the progress of society as in removing the threat to the existing political order. He is also among those who moved toward authoritarianism in their first year. As all new regimes in the 20th centuries, Putin used democratic ideology for the legitimization of his rule, though he almost immediately began to curtail the fledgling democracy in Russia. While Putin's regime was similar to the previous regimes in some respects, it was very different in others. First of all, no ruler rose to power from such a politically obscure position. Putin came to power with far less experience than his fourteen predecessors. The circumstances under which Putin came to power have no precedent in recent history. Another uniqueness of Putin's first year in office was the extent to which various elements of the old regime were preserved. The author dwells on Putin's first year with special attention. As a predictor of the future, it suggests that Russian society under Putin will remain essentially the same as it was shaped by 1995.     

Editor's Introduction

This issue examines the Maidan protests that culminated in the overthrow of the Yanukovych government, with a particular focus on who participated in the protests, their value systems, and their political and ideological goals. The articles show that protestors were initially focused primarily on non-political goals related to bringing Ukraine closer to an idealized vision of Europe. Only after the early protests were met with government-organized violence did the protestors turn their focus to removing Viktor Yanukovych from power.     

The Adaptation of Migrants in Russia

This issue of Russian Politics and Law addresses the topic of migration from the point of view of the host country, examining the tensions inherent in accepting large numbers of migrants, and the government policies aimed at immigrant integration at both the national and local levels. The articles in this issue demonstrate that government efforts to push immigrants to integrate into their host communities by learning the Russian language, abandoning traditional customs, and encouraging their children to assimilate have had limited success.