- The Washington Times - Tuesday, July 10, 2007

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

George W. Bush’s meeting last week with Russian President Vladimir Putin and his forthcoming meeting with Chinese leader Hu Jintao are reminders that Mr. Bush and his successors will continue to face the challenge of dealing with these two unfriendly and potentially dangerous powers. Much of the world has moved toward democracy and freedom, but China hasn’t much and Russia seems headed in the opposite direction.

Of the two, China is probably easier to deal with. It appears to have a collective leadership, which gives a certain continuity to its policy.

The bad news is that the regime continues to suppress freedoms of speech and religion. Those within it who dissent seem to be jettisoned, as Zhou Ziyang was when he argued against the violent suppression of the Tiananmen Square protesters in 1989.

The good news is that the collective leadership seems to be producing rational decisions responsive to events. The Chinese leaders have evidently moved the rogue North Korean regime toward curbing its nuclear weapons programs. They seem to recognize that Kim Jong-il is a danger to China as well as to us.

Russia is different. Mr. Putin seems to persist in his irrational opposition to our decision to site missile defense installations in Poland and the Czech Republic. As Mr. Bush has pointed out, it’s obvious that these are no threat to Russia — they’re clearly designed to protect Europe against an Iranian missile attack. Mr. Putin’s apparent desire to assert some kind of hegemony over what were once the Soviet Union’s Eastern European satellites seems delusional.

But one man’s delusions can move national policy in a country where the former KGB officer seems to have consolidated power in his own person. He appears in complete control of the government, which in turn controls the oil industry and the news media. And while he has reiterated that he will respect the law, which prevents him from running for re-election in 2008, he seems to be single-handedly picking his successor.

The Russian political system has come to resemble the political system of Mexico from 1929 to 2000, which was something of an absolute monarchy, with term limits. The candidate of the ruling PRI was always elected president, the legislature was a rubber stamp, and the incumbent president chose his successor. How this worked in practice is the subject of “Perpetuating Power: How Mexican Presidents Were Chosen,” a fascinating book by former Mexican Foreign Minister Jorge Castaneda. He interviewed four Mexican presidents, who discussed frankly how they had been selected by their predecessors and how they, in turn, chose their successors. Only someone as well connected as Mr. Castaneda, who grew up as part of the PRI elite (his father was also foreign minister) could have elicited the almost Shakespearean accounts.

The continuing theme was that the outgoing president sought to exert power in the reign of his handpicked successor — and failed. The pattern was set early on. The originator of the PRI system, Plutarco Calles, tried to run things after his choice as successor, Lazaro Cardenas, took office. Mr. Cardenas called Mr. Calles into his office and told him that he had to stop and he could no longer live in Mexico. Mr. Calles moved to California, although he was eventually allowed to return to Mexico.

My guess is that Mr. Putin, as he decides whom to choose as the new president, hopes to continue to exert power himself and that he will probably find himself shut out, as Mr. Calles was. Or as was Boris Yeltsin, who single-handedly chose Mr. Putin to succeed himself in 1999.

The problem for the United States is that this kind of regime will tend to behave less predictably than the collective regime of China. In Putinist Russia, as in PRI Mexico, each new leader may lurch from policy to policy. Many such changes will not be predictable, because politicians contending to be selected by one man for a position of paramount power will not show him anything they think he doesn’t want to see. As Mr. Castaneda’s book shows, one-man rule tends to produce a sycophantic court and new leaders who do things no one expected.

Thus, Mr. Putin has veered off Yeltsin’s course, suppressing the free press, menacing independent leaders in former Soviet republics and opposing efforts to keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons. We can only hope the next Russian president veers off Mr. Putin’s course, as well.

Michael Barone is a nationally syndicated columnist.

Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.

 

Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide