One aspect of Tuesday's Democratic debate that few people noticed was the trouble both Clinton and Obama had naming Russia's incoming president, who will be confirmed in an "election" this Sunday. There are a number of reasons for this; Obama is seen as weak on all things foreign, and while Clinton does have some interesting ideas on Iraq and Afghanistan, Russia's presidential changeover hasn't attracted much attention from the American electorate.
Western media coverage on the Russian election has been almost unrelentingly negative. The Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and our own Globe and Mail have all painted affairs there pretty bleakly. Reporters quote mostly anonymous sources describing the way Putin has stomped on democracy--factory managers monitoring their employees' voting, under threat of firing, and school children being assigned to report how their parents voted. Western media have fallen all over themselves to depict this as backsliding toward the Cold War era when Russia was controlled by the all-powerful Communist Party.
And yeah, all this is pretty egregious. But also reeking of the Cold War is Western media's coverage of Russian affairs. The attention has been unrelentingly negative. English media such as The Guardian at least have an excuse—Russia and England are still bickering over fallout from the Litvinenko affair. Still, the negativity seems so strident it verges on propaganda. This rush to condemn Russia would benefit from some nuance. (The exception to this rule has been CBC Radio, which featured some great context on Wednesday morning from the Russian-born York University academic, Sergei Plekhanov.)
Obama and Clinton had trouble naming Russia's next president because he is seen as irrelevant -- because it's thought that Putin and his ex-KGB cronies will retain their iron grip on Russian affairs. The name of the next Russian president is Dmitri Medvedev, of course. Very few Western pundits have bothered to point out that Medvedev stands to represent real change for Russia.
Discounting the short reigns of Andropov and Chernenko in the '80s, every Russian leader since Lenin has been underestimated by those around him. After Stalin's death in 1953, Khrushchev was thought to be only a doorstop holding open the corridor to the leadership while more powerful competitors like Beria and Malenkov sorted out the succession. Likewise, Khrushchev's successor in 1964, Brezhnev, was dismissed as a buffoon whose opinion was so easily spun by his peers that he was nicknamed "the Ballerina." But Khruschev dispatched with his enemies and went on to rule for 11 years. Brezhnev bested that -- he ruled for 18.
Time and time again in Russia, the newcomer is thought to be a weakling, an inconsequential figurehead. Then, once he's officially assumed the leadership, the Kremlin's power brokers reorganize themselves into new factions. The smart ones align themselves with the new guy, who, with their help, gradually begins exerting his increasing influence. And eventually, the new guy, the figurehead, no longer looks so inconsequential.
The same thing will happen with Medvedev. This is good for the West, where, despite most media ignoring such signs, Medvedev has been indicating plans to open up the Russian economy. He's also signaled his intention to push Russia toward genuine democracy. This will happen gradually, but I'm betting it'll happen all the same. One thing is certain -- a year from now, American politicians will know Medvedev's name.
