Reformer Stolypin Held Up as Model for Putin
Published: July 18, 2012 (Issue # 1718)
FOR SPT
A portrait of Pyotr Stolypin, known for his many economic reforms, by Ilya Repin.
As Russia marks the 150th anniversary of the birth of Interior Minister and Third Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Russian Empire, Pyotr Stolypin, country experts are scrutinizing his economic legacy. They have suggested that President Vladimir Putin must emulate Stolypin if he wants to successfully conduct economic reforms.
At a special roundtable at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum, economists and politicians drew parallels between the two leaders: The political environment in Stolypin’s Russia and Putin’s Russia and the urge for reform.
As some experts pointed out, the country’s creative class is demanding the Kremlin’s attention, and the president’s ability to channel the protesters’ anger is being put to a difficult test.
“Putin needs to do the same for today’s misplaced creative class that Stolypin did for the peasantry: Stolypin’s resettlement program involved granting land to immigrants across the country,” said Sergei Karaganov, dean of the Moscow-based School of World Economics and Intellectual Affairs. “Because the creative class is feeling tangibly isolated in Russia — which is resulting in mass emigration on the one hand, and mass protests on the other — the task is to integrate them successfully and give them a sense of purpose.”
Putin and Medvedev have both attempted to increase the camp of loyal people outside of the working class. Putin has put in efforts with teachers, doctors and army officers, who have all seen a drastic increase in their salaries, while Medvedev is nurturing ambitious plans for the Skolkovo innovation center, which targets Russian scientists. These efforts are yet to pay off.
“Today’s Russian leaders have so far failed to unleash Russia’s intellectual potential in the way Stolypin unleashed economic potential in Russia by granting private landownership to the peasantry,” Karaganov said. “A possible solution would be to motivate the members of the country’s intellectual elite to relocate and work in far-flung places like Siberia and the Far East.”
It seems that Putin openly sees Stolypin, whom he has repeatedly praised for his stamina, wisdom, the ability to achieve transformation through gradual moves and patriotism, as a role model.
The ill-fated minister, who was assassinated in Kiev in 1911 at the peak of his career, possessed another quality instrumental to both his success as well as his downfall — loyalty to the throne. Many believe it is this quality that appeals to Putin, who has made loyalty a crucial requirement for entering state service in modern Russia. Stolypin was ready to carry out his reforms only in tsarist Russia. He was not prepared to consider a move away from the monarchy as he viewed it as a betrayal of the tsar, who had allowed him to manage the country. Stolypin’s inability to think beyond the existing economic model effectively made his departure inevitable.
Was Stolypin a successful politician? For Vadimir Mau, rector of the government’s Academy of National Economy and State Service, this question does not really have a coherent answer.
FOR SPT
An attempt was made on Stolypin’s life in 1906 at his dacha in St. Petersburg.
“Every new generation of Russians will perhaps offer its own view and its own judgment on the activities of people like Pyotr Stolypin or [post-Soviet Union collapse prime minister] Yegor Gaidar,” Mau said.
“According to the logic of a bureaucrat, Stolypin was indeed successful, because out of all of the prime ministers of the Russian Empire, he became the most durable in the job. He halted revolution and launched deep reforms. Yet at the same time he fell victim to an assassin and failed to complete the reforms he had started. Most importantly, he never achieved his most ambitious goal, which was to turn Russia into a great country within the space of 20 years without going to war.”
What Putin apparently also likes about Stolypin is that the minister, who carried out his reforms during a systematic crisis and dealt with issues from land management to terrorism, never indulged in wordy self-justifications and no task appeared to humble him.
Responsibility was key to Stolypin’s rule. The minister possessed both the courage to adopt unpopular measures — he introduced courts-martial as a means of combating revolutionary terror — and the sense of responsibility to be held accountable for them. The chilling nickname of “the hangman” was perhaps the mildest of the consequences. It is no coincidence that Putin made responsibility the topic of his speech at the St. Petersburg Economic Forum.
However, Pavel Pozhigailo, president of the Stolypin Foundation in Moscow, said that the key to the success of Stolypin’s reforms was that the minister always addressed a personality, rather than the nation as a whole.
“Stolypin’s reforms were smartly conceived so that they created opportunities for different people to find their place in society and opportunities that allowed them to make money and build careers,” he said.
“When he took office, 84 out of 88 Russian provinces were engulfed in riots. Stolypin helped these people to find a way out of their misery by opening up their creative potential and it worked.”
It is this very quality, however, that many believe Putin is lacking. He is often criticized for ignoring not only individuals, but whole segments of Russian society, namely the more radical wings of political opposition and non-governmental organizations that challenge the authorities.
“Perhaps the most important lesson that we can obtain from Stolypin’s life is that a reformer must not allow himself to become hostage to the interests of a certain political party, or to be identified with a particular group representing specific interests,” Mau said. “Rather, a reformer should stand above parties and factions, pursuing strategic goals with as much determination as they can muster.”