Kremlin’s Fight with Moscow City Hall: Why It Tells Us Nothing

Last week Russian President Dmitri Medvedev fired Moscow Mayor Yuri Luzhkov, an ally of Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, after Luzhkov resisted pressure to resign. Journalists in the United States and opposition leaders in Russia immediately sought to place the move in a larger narrative: that Medvedev is willing to fight to retain the presidency in 2012, when many expect that Putin, the former president, will try to return to his old job.Implicit in this narrative is the hope that Medvedev, who appears to be the anti-Putin in almost every sense, would be more sympathetic to U.S. interests, the rule of law, and basic democratic norms. But using the firing as evidence of such a split is premature at best and misleading at worst.Admittedly, the firing was a momentous – if predictable – conclusion to an unusually public feud that erupted earlier this summer between the mayor and the president. After suffering the mayor’s public criticism and defiance, Medvedev ultimately said he had lost confidence in Luzhkov, who had run Moscow since 1992 and was an important political figure in the ruling United Russia party. There are compelling reasons, however, that show why this development should not be mistaken as evidence that Medvedev will fight to keep the presidency in two years or that, if he were to win, he would break with Putin’s authoritarian methods.First, the removal of Luzhkov followed a well-understood script, and therefore runs contrary to the idea that this is an unexpected challenge to Putin. Luzhkov criticized Medvedev for opposing a highway project, and intimated that Putin would have been more supportive. In response, the Kremlin resorted to its usual tactics for getting rid of insolent politicians: state-controlled television began a smear campaign that alleged Luzhkov was corrupt.Thinly veiled allegations of steering contracts served as a verdict and a warning: your time as mayor is through, and if you do not go away, you may be investigated, found guilty of corruption, and sent to jail. The pressure increased over the last few weeks until the Kremlin asked the mayor to resign. Considering Luzhkov’s ego and his long history in politics, it is not surprising that he refused to step down and, instead, tried to call Medvedev’s bluff.While it may shock some that Luzhkov decided to criticize Medvedev so directly and publicly, there can be no surprise in how the standoff ended. The firing, in reality, was a foregone conclusion. If Medvedev had been looking for a way to challenge Putin and eliminate one of Putin’s allies, he could have circumvented the process and fired Luzhkov at the first provocation instead of resorting to time-honored tactics (that were, in fact, perfected by Putin) for dealing with the insubordinate.Second, there is no reason to assume that Putin did not know about Luzhkov’s firing and approve of it beforehand. Indeed, considering that Putin wants to return to the presidency, the firing benefits Putin in several ways. It removes from political life the powerful and popular mayor of Russia’s largest city; a mayor who had once harbored presidential ambitions of his own and has proven he is willing to challenge the Kremlin. It reminds the ruling elite that everyone’s job security is directly related to support of the president and the party, of which Putin is seen as the unofficial head. And it reinforces the precedent of hiring and firing of regional governors based on their unswerving support for the president and the party, a legal change that Putin pushed through in 2004.While it is possible that Medvedev does intend a break with or a challenge to Putin, Luzhkov’s dismissal should not be counted as evidence to support such a claim. What about the idea that Medvedev would somehow be more sympathetic to liberal democratic values and the rule of law? Instead of being insufficient evidence for such a claim, the firing is actually evidence to the contrary.That Medvedev is willing to fire Luzhkov over name-calling and a minor policy disagreement is not a sign of a latent desire for western style-democracy, but rather evidence that Medvedev is willing to use his power to demand complete fealty from all members of the government and United Russia. Medvedev’s willingness to embrace Putin’s tactics – specifically the use of state-media to push aside disloyal politicians and the centralization of control in the Kremlin – should not be misinterpreted.The Luzhkov firing was a dramatic episode in Russian politics; naturally, many observers would like for it to fit into the large question of whether Medvedev will resist an attempt by Putin to return to the presidency. But those who are interested in Russian politics would be best served by admitting that the Luzhkov firing does not shed much light on the question of what will happen in the Russian presidential election of 2012. The photo in this article is being used under licensing by Creative Commons. The original source can be found here.