MOSCOW, August 23 (RIA Novosti, political commentator Peter Lavelle).
After a lull of about a month, former Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov - widely known in Russia as "Misha 2%" for alleged corruption while in state service - has again lashed out at the Kremlin.
Kasyanov's scathing criticisms of Kremlin policies under President Vladimir Putin could become the platform to unite Russia's scattered opposition, but it is highly unlikely that Kasyanov could effectively lead that opposition.
Penning the preface to The Foreign Policy Centre, a London-based think tank, report "Blueprint for Russia," Kasyanov claims that over a period of time, meaning since he was dismissed from office in 2004, Russia has lost "almost all of the essential characteristics of a modern democratic state" - arguing that "government and parliament can no longer function without daily instructions and the judiciary is increasingly servile."
Kasyanov goes on to write that "the vast majority of recent political change should be reversed, including the restoration of regional and local elections, and the canceling of the latest amendments to the electoral laws," that "real judicial reform must be re-invigorated," and "at least one central TV channel should be - as a matter of policy - transferred into private hands to give Russian citizens an alternative view to what is considered necessary by the Kremlin." Also, "property rights are to be re-confirmed."
None of Kasyanov's criticisms of Kremlin policies is new, or his own invention. However, what is more than disingenuous is the fact that Kasyanov was prime minister when almost all the "negative tendencies" he cites were coming about.
Kasyanov's comments on state control of electronic media, particularly television, cast doubt on his integrity. Never once did he speak out when the Kremlin wrestled control of television from Russia's oligarchs. Kasyanov's comment that "the judiciary is increasingly servile" sounds like selective memory serving self-interests - the business groups he is associated with have been among the major beneficiaries of Russia's "servile" legal system.
The statement "property rights are to be re-confirmed" rings hollow coming from a former civil servant involved in a criminal investigation for illegally acquiring some choice state-owned Moscow real estate at a knocked-down price.
Nonetheless, there is some value in Kasyanov's critique. He understands the power and effectiveness of polished public relations. Kasyanov's short missive uses strong language criticizing the policies of Vladimir Putin, but it is not a declaration of war against the Kremlin. In fact, as the title of the paper claims, it is a "blueprint" suggesting alternative political initiatives. In what is hopefully a new trend, opinions at odds with the Kremlin may now be constructive and not the usual defiant chest-beating.
Kasyanov's words are a collection of liberal opposition positions directed to appeal to various liberal factions - human rights advocates, free marketers, and social democrats. Kasyanov may or may not be positioning himself as leader of Russia's liberal opposition during the upcoming 2007-2008 election cycle, but he is most definitely attempting to gather the liberal opposition under one tent. If Russia's liberals cannot or will not close ranks around a single policy platform, as Kasyanov appears to suggest, then Russia's liberal agenda could face political oblivion.
Kasyanov's harsh critique of the Kremlin could form the basis of a relevant opposition policy program. That program will no doubt be hard to sell to an electorate that continues to attribute Russia's current woes to the failure of liberal policies during the 1990s and to the individuals associated with those policies. For the sake of Russia's future, tainted politicians such as Kasyanov should confine themselves to the realm of ideas and not a return to active politics. Kasyanov the messenger is unredeemable; his message still may have a future.
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and may not necessarily represent the opinions of the editorial board.
