But what can happen when institutions that can present barriers to bad governance are weak and insufficiently resilient, while resistance to populist politicians is insufficient? The recent experience of Hungary might be a prime example of such a path toward political decay. Although this country underwent the collapse of Communism and went through the process of democratization and market reforms relatively peacefully, it faced major challenges in the aftermath of the 2008–2009 global economic crisis.20 Soon after that, the post-Communist political elite was heavily discredited and the economic strategy of global integration via implementation of neoliberal policies21 lost its appeal in the eyes of major actors and society at large. Against this background, Viktor Orban and his centre-right party Fidesz gained popular support because of their fierce criticism of the previous developments in Hungarian politics and won a majority in the parliament in 2010. Since that time, the Hungarian political landscape has changed dramatically. Orban conducted judicial counterreforms, making judges solely dependent upon political appointments, imposed strict state control over the major media, put severe constraints on foreign-funded NGOs, and initiated harsh pressure on the Central European University (CEU) established and funded by Hungarian-born global billionaire George Soros—in the end, CEU was forced to relocate from Budapest to Vienna. While actively using nationalist and anti-European rhetoric to boost his popularity, Orban effectively channeled European funds to strengthen his power base, and overall enjoyed many benefits from his strategy of financial nationalism22 and other illiberal populist policies.23 It comes as no surprise that Fidesz-related businesses obtained major benefits from Orban’s rule, while the quality of governance in Hungary in the 2010s deteriorated, especially with regard to corruption and the rule of law.24 Despite numerous mass protests against monopolizing power and other antidemocratic moves by the government, Orban retained strong leverages of control. Although in 2019 an opposition-backed candidate managed to win the Budapest mayoral election, the new regulations imposed by the Hungarian government made him powerless, as all resources were transferred into the hands of government-appointed officials. Naturally, in the wake of the initial COVID-19 outbreak in April 2020, Orban effectively seized the moment to increase his formal and informal powers and widen the scope of his control over key sectors of the Hungarian economy.25
The Hungarian scholar Balint Magyar labels the politico-economic order established in Hungary after 2010 the “mafia state.”26 This pejorative term was mostly coined to be eye-catching for readers, and its validity as an analytic tool may be objected to on various grounds.27 However, the phenomenon itself may be regarded as one instance of agency-driven efforts to build and consolidate bad governance. Despite numerous peculiar features of the Hungarian case, described by Magyar in great detail, Hungary’s path toward bad governance is not so dissimilar to that of Russia (in fact, Magyar himself extended his analysis to some other post-Communist countries).28 Even though in the 1990s and 2000s Hungary was perceived by many sympathetic observers as a poster child for successful development and European integration, it was not able to obtain strong enough immunity against intentionally creating bad governance. Although in the Hungarian case the populist style of Orban and Fidesz served as a tool for demolishing barriers against bad governance, while in Russia Putin’s policies were largely antipopulist,29 these differences tell us more about the instruments for the creation of bad governance than about its actual mechanisms.
One should consider that political decay caused by bad governance should not be equated to the collapse of the state, at least in the relative short term. Rather, political decay may launch a long-term downward trajectory of economic and societal development over time.30 The main problem with this trajectory is that it has proved to be resistant to correction: once the politico-economic order of bad governance is built and consolidated, all moves toward overcoming it will become more and more difficult. At a certain point, this downward trajectory may become irreversible despite all efforts, causing a lock-in effect. This basically means that the countries poisoned by bad governance may find no way out: this is why the parallel with chronic diseases, outlined earlier, might be relevant for those countries that are deeply affected by bad governance over a long period of time. Even though their leaders and elites may realize that the pernicious effects of bad governance are dangerous not only for the futures of their countries but may also harm their own interests, they tend to avoid the use of the bitter medicine of major political and institutional changes, especially in a nondemocratic context. William Easterly vividly describes this paradox in his analysis of countries of sub-Saharan Africa.31 From this perspective, contemporary Russia may be considered a prime example of imperfect recipes for improving the quality of governance without major changes.
Bad Governance
in
Russia: No Way
Out
?
By the early 2020s, preservation of the political status quo for as long as possible and avoidance of any threats of regime changes in Russia became the key element of the Kremlin’s political strategy. The ongoing process of tightening the screws in Russia’s domestic politics (started after the 2011–2012 wave of mass protests) reduced the risks of the regime’s implosion due to public discontent,32 and despite some bumps on the road in terms of undesired results at subnational elections, the Kremlin was more or less insulated from unpleasant surprises from the Russian voters. The slow pace of economic development in Russia and international sanctions have not significantly changed this picture: like many authoritarian regimes across the globe,33 Russia was not heavily sensitive to the near stagnation of its economy (slightly above 1 percent annual growth between 2014 and 2019) and a decline in real incomes of its citizens. Even unpopular policy decisions, such as the major increase in retirement age for Russians, adopted in 2018,34 only resulted in a temporary decline in Putin’s approval rate and did not shake the existing political equilibrium.
It is no wonder that under these circumstances, the extension of Putin’s stay in power for an indefinite period became the number one priority task for the Kremlin. In January 2020, Putin announced a major revision of the Russian 1993 constitution in his annual state of the nation address. Initially, the handful of proposed amendments was rather vague, but it implied further empowering the president at the expense of the government and the legislature. The most decisive constitutional amendment was proposed in March 2020 and stated that upon the introduction of the new set of amendments, previous presidential terms in office were nullified, and the limit of two six-year terms should apply only after the next presidential elections scheduled for 2024. In fact, these constitutional changes, approved by the legislature, mean that Putin could stay in power until 2036.35 Such a constitutional rearrangement in Russia is hardly unique among personalist autocracies across the globe,36 as several rulers in Africa or in post-Soviet Eurasia have used similar institutional tricks to ensure their stay in power for indefinitely long periods of time.37
Unsurprisingly, the Kremlin’s intention to prevent political changes in Russia at any cost further contributed to political decay in the country, thus leading to aggravation of already acute problems with the quality of governance. Nevertheless, Russia’s leaders did not ignore these problems completely and often raised these issues as priorities for their agenda. They offered several recipes to improve the quality of governance in Russia, which may be summarized as a combination of three major directions, or 3D: deregulation, digitalization, and decentralization. However, these recipes in themselves and their actual implementation seem like imperfect approaches to countering bad governance in Russia.