Meanwhile, the “popular vote,” conducted on July 1, 2020, was probably the most massive and shameless instance of fraudulent voting in Russia’s post-Communist history. Using various means, ranging from large-scale workplace mobilization of voters (mostly public sector employees)117 to routine ballot box stuffing and delivering entirely fake results, the Kremlin reached its target. According to official data, the turnout was about 65 percent of Russian voters, and almost 78 percent of them voted for the constitutional amendments, although mass surveys demonstrated a much lower degree of approval,118 and some experts argued that about thirty million votes were added to the real numbers. 119 Still, even this fraudulent procedure has not shaken the legitimacy of Russia’s regime, at least as of yet. Before the “popular vote,” the Kremlin’s mouthpieces openly declared that their goal was to cement the status quo for as long as possible and to demonstrate to all Russians that everything in the country will remain the same, so that “after Putin there will be Putin,” as the speaker of the State Duma summarized the message.120 It is hard to predict to what extent these dreams of averting major political changes in Russia forever will come true, but the long-term continuity of Russia’s current political regime will almost inevitably result in further political decay and aggravating the numerous vices of bad governance analyzed in this book.121
Concluding Remarks: Is Bad Governance Forever?
In 1348, Ambrogio Lorenzetti, the author of the Allegory of Bad Government (presented on the cover of this book), fell victim to a pandemic—like many residents of Siena and other medieval cities in Europe, he died of the bubonic plague. But almost seven centuries from that time, his frescoes remain on the walls of the Palazzo Pubblico in Siena and still serve as a powerful reminder of the causes and effects of good and bad governance across space and time—be they discussed in medieval Siena, in contemporary Russia, or anywhere on the globe. Neither the city portrayed by Lorenzetti nor the numerous cities and towns of Russia are doomed to be governed badly because of their unfavorable structural conditions. Quite the opposite, these polities exhibit various manifestations of bad governance because their rulers, similarly to the main character of Lorenzetti’s fresco, behave like tyrants and tend to minimize any constraints on arbitrary rule. In the absence of domestic and international constraints, tyrants rarely have strong incentives to govern their domains in an effective and efficient way, and this is why numerous vices of bad governance, so vividly presented in the fresco, often become a constituent core of mechanisms of governance in various states and nations.
Judging from this perspective, contemporary Russia represents a pure case of intentional building of bad governance on the ruins of the Soviet system after its collapse and troubled transformation. This outcome was not predetermined by Russia’s legacies of the past, nor was it an effect of the individual characteristics of Putin and other Russian leaders. Rather, Russia’s rulers were able to pursue their own self-interest and reach their goals, while rulers of many other countries were not able to do so for various reasons. The consolidation of authoritarianism in Russia during the first two decades of the twenty-first century undoubtedly entrenched bad governance and exacerbated its major effects, such as corruption and rent-seeking. However, bad governance in Russia does not necessarily lead the country to immediate total disaster and major failures in all key policy fields. The mechanisms of governance built in Russia in the twenty-first century imply elements of fool-proofing, and many prudent technocratic solutions have enabled an aversion of the worst risks. Moreover, under certain circumstances, success stories of strong government performance have demonstrated major achievements in different policy fields, but even though these successes often became limited and unsustainable over time. This is why neither hopes nor fears of inevitable collapse of bad governance are relevant to Russia, at least as of yet. Rather, Russia has exhibited a pattern of durable bad governance, or low-level equilibrium, which may not be shaken even if sooner or later the country faces major political regime changes. Democratization is a necessary yet insufficient condition for overcoming bad governance, as the recent experience of Ukraine suggests.
What are the lessons that might be learned from the experience of bad governance in contemporary Russia? First and foremost, political foundations lie at the core of mechanisms for governing the state, and personalist authoritarian regimes provide fertile grounds for building bad governance, especially if these regimes prove to have a certain durability, as in Russia’s case. Second, regardless of loud rhetoric, the dreams of authoritarian modernization have not been significantly converted into reality, as political leaders rarely invest systematic efforts into improving the quality of governance unless they face major domestic and/or international challenges and constraints. Third, irrespective of Russia’s foreign policies, its practices of bad governance have a high chance of turning into a role model for many rulers of other countries who would like to govern their states in a similar way to Putin. Finally, one must admit that while bad governance may initially emerge in any given country and be further aggravated by conscious poisoning by politicians, it will not disappear by itself without tremendous and systematic efforts by the political class and society at large, and the success of such efforts is relatively rare. For these reasons, bad governance is most likely to turn from growing pains of post-Communist state-building into its chronic diseases, which may be not fully curable.
All metaphors, which are so widely used in social sciences, are imperfect as they are only partly congruent with complex realities, and the medical metaphor of the causes and effects of bad governance employed in this book is no exception. In the world of medicine, a patient who behaves irresponsibly about his or her disease, that is, ignores professional recommendations, refuses medical treatments, and worsens his or her health using alcohol and smoking, usually dies prematurely. But in the world of twenty-first century politics, states and societies, unlike individuals, are immortal—for good or ill, they are not dying at all, not disappearing from the global map by themselves nor being conquered by other powers. Rather, the miserable countries affected by the chronic disease of bad governance may endlessly continue their mediocre, hopeless, and meaningless existence under these worsening conditions, and over time be left with fewer and fewer chances for their recovery. This is the real threat for Russia and for other countries that are not immune to bad governance. After a certain stage of decay, the declining quality of governance may reach a point of no return. If so, then it will not be possible to improve the Russian state by any available means. Rather, the question for scholars and experts may be how to eliminate it without causing major harm to the human beings in the country and across the globe. To what extent such a question may become a major item on Russia’s agenda in the foreseeable future remains to be seen.