Instead of acting to correct that mistake, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, who is undoubtedly a statesman of great intelligence, has blundered to make things worse by announcing his return to the presidency – swapping places with his right-hand man, current President Dmitry Medvedev.

In the process he has not only undone many of his historic achievements – and these were achievements for which everyone, Russians and foreigners, should be grateful. He has also compromised the principle he professes to value the most – namely, the rule of law.

We all – Russians, foreigners possibly even President Medvedev himself – had been taken for a ride.

The ability to produce a towering figure who could lead the country at a time of great danger or seemingly insurmountable challenges is one of the defining attributes of a major civilization, such as Russia. And Putin will undoubtedly enter the history books as one of his country’s great saviors.

Coming to office soon after the 1998 default and the war against Chechen separatists, when the Russian Federation was teetering towards disintegration, Putin managed to reverse the rot. Inheriting very weak cards, he has outwitted the legions of domestic and foreign predators and established a strong state and functioning, albeit “controlled”, democracy built on the ruins of Communism. Hence his genuine popularity and unmatched authority.

Herein, however, lie the roots of his subsequent (and, arguably, just as monumental) failure. Having accomplished his historic task, Putin should have crowned it by one last act of supreme statesmanship – namely, relinquishing control over his creation and passing the torch to his successor.

Having resuscitated and reshaped the Russian state, pushing it safely into the post-communist and post-imperial era, it was incumbent on Putin to ensure that the edifice would stand and function without him. Indeed, genuine stability, security and continuity will come only from the system’s ability to stand on its own feet, without the need for its architect to prop it up.

The reasons for this conclusion are obvious: like everyone else, the Father of the Nation is mortal, and even he can end up blundering. This is why human societies have evolved the institution of the law, including (in the modern era) the constitution.

This intangible, but also very real, entity has not only the distinct advantage of being immortal but also of having a separate existence – that is, independent of any person or group. The more robust the “life of its own,” the more secure the society in question. And the best way to make this institution robust is to set precedent.

Initially, it seemed that Putin had indeed embarked on the right course. Before the 2008 presidential elections – when he passed the presidential torch to Medvedev – he signaled that he was well aware of the need for his departure, reassuring his audiences that when the time came, he would withdraw from the presidency as required.

Unfortunately, however, it soon became clear that this was a subterfuge: he would indeed withdraw but only formally. He would take on the post of Prime Minister, while continuing to act as de facto paramount leader within the “tandem” with President Medvedev – the ultimate policy arbiter.

Insofar as the letter of the law is concerned, Putin acted within his rights. But everyone knew that this arrangement was not exactly in the spirit of the law, nor was it what he had signaled he would do.

Despite this turnaround, it was still possible to hope that Putin remained on the right track. Given his huge political capital, his sudden (albeit well prepared) departure would indeed have been destabilizing. So for a time it seemed that the tandem was actually a clever and legally sound device for solving this problem: although the constitution does not provide for an arrangement of this kind, it does not prohibit it either.

Furthermore, Putin’s choice of his long-standing and close associate Dmitry Medvedev as his heir-apparent suggested that due care was being taken to ensure a seamless succession with maximum continuity. Indeed, having been duly elected president, Medvedev seemed to have plenty of time to grow into his predecessor’s large shoes.

Unfortunately, we learned last weekend that this had apparently never been the plan. We all – Russians, foreigners possibly even President Medvedev himself – had been taken for a ride.

General Charles De Gaulle is widely, but some allege incorrectly, attributed to have said: “The graveyards are full of indispensable men.” Far from retiring gracefully, Putin appears to be ensuring that Russia is blessed with a president for life and the world stuck with yet another “indispensable leader.”

But the damage does not end there.

By setting this sorry precedent, Putin has sent the following message to future would-be Russian rulers for life: Feel free to go ahead; all you need do is select a buddy who will temporarily keep the seat warm for you.

It is tragic that the man who justifiably takes the most credit for building a new, legally based and democratic Russia should have ended up in a blind alley.

The small crowd of commentators sympathetic to Russia – in whose ranks I firmly remain –have and will continue to come up with numerous reasons justifying Putin’s return to the presidency. Perhaps the weightiest is that, given the current global upheavals, Russia needs Putin’s steady hand.

My answer to that is:Of course Russia needs a steady hand, but the most reliable way to ensure that stability is not through “more of the same old Putin” but through a successor whose credibility and authority derives from the rule of law, the constitution, rather than from a fallible and mortal individual, albeit the architect of the state himself.

As regards stability, is it not the case that Putin is merely postponing the problem of succession? And in doing so, is he not making the succession even more difficult, in effect planting a time bomb? After all, the longer he stays, the more destabilizing his inevitable departure will be.

Commentators are also saying that Medvedev failed to make a sufficiently powerful impact. Of course, he has failed in this regard. But how could he have made an impact if the puppet-master had never intended to leave the stage?

Great leaders are made by rising to the occasion, by the enormity and challenges of their jobs: Medvedev was never given such a chance because he was never fully entrusted with the job.

Finally, since Russia’s greatest weakness is its endemic corruption, the struggle against it will hardly be helped by the spectacle of the supreme leader playing fast and loose with the constitution. All corrupt officials throughout the Russian Federation can only rejoice at the spectacle of the law being brought into disrepute by the Father of the Nation himself.


Vlad Sobell is a London-based independent analyst.