An appalling tragedy came to Beslan, early September, as terrorists took 1,200 hostages-schoolchildren, their teachers and parents-in that North Osset town. September 3 brought close on 400 deaths-that on official statistics alone. Soon after the massacre, President Putin chaired a Cabinet session to say he was determined to make a thoroughgoing administrative reform in Russia. Its principal innovation concerned gubernatorial polls. At present, the 89 top regional executives are elected by direct ballot. From now on, regional legislatures will elect them on nominations made by the federal President.
Mr. Putin substantiated his initiative by the anti-terror cause, which demands a much smoother and more efficient administrative system than what Russia has nowadays.
Strictly speaking, Russia needs effective administration not only to combat international terrorism, and not only to prevent secession of southern territories, which Muslim extremists are out to turn into a caliphate. Efficient statehood presupposes guarantees of steady economic progress and higher living standards. It is expected to cope with social problems-suffice it to mention poverty, which currently affects up to 25 per cent of the Russian population. Proper government arrangements and work bring comfort to the community. Perhaps, President Putin had that simple truth in mind as he came up with his reform idea two months ago.
However, terrorism was the only point he referred to in public. That was a bad bungle. The President never brought out a link between efficient rule and effective anti-terror combat. No wonder, his political opponents did not wait long to remark with emphasis that the anti-terror cause had very little in common with gubernatorial election arrangements. What Mr. Putin was offering was not merely off the mark-what he really meant was to build up authoritarian trends and enhance presidential power, they assumed.
President Putin certainly has the reputation of a democratic leader. He could not shrug off the accusations without dampening that reputation. Central mastermind of the upcoming reform, he chose to answer in person.
What, now, did he say in his televised interview about what lay behind the reform?
First, Russia has an inefficient ruling pattern. Mr. Putin saw its failures and weak points quite clearly even in 1999, when he was Prime Minister. In particular, direct gubernatorial ballot left no chance of selecting hopefuls according to personal merit, and did not make governors fully responsible for regional affairs.
Second, available regional administrative patterns and workings facilitate property re-division, and allow to grasp economic power by underhand means.
Third, direct gubernatorial ballot has hampered the establishment of unified federal ruling machinery. It resulted in parallel federal and regional bodies, and so direly enhanced irresponsibility.
Last but not least, this inefficient power is easy to upset. That is what international terrorists are out to do as they have declared war on Russia.
As we see now from President Putin's interview, he deems it urgent to cure this inefficient system and tie in federal interests closer with vital public interests. Democracy is not to suffer in those efforts. "Every country seeks the most effective ways to arrange its rule-I mean the most effective not for the rulers themselves. What I mean are the best ways to cope with problems the country and its citizens are facing," said the President as he was evaluating the degree to which the proposed reform was democratic.
That was a very short interview-tooshort to answer all questions concerning the upcoming changes, remarked the President. His words come as an invigorating promise to Russian democracy. They mean debates round the reform are not over. On the contrary, these debates are only taking start, and the President makes it a point to be among the most active debaters.
