Each politician and political analyst has got his own explanation of this phenomenon. For instance, Boris Nemtsov, a leader of the Russian opposition, believes that people are "zombied" by federal TV channels. However, this is doubtful. Vladimir Putin's predecessor Boris Yeltsin appeared on TV quite often but this did not help him during his second term.
Vladimir Putin's phenomenon is different: his actions coincide with Russia's dynamics and public moods. Most foreign analysts, as well as the Russian opposition, cannot understand (or accept) that the democratic revolution in Russia as any other revolution cannot be permanent. History has its own laws, therefore, Trotskism under democratic banners will not do. In other words, reaction changed revolution in Russia.
In the Soviet times the words 'reaction' and 'reactionary' had negative meaning, although there is nothing bad in them. Any revolution runs ahead of time, gets exhausted and is replaced with reaction. The latter does not cancel revolutionary achievements. It cleans up some affairs, makes certain amendments, assesses the results pragmatically and if necessary takes astep back in order not to lose balance or fall. Vladimir Putin is doing these things by general consent.
The secret of Vladimir Putin's success lies in his harmony with the time. All the rest, including some of the president's blunders, is less important and has no serious influence on people's moods. The incumbent Russian leader might have taken this post by chance, as a result of Boris Yeltsin's choice. But his further steps were regular and logical.
According to the Russian opposition and Western critics, Vladimir Putin's greatest sin is the pressure on mass media. This criticism usually contains nothing but traditional clichйs about the freedom of speech. A few critics understand that the freedom of speech is not an issue so sensitive even in democratic conditions. For instance, U.S. founding father Thomas Jefferson changed his position on this issue while the revolutionary wave in the States was replaced with sober analysis of its results, i.e. reaction. In 1787 Jefferson said he would prefer newspapers without the government rather than the government without newspapers, however, in the end of his life the founding father said, "It is a melancholy truth, that a suppression of the press could not more completely deprive the nation of its benefits than is done by its abandoned prostitution to falsehood. Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle." The first part of this statement became classical and the second one was deliberately forgotten, however, it is not less truthful. The Russian reaction which replaced the revolution saw that journalism is far from being immaculate even if it formally supports democratic ideals.
This fact does not cancels the freedom of speech in modern Russia. It deprives mass media of the possibility to sin with impunity. And nothing more. In other aspects the role of mass media in the epoch of reaction is even more important than in the revolutionary period because without their control the pragmatic 'correction of mistakes' may turn into vulgar counterrevolution.
Under Vladimir Putin the number of mass media increased. The share of independent private capital in this sphere keeps growing, as well as the number of regional editions. There are dozens of thousands of these editions containing everything, even jokes about Vladimir Putin, to say nothing of the rapidly developing Internet which enjoys boundless freedom. Accordingly, journalists have enough control over the Russian authorities today.
The mood of most mass media has been changed but it is not dictated by the Kremlin administration. The new vocabulary and moods are determined by reaction emerging from the depth of our huge country. The West or the author can dislike these moods but this does not mean the lack of freedom. On the contrary, Russia is revising the last decades on its own initiative, mainly to spite the Moscow beau monde. It has a right to do this as this right was provided by the democratic revolution.
Vladimir Putin seems to be of the same opinion. His rating will remain high as long as the president sides with this big country.
