Vladimir Putin’s return to the Russian presidency was a foregone conclusion, but allegations of fraud in the voting process by local as well as outside groups are a reminder of how far the country has progressed since the first term of the leader in 2000. Even by the count of his critics, grouped under the League of Voters, he won just over 50 per cent of votes, instead of the official 63.6 per cent, propelling him to victory. In the old Soviet days, leaders won elections by close to 100 per cent.

The significance of these developments and the immediate anti-Putin protests was that after the chaotic days of Boris Yeltsin and the restoration of order in Mr Putin’s first term, Russian protesters are making their voices heard and the authorities are tolerating dissent, despite the token arrests. Thanks to the Internet and people’s ability to communicate and gather support through social sites, anti-corruption activist Alexei Navalny has emerged as the unlikely hero.
In another indication of the changing political scenario, Mr Putin has offered to review the case of the oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky, jailed for two terms, a blot on an officially influenced legal system. Secure in the presidential gaddi for a possible further 12 years, the Kremlin leader has nothing to fear. Mr Putin offered another concession: he said he could give the
billionaire Mikhail Prokhorov, who expectedly lost the election, a Cabinet berth.
It is not quite the Arab Spring wafting across the Russian Federation but Russia has turned a corner by no longer equating democracy with the chaos of Yeltsin days and is willing to challenge authority.
Mr Putin still has his large constituency of people who are votaries of discipline with prosperity, rather than change. But a growing number of members of the newly empowered middle class do not want to live under the old Soviet model with a new name.
Mr Putin will find during his third term in the presidency — he stepped down to become Prime Minister in between to respect the Constitution — that he has to be far more mindful of public opinion than he was in the old days. It is no secret that Mr Putin is a strong believer in the modernisation of the country’s rundown military machine and few Russian would quarrel with his goal. But the people want butter as well and Mr Putin might be lucky a second time round if the rising energy prices fill Russian coffers, as they did during his first term of presidency.
Mr Putin, of course, has immense problems at home. Reorienting an economy living off energy resources for the most part is undesirable and smacks of a developing country pattern. The scale of corruption and graft is a major issue. Mr Putin’s earlier prescription for the ill-gotten wealth acquired by oligarchs in insider deals by buying up state companies for a song was that they could keep their dirty money as long as they did not seek to acquire political power. Mr Khodorkovsky transgressed the line and remains in prison while some other oligarchs sought the safety of London to safeguard their billions. The Russian legal system remains compromised and cleaning it up is for the long haul.
In a larger sense, Russia has still to define its place in the new world order. For one thing, it is seeking to reinsert itself into the former Soviet space. But its record so far is patchy as the rather recently formed independent states weigh their options. Former East European states, once under Moscow’s thumb, are foremost in flaunting their independence. And even the traditionally pro-Russian state of Serbia, diminished as it is after Yugoslavia’s wreck, is opting for seeking membership of the European Union.
Geopolitically, Russia still has an important role to play, given its military arsenal, the size of the country and its energy resources. But the West’s decision to encroach on Moscow’s sphere of influence by expanding the European Union eastward, going back on its promise not to do so, has left a scar on the Russian psyche that refuses to heal. America and the West were drunk on their Cold War victory signifying the break-up of the Soviet Union. Insistent appeals by the American political visionary George Kennan not to re-divide the European continent went unheeded.
Mr Putin has therefore to balance the task of ensuring a prominent place in the new world order with charting a course for his country’s economic and technological progress while giving his people some satisfaction on their new democratic urges. The Russian leadership must stem the exodus of the country’s most talented men and women to greener Western pastures.
On the positive side, Russia has talented and patriotic people and given the right leadership and incentives, they can work wonders. To an extent, it will depend upon Mr Putin’s flexibility to listen to the legitimate demands of a new generation of his people and steer the country to a more pluralistic and modern state. Whether the concessions offered by him so far are mere sops or precursors of the shape of things to come remains to be seen.
An encouraging aspect of the prevailing ferment is the new stirring in Russian society. For instance, billionaire Prokhorov’s sister Irina Prokhorova is a considerable figure on the literary scene in her own right, both as promoter of a literary magazine and as a defender of citizens’ rights. Above all, she is both promoting and connecting with Russians’ deep attachment to their classical literature. Mr Navalny himself was a social media nerd who galvanised the young to ask inconvenient questions.
In a sense, Mr Putin has a unique opportunity to take his country to a new cusp of innovation, democratisation and prosperity. Will he have the imagination to do so, given his KGB background? Even if he does, will the traditional Russian military-industrial complex allow him to cross the conventional lines of what represents Russian greatness? That is the question. We might not have to wait too long to find the answer.