Editorial: Middle class unrest bodes ill for Putin

Opinion

Russia's oil boom created an urban-based middle class that is estimated to comprise about a fifth of the country's population.

Until this month, these people have been happy to bask in their newly acquired wealth, giving barely a thought to the creeping authoritarianism in their nation's political process. If that state of affairs was never going to last, the suddenness and assertiveness of their displays of disenchantment have nonetheless, come as a surprise. Tens of thousands of people have gathered in Moscow in acts of protest that were replicated in some 60 cities. The stirrings bode ill for a ruling elite that is wedded to cynicism, corruption and cronyism in equal measure.

The immediate trigger for the unrest was the election for Russia's Parliament, in which the share of the vote garnered by Vladimir Putin's United Russia Party slumped to 49.5 per cent, from 64.3 per cent in 2007. Things would have been even worse for Putin were it not for widespread electoral fraud. Evidence of this was quickly disseminated by members of the internet-savvy middle class, prompting calls for an annulment of the election and broader criticism of Putin.

Much of this criticism is focused on the blatant manipulation being employed by the Prime Minister in his bid to reclaim the presidency next March. Putin was obliged constitutionally to stand down as President at the end of his second term in 2008. Now, he plans to regain the top job by swapping places with the current President, Dimitri Medvedev. This is seen by his growing band of critics as further evidence of a high-handed style. Not so long ago, the vast majority of Russians would have excused it as the justifiable action of a strong man who had reclaimed Russia's place at the top table of nations.

Putin's initial response to the protests was, not surprisingly, one of bluster. He insisted the whole movement had been inspired by the United States Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. Early protests were violently broken up, and organisers intimidated and arrested. State-controlled television ignored the unrest. It did not work. Now, Putin appears to have recognised that, in an internet age, the spectacle of thousands of people marching in the streets cannot be brushed aside, and has become more conciliatory. Demonstrations have been allowed to proceed and state TV channels have begun reporting them in a largely unbiased manner.

Medvedev, for his part, has talked of "reforming the political system" and taking "more decisive steps to remove barriers on political activity". He has also ordered an inquiry into election fraud. At the same time, however, he has decreed that the new Parliament will proceed, despite the vote rigging. He and Putin must seek somehow to defuse the widespread discontent without significantly weakening their own positions.

They appear to have realised that a harsh crackdown will only radicalise their opponents. It would also place them offside with an international community which could banish him from the top table and move events, such as the 2014 Winter Olympics, from Russia. Conversely, allowing free criticism of the country's politics could severely diminish the popularity of Putin, in particular, and jeopardise his bid for the presidency.

One thing is certain; Russia's middle class cannot be taken for granted. Its members are no longer content to trade politics for prosperity. They want to play a part in the political process. Putin may placate them with favours and secure the presidency, but he will struggle to put the genie fully back into the bottle. In the long term, the outcome should be a more democratic and less corrupt Russia - and benefits that extend beyond the Russian people.