Search

Begin New Search Topic Leadership Political Geography Europe

131. Who Leads Russia?

Author:
Elizabeth A. Wood
Publication Date:
06-2008
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
MIT Center for International Studies
Abstract:
Ever since Dmitri Medvedev’s nomination to succeed Vladimir Putin as president of Russia, followed by his election and now his inauguration, Kremlin watchers, both Russian and Western, have been discussing the so-called “Putin-Medvedev tandem” and asking who will really lead Russia. Is the duumvirate stable? Will it degen- erate into squabbling among the Kremlin clans behind the scenes? The pundits have identified four plausible scenarios. One is that President Medvedev will indeed have the principal power, including the possibility of ousting Mr. Putin as prime minister, or marginalizing him, since the Russian political system has been “super- presidential,” i.e., strongly centered in the presidency, since the adoption of the new Constitution by Boris Yeltsin in 1993. The second is that the system will remain cen- tered around Prime Minister Putin through informal power mechanisms that have much more weight in this system than do the formal powers granted by the Constitution; this is the scenario I consider most likely. A third is that the United Russia Party will emerge as dominant in this situation, able to make or break presidents through the electoral process. A fourth is that the whole country, or at least the government, will fall apart because of feuding among the followers of the president and the prime minister who will be unable to decide on the fair division of spoils that come with holding power in this country that covers one-sixth of the earth’s land mass. Because the corridors of power are so completely impenetrable to outsiders, no one knows what will happen. Still, Putin and his advisers’ actions in the months leading up to the election and then inauguration of Dmitri Medvedev as president of the Russian Federation show some answers.
Topic:
Governance, Geopolitics, Leadership, and Political stability
Political Geography:
Russia and Europe

132. Turkey's Crisis and Future

Author:
Doğu Ergil
Publication Date:
08-2008
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
MIT Center for International Studies
Abstract:
The two trials that have been occupying the Turkish national agenda today are likely to be the milestones of Turkey’s ability to rid itself of an opaque regime shaped under bureaucratic tutelary. One of the trials concerned the closure of the incumbent Justice and Development Party (AK Party) and has finally been concluded, with a narrow victory for the ruling party and democratic governance. The other is the Ergenekon case, which may unravel the illegal nationalist organization intent on overthrowing the government and bringing an isolationist dictatorial regime under the guise of national sovereignty. The attempt to close the AK Party—deemed the center of anti-secular activities threat- ening the state—began with a Constitutional Court verdict annulling a newly enacted law that lifted a headscarf ban at universities. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s reply was to accuse the Court of overriding Parliament and threatening national stabili- ty—its headscarf policy is part of democratic reforms to advance free speech and minor- ity rights and has the support of the EU, which Turkey seeks to join. This is true, how- ever much the party lost enthusiasm for liberalizing and democratizing Turkey’s system as part of its EU bid. In its late July decision, the judiciary narrowly allowed the AK Party to survive—and, with other political and civic organizations, to broaden the base of political participation and public discourse. This is all to the good, though the fact that the case was brought to begin with remain troubling. The question is whether or not Turkey will be able to expose its alternative history, bludgeoned by human rights violations, thousands of unsolved assassinations, restric- tions put on liberties, and military interventions in the political process and start a new age marked with liberal ideals.
Topic:
Governance, Authoritarianism, Leadership, and Bureaucracy
Political Geography:
Europe, Turkey, and Asia

133. Cyprus after the Failure of the Annan-Plan

Author:
Jan Asmussen
Publication Date:
06-2004
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
European Centre for Minority Issues (ECMI)
Abstract:
On 24 April 2004 Greek and Turkish Cypriots decided in separate simultaneous referenda on whether or not Cyprus would join the European Union on 1 May 2004. While 64.91% of Turkish Cypriots accepted the Annan Plan, an overwhelming majority of 75.83% of Greek Cypriots rejected the UN blueprint. The extent of the Greek Cypriot “Oxi”(No) brought an end to a large scale effort by the United Nations Secretary-General to broker a final deal for a solution of the “oldest item continuously on the peacemaking agenda”.1 Apart from the UN, the United States (Special envoy: Thomas Weston), the United Kingdom (Special envoy: (Sir David Hannay) and the European Union have constantly observed and tried to facilitate the process. Consequently, there has been a great deal of disappointment among those engaged in finding a solution. The most outspoken comment came from EU Enlargement Commissioner, Günter Verheugen who on 21 April declared that he felt “cheated” by the Greek Cypriot Government. Kofi Annan’s latest report clearly puts most of the blame for the failure on the Greek Cypriot leader, Tassos Papadopoulos, and his government and stresses that “if the Greek Cypriots are ready to share power and prosperity with the Turkish Cypriots in a federal structure based on political equality, this needs to be demonstrated, not just in word, but in action.”3 Apparently, the international community never took the possibility of such an outcome into consideration. As a result, both the EU and the UN concentrated on pressuring the Turkish Cypriot side and Turkey to accept the UN Plan. At the same time no efforts were made to secure a more positive attitude by the Greek Cypriot leadership. Today the international community is in a stage of shock and has clearly not developed an alternative plan to cope with the new situation.
Topic:
International Cooperation, United Nations, Minorities, European Union, Leadership, Ethnicity, Diversity, and Peace
Political Geography:
Europe, Turkey, Greece, and Cyprus

134. Croat Self-Government in Bosnia - A Challenge for Dayton?

Author:
Florian Bieber
Publication Date:
05-2001
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
European Centre for Minority Issues (ECMI)
Abstract:
In addition to these factors contributing to the establishment of the Croat selfgovernment, economic/criminal factors most certainly played a role.22 As the response of the HDZ to the takeover of the Hercegovačka Banka seems to suggest, the economic interests of the party and its leadership were threatened by the change of government in Bosnia and the more assertive policies of the international community in Bosnia. The Croat self-government is beyond doubt a considerable challenge to the Dayton Peace Accords. The demand of the Croat leadership for a third entity can only be dismissed with difficulty in light of the existence of a Serb entity. Despite this development being a challenge to the existing arrangement, the argument can be made that some effects have been positive. The call by the HDZ for Croat soldiers to desert the Federation army and the public display of the parallel Croat power structures have given the High Representative an opportunity to render the Federation more effective by excluding those officials, who have not only now, but throughout the past five and a half year, obstructed the implementation of the Dayton Peace Accords.
Topic:
Governance, Minorities, Leadership, Ethnicity, and Conflict
Political Geography:
Europe, Croatia, and Bosnia and Hercegovina