RUSSIAN POLITICIANS MULL POSSIBILITY OF THIRD TERM FOR PUTIN

NTV Mir, Moscow
1 Apr 07

The leader of the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia (LDPR) Vladimir
Zhirinovskiy, senator and member of A Just Russia party’s central
council Sergey Lisovskiy and member of presidium of One Russia party
general council Andrey Isayev were studio guests of the Russian NTV
Mir programme "Sunday night with Vladimir Solovyev", broadcast on
01 Apr 07. They were invited to discuss the possibility of amending
the constitution to allow the president to stay for the third term
and to change the duration of presidential term to seven years. The
proposal to this effect was made last week by Federation Council
speaker Sergey Mironov.

Zhirinovskiy, in his usual populist manner, started by saying that
the Federation Council is "a holiday resort" and its speaker, happy
with just being re-elected to the third term himself, would like this
situation to last and last. "He wants to stay on for the fourth and
the fifth terms. That is, he favours the Turkmen-Belarusian option".

Moreover, since Mironov is not responsible for anything he does,
he does not realize that by proposing such a thing he actually
"undermines the president", who "said it hundred times already that
he wouldn’t stay and saw no need for that".

Isayev added that such proposals have been voiced "at least four or
seven times", and each time Putin "waved them away like irritating
flies".

The discussion then generally deviated towards One Russia party’s real
and perceived popularity, dissentions within the party and Mironov’s
re-election as Federation Councils chairman.

Steering the process onto its designated tracks, the host of the
programme Vladimir Solovyev suggested that Mironov, as the third
most important person in the country, might have already consulted
the lawyers before he decided to come up with his proposal yet again.

"There must be a procedure to bring to life whatever Mr Mironov is
having in mind," Solovyev said, adding that "technically, this would
be possible, after all".

Lisovskiy challenged his opponents to name any man other than Putin
who would be able to maintain in balance One Russia, which he called
a "political monopoly". Isayev retorted that Putin would "remain a
political leader of the country even after his presidency". He argued
that Putin can continue pursuing his course even when he steps down.

"He is not an ordinary official, who just has a post with no
influence. His will continue to have influence in the country. It
will be useful and beneficial when political and administrative
leadership are not combined in one person". In Isayev’s view, Putin
can become a leader of the majority party, like George Washington,
for instance. He said he was confident that the man to succeed Putin
would continue his policy, albeit in "a slightly different way and
with a different team". For his party "it is most important to stay
on the course taken by Putin".

Zhirinovskiy said the best option would be to get rid of the Federation
Council and the presidency altogether and introduce the parliamentary
system, which would result in the "real freedom".

Solovyev pointed out that Putin’s rating remains so high because he
is not associated in the public mind either with the executive or
legislative authority, the trust in both of which is much lower. He
said it was evident that the public genuinely loves Putin and many
politicians have built their careers by demonstrating their devotion
to Putin. "The most shining example of this we saw in the Federation
Council, when it was said: m’lord, I love you so much, just don’t go
away too soon!"

Summing up the discussion, Lisovskiy said the fact that Mironov could
say whatever he wanted to say in the Federation Council, just as any
other of its members, is in itself a major achievement of the upper
chamber. He said, he is personally against the third term for the
president, even though there are some positive tactical aspects to
this proposal. However, strategically the consequences of such move
would be negative.

Isayev, who throughout the discussion was busy warding off criticism
continuously levelled against his party by his debating opponents,
insisted that his was "the only party with open and free discussion
between its left and right wings". He even admitted voting against
Mironov’s election as St Petersburg representative in the Federation
Council. However, Mironov owes his re-election solely to One Russia’s
support, he said. Putin, he said, is "not just a good man, he is
associated with a certain political course". This course presumes a
"gradual transition to a normal political structure of the state, and
one of imperative conditions of this is rotation of presidency". "He
could be very influential and enjoy a very high level of public
support. But we must understand that authority is not just some lofty
thing, but a function of governing society. And this function must
be performed within a set term. In demanding a third term for Putin,
they mean third terms for themselves."

Zhirinovskiy said the matter was not about the third term per se,
but the fact that "by the end of the third term, the question of the
fourth term would immediately arise, then the fifth". This is because
"politics is like money, alcohol or narcotic – the doses just keep
increasing until everything collapses". "Would they want to leave
after another four years, in 2012, after being in power for 12 years
already? Whatever for? Why wouldn’t Lukashenka, Nazarbayev, Rahmonov,
Karimov?"

Asked whether they personally think that Putin will remain for the
third term, Isayev and Lisovskiy said they did not think so.

Zhirinovskiy disagreed saying he will stay because "a scenario of
military conflict in southern Russia will be played. America will
be bombing Iran, there will be lots of refugees fleeing to Armenia,
Azerbaijan and Georgia. Georgia will attack Abkhazia and Ossetia,
and there are Russian citizens there. In the conditions of total
mobilization, with `arise, the mighty country!’ [quote from WW2
patriotic song], they will hold a quick referendum and things will be
quickly changed to suit the occasion. Just as it happened in Dagestan
in 2000. As usual, the war and America would help us."

At which point Solovyev rounded up the discussion saying let’s wait
and see what happens after December parliamentary election.