For Russia, a parliamentary democracy would mean death. In a long interview granted to journalists of the G8 countries published on the Kremlin’s web site, Dmitry Medvedev illustrated domestic and foreign policy priorities for his country, which "will have to remain a strong Presidential Republic for decades, if not for centuries, if it wants to remain united". On the eve of the summit of the world’s eight top industrialized countries, which will be held in Tokyo next week, the Russian President reasserted his predecessor’s political position: a strong, authoritarian presidency which – certainly – must contemplate a multiparty system, but this must take place “in a rational manner and within the limits of the law”.

 

Concentration of power. The representation of the multiparty system that Medvedev refers to is reflected in a constitutional organization, the Duma, made up of 450 seats, 315 of which are occupied by representatives of United Russia. If parties like “A Just Russia” (which has 38 seats)or the Liberal Democratic Party (40) are substantially pro-Kremlin, the communists remain the only real opposition to the powers that be, with 57 seats. However, their activity is limited to a merely symbolic role. From Putin’s inauguration to the election of Medvedev, the process of the shifting of power towards the Kremlin has become irreversible.

 

Legislative initiative. A project exists, under discussion for months, developed by the head of the Presidential administration, Sergej Naryskin, to add a fundamental step to the definitive transformation of the Russian parliament into an “applause institution”. The reform proposed by Naryskin calls for the adoption of appropriate constitutional changes to reduce the number of those who have the right to take legislative initiative. Currently these include the President, the cabinet, the Federation Council and its single members, the representatives of the Duma, and the regional parliaments. From the point of view of the judiciary, the Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court and the High Court of Arbitration (which deals with economic disputes) may also do so. It follows that, in addition to the 450 representatives of the State Duma, 168 members of the Federation Council and 84 members of the regional parliaments, there are another seven hundred “vested individuals” authorized to present draft legislation. However, even here, one often enters into the symbolic sphere, since legislative power is still controlled by the executive.

 

United Russia. Regional initiatives presented to the State Duma have always been rejected, with rare exceptions. "As far as initiatives of representatives and senators go – wrote Boris Višnevskij, observer for the 'Novaja Gazeta', a month ago – in the first mandates of the Duma one could still count on the processing of “individual” legislative proposals, which were promulgated by the authority and personal energy of their authors. In the most recent mandates, since the constitutional majority has begun to belong to “United Russia”, only those initiatives previously agreed upon with the Kremlin have had a chance to proceed through legislative channels".

 

Order and stability. In Russia, the institution of legislation based upon popular initiative does not exist, and even abrogative referendums have become practically impossible. The “authoritarian modernization” introduced by Putin has been possible so far for two reasons: because the parties of the nineties have proven their incapacity to stabilize the country and because, according to the largest Russian demoscopic institution, Levada, 'Russians don’t care much about democracy. Last December, subjects of interviews answered the question: "What is most important for Russia today: law and order, even if they would have to accept some violations of democratic principals and personal liberties to achieve it, or democracy, even if democratic freedom can sometimes be usurped by subversive or criminal elements?". 68 percent of those interviewed were in favor of law and order, while 17,5 percent chose democracy. Moreover, from this tendency one can interpret the aspirations and desires of contemporary Russian society, willing to sacrifice some personal freedom in exchange for order and stability.