Vladimir Putin has initiated some high-profile battlesagainst corruption. But to many he seemsincreasingly isolated and out of touch
弗拉基米尔•普京掀起了一场高调的反腐之战。但在很多人看来,他似乎愈加孤立也愈加脱离群众
STATE-RUN television is not usually the place to find news of corruption scandals involvingofficials close to Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin. Murky business dealings have never been abar to government service. When high-level bureaucrats fall, they usually go quietly. Butviewers have recently been treated to quite a spectacle on Channel One: evening broadcasts fullof current and former ministers, their lovers, their expensive homes and millions inmisappropriated funds.
This nascent anti-corruption campaign began in October with the dismissal of AnatolySerdyukov as defence minister. He was fired after investigators linked a company spun off fromthe ministry to a $100m fraud. That a high-level official with ties to Mr Putin could be so publiclydumped was unprecedented. But since then, a $200m embezzlement case over a satellite-guidance system has threatened Mr Putin’s chief of staff, Sergei Ivanov. And on November27th Rossiya-1 channel aired a documentary linking a former agriculture minister, YelenaSkrynnik, to a reported $1.2 billion fraud.
For Mr Putin, taking on graft in his own circle has several benefits. It is popular: between2005 and 2012, corruption rose from tenth to third in the concerns of ordinary Russians. It isalso an issue that unites his opponents. Mr Putin may dismiss democratic worries, but hesees himself as a popular leader, responsive to the national will. Legitimacy of a kind mattersdeeply.
Eight months after his election to a third term, Mr Putin’s support looks shaky. The polls givehim some of his lowest approval ratings ever. So he feels “compelled to carry on a populistcourse, as if the elections were still ahead of him,” says Nikolay Petrov of the Carnegie MoscowCentre. Fighting corruption also defangs the most resonant complaint of the opposition.
Launching corruption cases against his inner circle can also rein in excesses that make MrPutin politically vulnerable and the state ineffectual. In his 12 years in power, bureaucraticcorruption has gone “unpunished, unattended, and uncontrolled”, says Elena Panfilova ofTransparency International, a lobby group. Worse, state employees now feel emboldened tosiphon off resources even without sustaining social stability. Targeting a few high-profileofficials can be a way to “introduce a certain level of fear,” Ms Panfilova notes.
A disruptive public war on corruption also can create more infighting among political andbusiness clans. That seems to be happening at Rostelecom, where two managers are beingquestioned about a $225m fraudulent loan from VTB, a state-run bank. Control over lucrativetelecoms licences may be the real point. Yet an anti-corruption purge can also take on its ownuncontrolled momentum, which could make Mr Putin weaker, not stronger.