Our president who rules without checks

Garry Kasparov

The Russian people go to the polls today, so it is a good time to ask just how far the country will have to go down the road of authoritarianism before the West does more than raise an eyebrow and mouth concern. President Putin is doing everything he can to demolish the nascent democratic institutions of Russia. He can only be encouraged by the inaction of the UK, the US and the other western democracies that profess to stand for these ideals.

You do not have to look far for other recent examples of freedom and democracy being sacrificed on the altar of political expediency. The West was also "concerned" about the recent elections in Iran in which thousands of reformist candidates were banned at the last moment. Malaysia's prime minister launched an anti-Semitic tirade at an Islamic conference and while the European Union "deeply deplored" it, France vetoed a more substantial condemnation. Meanwhile, a dictator in North Korea is welcomed with open arms for making token conciliatory gestures after decades of intransigence and outright violence. One can imagine Mr Putin positively quaking in his fur boots in the face of such wrath.

When a country is not so economically or militarily fortunate, concern can turn to action quite quickly. When the Ukrainian administration made moves to alter the constitution to maintain its grip on power it was swiftly and severely rebuked by the EU. The current assault on democratic foundations in Russia are far more severe and will result in drastic long-term consequences for the region and the world. If allowed to continue they will also destroy the little remaining credibility the West has in the realm of standing up for democracy abroad.

A suggestion to the West, then. If you don't condemn what is going on in Russia just stay away. If you give tacit approval to Mr Putin's actions by "expressing concern" and doing nothing you may as well present him with open congratulations for rigging elections, imprisoning detractors, and taking control of the media.

There can hardly be space in this newspaper to review all of the Kremlin's activities toward centralising power and silencing the opposition, so a few well-chosen examples must suffice. After all, this Putin regime is a new type of police state with a mix of both old and new anti-democratic machinery.

One from the old handbook is to use fear and security concerns to cow the citizenry. The bogeyman in question is Chechnya. Few Russians support any continuation of military action or approve of the way Mr Putin has handled things there. Yet this does not make the ploy of claiming imminent danger any less effective.

There are serious concerns that the state security forces may even be involved in the recent violence in order to inspire even more fear. Or are we to believe the equally troubling assertion that the vast federal security apparatus is unable to make any progress against a band of poorly-funded terrorists?

Taking control of the mass media is hardly a new trick, but there is some original flair in the process this time around. Instead of shutting down television channels or newspapers that dare say anything less than complimentary about the Putin administration - or, worse, that give attention to the opposition - the offenders are replaced with loyalists. The packaging remains the same but what is inside is changed.

This Putin-style censorship has attracted at least nominal attention. EU observers of December's parliamentary elections were stunned to see that, according to their report, "every [media] outlet was attacking all the opposition parties". Let us hope that these observers recovered their senses in time for the presidential election, which is shaping up to be even worse. It will take some doing to top the voter turnout in Chechnya last time, however, since it was already over 100 per cent. As Comrade Stalin said: "Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything."

Another key plank in Mr Putin's platform for quieting dissent and centralising power is the systematic prosecution of anyone who refuses to toe his line and fill his pockets. This has been effected by first obliging every large business to contribute to the Kremlin's projects off the books and under the table. If you try to pay your taxes to the state instead of in suitcases you find your company investigated and shut down.

Once these corrupt dealings have begun, the Kremlin uses the threat of prosecution to keep the corporations in line. If anyone tries to escape this vicious cycle they are quickly punished. The best example of this remarkable scheme is the owner of the Yukos energy company, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, and the word "example" is all too correct in his case.

While many of his fellow oligarchs were buying yachts, mansions and foreign football clubs, Mr Khodorkovsky was attempting to transform Yukos into a truly modern international corporation. It was already by far the most transparent energy company in Russia. Mr Khodorkovsky made his political opinions known, and spent millions of dollars on educational and charitable initiatives in Russia. Now he is in prison. We can assume a yacht, or maybe Arsenal, would have been a safer investment.

If there is anything that the current Kremlin regime cannot abide it is transparency. The moment they can no longer use the threat of prosecution for illegal business practices against the nation's financial leaders they will lose control and the steady income that comes with it. Those in power can commit any wrongdoing as long as they stay loyal to the supreme leader and his interests.

This is why Mr Khodorkovsky was such a threat. He did not want state favours and could not be blackmailed by the Kremlin. He wanted to break out of the shadow world and this the Putin regime could not bear. They committed massive violations of Russian law and procedures at the attorney general's office and in various courts in order to put Mr Khodorkovsky quite literally out of business.

I realise this must sound quite ridiculous to western ears. A rich man is in jail because he no longer wanted to be corrupt, because he wanted to pay his taxes to the state. Mr Khodorkovsky wanted to be free from the pressure, from the threat of prosecution at the president's whim. He wanted to be loyal to the law, not the ruler, and for this he is in jail.

If you are free of the system you can expose it and ruin it for everyone. Mr Khodorkovsky could not be allowed to serve as a bad example to the rest and so now he serves as a good example of what happens if you try to shine light into the dark lair of the nomenklatura.

Understanding the nature of the Russian state bureaucracy is the key to understanding Mr Putin's actions. The real power in these institutions does not depend on public elections and they are doing everything they can to keep it that way. It is opaque, as it must be to survive. The current Byzantine power system is based on allegiance to the leader and everyone must participate or be punished. Promotion comes from within the system, not elections.

Free and fair elections are therefore a threat to the Kremlin's corrupt power structure. This is why the Free Choice 2008 Committee was born in January. We are attempting to call global attention to the disaster that is occurring in Russia.

The committee is working with various non-government organisations inside and outside of the country in order to document the abuses of the Putin regime while there is still time to remedy them.

The committee's central call is for the lawful election of the Russian president in 2008. We seek to prevent any foul play with the constitution that would allow the sitting president to stay in power. The committee hopes to organise a movement toward general, free and fair elections. Without such elections there will be no protection for the rights of the minority, and the rapid slide into completely authoritarian rule will pick up speed.

The Free Choice 2008 Committee is also tackling the many violations that occurred during the December elections. We are meeting to consider challenges in the Russian court system, ending if necessary in the Supreme Court.

We recognise the enormity of the challenge and seek to enlist the aid of the western nations that so often claim to defend democracy wherever it is threatened. It is worth noting that European parliaments have been freer to condemn Russia's failures than the leaders of these countries, all of whom have remained all but silent.

The engagement of countries such as the UK and the US is not only essential for them to avoid charges of hypocrisy; there is a moral imperative at stake as well. As Gladstone said in 1879 regarding Disraeli's foreign policy: "Remember that the sanctity of human life in the hill villages of Afghanistan among the winter snows is as inviolable in the eye of Almighty God as can be your own."

Garry Kasparov has been the world's number one chess player for 19 years and is the chairman of the Free Choice 2008 Committee in Russia.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/