Lone star over the Kremlin

The scene, though, left a different impression. Heads of four political parties (supposedly independent, but all creatures of the Kremlin) sat before Putin and revealed to him their choice for president. Putin accepted the decision (though he himself had clearly made it). He praised the candidate (his longtime lieutenant) and suggested that the nomination reflected the views of a broad variety of Russians (none of whom had been given any say in the process).

Artifice plays a role in politics everywhere, yet Russia seems to have adopted a kind of imitation of democracy. It is as if a veneer of legitimacy has been put on a variation of the strongman rule present here for centuries—whether under Peter the Great, Lenin or Putin himself.

A parliamentary election was held this month in which many parties took part, but only Putin’s United Russia received glowing television news coverage and other Government favours; it won in a landslide. The Kremlin orchestrated the nomination for president of Putin’s aide, Dmitri A. Medvedev, who is all but assured of winning the March election.

Hovering over all these events is the question of why Putin and others in the Kremlin even bother with the democratic trappings. Given that Putin is highly popular, that the Russian public has long clung to a potent chieftain, why not just pack the Parliament, amend the Constitution and stay another term?

Putin appears in part motivated by a need to be seen on the world stage as a lawfully elected leader as genuine as his partners in the Group of Eight. There is an element of Russian pride in this sentiment. Having purportedly embraced democracy, the Kremlin cannot tolerate being told it does elections any less properly than the West....