EurasiaNet Eurasia Insight - CIS: What Happens To Post-Soviet Presidents After They Leave Office?

EURASIA INSIGHT

CIS: WHAT HAPPENS TO POST-SOVIET PRESIDENTS AFTER THEY LEAVE OFFICE?
Gulnoza Saidazimova 2/08/05
Part one in a two-part series from RFE/RL

Print this article Email this article

Ukraine is the most recent example of a president stepping down in a post-Soviet country. And, although the Ukrainian government determined the privileges and benefits that President Leonid Kuchma would have after he left office, some allies of new President Viktor Yushchenko say a criminal investigation should be launched against Kuchma. In Russia, Boris Yeltsin also left power voluntarily. Georgian President Eduard Shevardnadze, however, was pressured to resign. What happens to presidents after they leave office?

It is still unclear what benefits and privileges former Ukrainian President Kuchma will have. The country’s cabinet decided on January 28, that Kuchma would receive retirement benefits that include bodyguards, a summer cottage (dacha), and a pension. These are taxpayer-supported benefits for life similar to those received by Ukraine’s other retired president, Leonid Kravchuk.

Kuchma is also entitled to live in a mansion in Kyiv’s elite Pushcha Voditsa neighborhood and to have two assistants, an adviser, two cars, and four drivers. The dacha comes with a cook, two maids, and two waiters.

But some politicians, mainly allies of Kuchma’s successor, Viktor Yushchenko, have called for Kuchma’s immediate prosecution for alleged criminal activities. If he were prosecuted and convicted of a crime, Kuchma would lose all of his privileges.

The post-Soviet countries have seen few examples of presidents leaving office voluntarily. Andrei Ryabov, an expert on Russian politics with the Carnegie Moscow Center, told RFE/RL that legislation in the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) dealing with benefits for former presidents has not yet been developed.

"In the CIS, the system of providing ex-leaders [with benefits and privileges] has not clearly developed yet, unlike the People’s Republic of China, [which] has had a very good and effective mechanism since then-leader of China Deng Xiaoping became less active in politics," Ryabov said. "In the post-Soviet space, this system is forming. We’ve had only two serious precedents -- Russian President Boris Yeltsin and -- [to a lesser extent] -- Georgian President Eduard Shevardnadze."

Ryabov said he did not mention Kuchma because his privileges depend mainly on an upcoming decision by new Ukrainian Prime Minister Yuliya Tymoshenko, who took office last week.

Russian President Boris Yeltsin stepped down voluntarily on December 31, 1999, before the end of his second term and chose Vladimir Putin as his successor. Yeltsin got unprecedented privileges and became known as "Pensioner No. 1" in Russia. Ryabov said the example set by the extremely comfortable benefits given to Yeltsin did not result in the creation of a standard framework regarding such benefits because his retirement "package" was based on a personal agreement he made with Putin.

"It’s too early to say that the system [of privileges and benefits] is complete and finalized because the former leaders’ privileges are not based on law, even though they may seem to be based on law," Ryabov said. "In fact, they are based on the promises of the new leader [Putin], who was ’made’ by [Yeltsin] and his allies. As long as Vladimir Putin stays in power he will fulfill all the promises [he made to Yeltsin]. But if the next president is critical of Yeltsin and Putin, I doubt he will let Yeltsin keep his privileges."

The major part of an agreement between Yeltsin and Putin was regarding privileges for Yeltsin’s family members and for his close allies to hold on to various positions in the government after Putin assumed office.

The Central Eurasia Project aims, through its website, meetings, papers, and grants, to foster a more informed debate about the social, political and economic developments of the Caucasus and Central Asia. It is a program of the Open Society Institute-New York. The Open Society Institute-New York is a private operating and grantmaking foundation that promotes the development of open societies around the world by supporting educational, social, and legal reform, and by encouraging alternative approaches to complex and controversial issues.

The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily represent the position of the Open Society Institute and are the sole responsibility of the author or authors.