The presidential election campaign in Russia stumbled on intrigue from the outset. Carefully orchestrated on a number of levels, there was no room for anyone other than Dmitry Medvedev winning the race.

Candidates’ eligibility criteria were tailored to negate politicians disloyal to Kremlin – both liberal opposition politicians Mikhail Kasyanov and Garry Kasparov were disqualified from the race on technicalities. State-controlled TV was heavy on Medvedev-Putin coverage and gave almost no air time to the other candidates, whereas Western concerns about curtailed democratic freedoms were barely considered worthy of a story. What is more, a number of employers would make “goodwill calls” toward employees to vote for the right candidate. On election day, rare foodstuffs and goods were on offer in less monitored polling stations to trigger higher voter turnout.
In such an environment, any sort of surprises were squashed to push the Kremlin’s scenario through. Medvedev was the uncontested champion with 70.2 per cent of the votes. The landslide victory was in full compliance with Kremlin’s objective, meaning that the result mirrored the current approval ratings of the outgoing president.

Gennady Zyuganov, the communist party leader, was a distant second with 17.8 per cent of the vote. Nationalist Vladimir Zhirinovsky, another perennial presidential candidate like Zyuganov, won 9.4 per cent and little-known leader of the pro-Western Democratic Party, Andrey Bogdanov, was last with just 1.3 per cent. High turnout also reflected expectations, drawing 69.6 per cent of Russia’s 109 million eligible voters to the polling stations.

Just as expected was international criticism that elections were carried out in an undemocratic way. International observers at the elections numbered only 300 for 96 000 polling stations. The only reputable organisation to send its representatives was the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, whereas the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe refused to do so, saying that the obstructions to the monitoring process made it meaningless.

With the predictable election a thing of the past, Russia is now facing the real question – whether Putin and Medvedev’s pledge to work in tandem would last. A number of local and international analysts questioned the viability of dual leadership over time, yet would not rule out that the two might set a historical example.

Although its coat of arms comprises two same-size eagles, symbolising dual leadership, Russia has had a tandem at the helm of the country only twice in its history. The first was in the 17th century, when the first tsar of the Romanov dynasty served together with his father, Patriarch Filaret. The second brief co-rule was in the 1920s between Joseph Stalin, the authoritarian Soviet leader during World War 2, as well as the start of the Cold War, and Vladimir Lenin, the architect of the Bolshevik Revolution.

Since the start of the election campaign the duo – long-time allies since working in St Petersburg’s city hall in the 1990s – have never strayed from the message that they would run the country in tandem. They then re-iterated it on election day when the outcome of the poll was beyond doubt.

“We will increase stability, improve the quality of life and move forward on the path we have chosen,” Medvedev told a gathering in the Red Square outside the Kremlin, as quoted by the Associated Press. “We will be able to preserve the course set by president Putin.”

This would mean that Russia would strive to maintain its renewed status as a superpower on the international scene, as well as continue to bolster its economy through the implementation of long-term modernisation strategies. As it stands now, the economy is 60 per cent fuelled by proceeds from exports of raw materials, mainly oil and gas.

The economic uptick should draw on guidelines that Putin had set through 2020, some of which refer to the deployment of innovative technologies; turning Russia into a world financial and technological centre; building a strong military and upgrading the educational and health care systems and the national road infrastructure.

Putin, for his part, confirmed he would work as prime minister for as long as Medvedev was president.

At his valedictory news conference as president, however, Putin made clear that he would seek to expand the powers of the prime minister’s office, which under his rule were overshadowed by the president. Speaking to journalists, he said that a number of key policy areas would become the responsibility of the prime minister, rather than the president, including the national budget, foreign and domestic policy and national security. What is more, Putin said that he saw the president serving primarily as the guardian of the constitution and offering policy guidelines.

International analysts commented that with the split, or rather shift, of power from prime minister to president, the fight for supremacy – even between long-time friends – could emerge sooner rather than later.

Several Russian media commented that there were two incentives that could make the two share power. The first could be an agreement that the pair ensure a long political life for each other by taking turns in the presidential office for decades. To make this last even longer, the newspapers have speculated that parliament might seal a bill on the extension of the presidential tenure from four to seven years.

The second incentive lies in Putin’s intentions – stated at his final news conference – to sell the state-run corporations, whose assets were diligently amassed during Putin’s term in office. Medvedev, who as deputy prime minister was also the head of gas giant Gazprom, has the combination of managerial and political acumen that could line him among the preferred buyers in the future.

Whether the tandem will last for long will become clear when the two have spent several months in their new jobs, which is when the first frictions are expected to emerge.