In recent years, there have been quite a few academic studies of power transition scenarios in long-lasting personalist regimes. More than 200 post-1945 dictatorships have been analysed. The objective is to examine the role of various institutions in the transition of power. The consequences are compared: what is the nature of transition when the regime changes during the lifetime of the leader? And after his death? As we know, a long-lasting dictatorship eventually brings societal expectations of a leader’s death. Anxiety starts to rise among the elites and rumors begin to swirl. Many of the changes awaited by large social groups get pushed back to an imagined point beyond the head of state’s demise. Dissonant expectations and a general fear of destabilization take root. During a leader's lifetime, the most incredible ideas about the transformation are voiced. Beyond the threshold of his reign there lies a future which is undefined. However, a large array of comparative data about the 20th century can help narrow options. There are, in fact, not so many scenarios and configurations of the transition of power. Let us detail those below to help analyze and anticipate what might happen in the event of a sudden death of Vladimir Putin. The analysis of such a situation, whether it happens tomorrow or in 20 years, allows us to simulate the circumstances of a hypothetical transfer of power in Russia. Snap election In the event of the death of the president or his inability to fulfill his duties, presidential powers are temporarily transferred to the head of the government. According to the Russian Constitution, an election should be called within 90 days. The prime minister, as a member of the Security Council (SC), will fulfill his interim duties and convene SC meetings. This means SC members automatically become key figures in the transition. The center of gravity shifts from the government to the Security Council, which takes over leadership.

SC members will no doubt try to ensure a constitutional transfer of power to guarantee stability. It is hard to imagine any individual group would resort to an unconstitutional seizure of power; it would be difficult to legitimize the coup. Second, the security agencies are so diversified that political control over one of them does not guarantee stability of power. Stakeholders Who is going to decide on the agreed successor? If the Russian leader dies next Sunday (as it is usually put in sociological surveys), the decision would be made by regime stakeholders. They can be divided into three groups from the point of view of their leverage. The most influential group is certain SC members. These include the prime minister, security bloc leaders (Sergei Naryshkin, Alexander Bortnikov, Sergei Shoygu, Vladimir Kolokoltsev and General Ivanov), heads of certain corporations — Sergei Chemezov (Rostec), Igor Sechin (Rosneft), Igor Shuvalov (VEB); the group also includes Yuri Kovalchuk, Gennadiy Timchenko, Arkadiy Rotenberg and Sergei Sobyanin, who are historically close to Putin. The second group of stakeholders is closely related to the former, but voices of this tier will be softer. This milieu comprises Central Bank head Elvira Nabiullina, head of the Accounts Chamber Alexei Kudrin, the top 20 wealthiest people on the Russian Forbes list (apart from Timchenko, who ranks 5th but is a member of the most influential group of stakeholders). The third group comprises influential political managers, such as Andrei Vaino, Vyacheslav Volodin, Sergei Kiriyenko, Alexei Gromov and Sergei Lavrov.

Clearly, the decision-making mechanism will cascade down from the top tier. Members of the most influential group will take into account the opinions of the lower two tiers. Anyone below the third tier, including federal and regional administrations, will have to just agree. It should be take in account that top administrators at the federal and regional level have their patrons among the heavyweights from the upper three tiers, which will ensure stability of the consensus choice. Media The political role of the media will be vital in these 90 days. Undoubtedly, media outlets will disorient society with unconfirmed reports of consensus on the successor. Despite labels such as “Kremlin media” or “Kremlin propaganda”, which imply a high degree of consolidation, the real situation is not so simple. Gromov and Kiriyenko’s control over the media is limited. In Russia, media holdings cater to the interests of their owners. They have their own biographical and institutional ties to Putin. In an emergency situation, media holding owners will cater not only to the interests of political managers from the presidential administration. They will also channel efforts directly to the interests of the top tier of stakeholders. Who then? Putting aside detailed analysis, one can speculate that only Sobyanin, Kudrin, Chemezov, Shuvalov and Medvedev can be consensus candidates. Clearly a consensus cannot be reached over influential and frequently mentioned persona such as Sechin, Ramzan Kadyrov or Shoygu.