Is Putin’s presidency a sign that Russia is again becoming an authoritarian state and that its fling with democracy is now over?
The beginning of the Cold War was initiated with the collapse of Nazi Germany and the need to fill the resulting power vacuum which led to the disintegration of the wartime partnership; the purposes of the Allies were simply too divergent: Churchill sought to prevent the Soviet Union from dominating Central Europe; Stalin wanted to be paid in territorial coin for Soviet military victories and the heroic suffering of the Russian people; the new President of the U.S., Harry S. Truman, intially strove to continue Roosevelt’s legacy of holding the alliance together. However, every vestige of wartime harmony had vanished. The Soviet Union and the United States, the two giants at the periphery, were now facing off against one another in the very heart of Europe. Truman was thrust into a world of contemporary diplomacy and the age of the atom bomb, when previously he only had to manage the Senate, and as Roosevelt’s understudy, he had a limited projection on the grave matters at hand: his call of duty went so far as to provide him the opportunity to take the then-President’s place should he become incapitated, incarcerated, etc. As was the case with Roosevelt’s deteriorating health, there was a necessity for him to relinquish his position of authority and place the “magic stick”, as it were, in the hands of his subordinate and soon to be successor. Truman’s three month tenure as Vice-President served little to inform him of the true state of policy and grounds for making decisions proactive to national security, muchless on a global scale. He would come to find that the gravity of tensions already instilled in nations with opposing political ideologies were much more grandiose than credited by special terms coined by political analysts and cabinet advisors, like containment, Four Policemen, collective security, etc. Therein, Truman inherited an international environment whose dividing lines were inchoately based on the position of armies advancing from east and west. The political fate of the countries liberated by Allied armies had not yet been resolved. Most of the traditional Great Powers still had to adjust to their changed roles. France was prostrate; Great Britain, though victorious, was exhausted; Germany was being carved into four occupation zones–having haunted Europe with its strength since 1871, its impotence now threatened it with chaos. Stalin’s wishes were to extend the Soviet frontier, while keeping a tight grip on Germany and thereby taking advantage of the creation of the vacuum that proposed the weakness of Western Europe.
Although decades ago, the remnants of a shattered past have saturated Russia’s premium policies–even still. The disillusion of recent attempts and motions for democracy have been tainted because of Russia’s past and her experience with what democracy once represented. The collapse of Communism provided an open door for policies and enterprise of Democracy, however the dissociation of Democracy and liberalism has left the Russian country in a stalemate. Reforms were instituted and progress has taken root (perhaps some more regressive than others). There’s no doubt. However many of these changes were bent for the welfare of those with more authority. In theory, democracy enacts legitimacy. Russia cannot claim such with idiomatic misconceptions of its basic precepts when its actors are busy justifying the economic failures with a few shoddy political reforms. The existence of Nomenklatura has been one of many fresh scars for any tendencies of hope for a true democracy. Hypothetically, democracy enables any character who participates and plays an active role for change to become part of the process, and to climb the rungs of government [directly or indirectly]. Elitism strangles any chance of this legitimate proactivism.
Fear does not always provide an opportunity for prosperity. Choosing to implement any rule with a foundation of authoritarian ideals and mark it with a new title does not change the fleeting validity of any man in power. Yeltsin’s lack of competence to provide the people of Russia with a working definition of democracy has crippled the asset of belief. Mobilization will not be and is not effective so long as those in power miscontrue the principle to those voting. Efficacy is maimed.
The large amount of restructure that took place on behalf of Gorbachev’s intiatives with perestroika gave a shout for the risks of change and the hopes that something better would evolve, but privatization was carried out in such a way that instead of contributing to a growing private sector, it only resulted in corruption and mass theft. Needless to remind you all that shock therapy in any case outside the realm of medical phenomenon is generally a bad idea. It’s a hardline guarantee with quick measures of stunting inflation by easing prices and the cessation of state owned enterprises. Hello privatization. Don’t think democracy has a snowball chance in hell if all it ever took was economic liberalization. Russians had no clue what an incentive was and suddenly they were given an option to claim ownership and such policies belied all they had ever known; of course they were confused and distraught. Democracy isn’t about the price of goods but often times, their relative value. The Russian nation was in trouble. Cultural homogeneity and audacious nationalism has
never been a matter of concern for Russia. Now, many Russians have become accustomed to the modernization for rights and expectations of consumerism when before waited for hours in line for staples. The current economic boom has allowed Putin the ability to get a grip on the Russian political culture. But what good and how efficacious is a true political culture when elections are limited by a margin less than all those who wish to believe/ choose to play a role in government and elections? Legislation has become a bit lax about issues of individual sovereignty and although there exist restrictions on the media, the grim reality of Mother Russian and her politics is that democracy has her roots in the days during the reign of Stalin and contemporary advantages of democracy have only been associated with economics because it’s the most immediate variable to which all can relate. The complexity of life in Russia has become an opprtunity for real efficacy, real legitimacy, and real liberalization (with some constraints where necessary, because there never was a cookie cutter version of democracy and her analogue should be most substantiated on that country’s past and that nation’s development). It’s obstensive that Russia is taking a semi-obvious detour toward previous authoritarian policies and behaviors. But considering her leap for democracy and mindless economic reforms, it’s no doubt the Russian people are dubious toward democracy’s effect. The leverage is that Putin can implement more than a one night stand with democracy but the cumbersome affectation is convincing the Russian people that such things are possible (and liberalization involves more than what’s in one’s wallet). The concern for generations to come will be teaming a gradual understanding and relationship between the government and the citizens that they will be guaranteed certain protected freedoms so long as they partcipate in their democracy, new elections and people will have an opportunity to become involved, and potential for making a difference that doesn’t involve inflation or elitist tendencies–a means of gaining the Russian peoples’ trust.
Under Yeltsin presidentary rule he was leaning Russia toward a democratic rule. When he passed on the rule to Putin he started to change Russia to an authoritarian rule. Although democracy is not totally out of the picture there is a gradual change to an authoritarian state. Most counties can see this as a bad change for Russia but it is how the people of Russia feel about this change. And most of the people feel that this is a good change for the safety and welfare of the people. When democracy had a larger portion of the state the citizens noticed an increase in crime and killing, which occurred because there was so much freedom that it was taken advantage of. Now that there is more restrictions the people feel safer than they did when they had more freedom.
i think it is reasonable to say that Russia is rejecting democracy with great aid by Putin.
Russia has a vast history with strong central rule. There has not been a significant time otherwise. Russians have always depended on a strong state to protect them. They have also always been the very opposite of Britain’s idea of gradualism. In fact, Russia is marked with backwardness. So although Gorbachev brought in glasnost and perestroika and Yeltsin led Russia into democracy, Russia just can’t handle it. In fact, Russia now hates the word democracy. Say democracy outlasts Putin, but the people don’t want it. Like the audio said, the people would chose free sausages over democracy. There is little incentive for it and history contradicts it.
This is my entire blog, for some reason the whole thing didn’t post the first time.
I believe that Russia’s fling with democracy is not over…yet. They have passed the ways of totalitarianism and communism and have used glasnost and peristroika to bring democracy into the mainstream of Russian lifesyle. Boris Yeltsin gave birth to the idea of democracy, however, by the end of his rule, the word democracy became one that would be considered foul and dirty. Why? Because his reform completely obliterated the Soviet Union. “Our transition to democracy has not been a smooth one…” says Gorbachev. Well DUH…democracy just surfaced from the middle of nowhere and look what happened; people took democracy past the line of moralities and used it as a method to live their life with freedom and vivacity. Now, Russians are becoming fed up with the ways of democracy, they are able to see the failures and pitfalls that have been created by this. Yet, they still don’t want to leave it. They agree that current life is better than what it was some 20 years ago. Obviously they don’t want to revert to the setting where they were controlled absolutely and to where freedoms were only feasible in Cloud 9-like dreams.
Also, the elite in society still tend to render the most impact of what goes on politically. The system of nomenklatura does seem to still exist from its communist past, because in the political caucus, some restrictions lay in place that have been there since communism took a hold in Russia. The media is still dictated heavily by the Kremlin, showing that the ideas maintained by democracy still haven’t had an impact. Therefore, it must be noted that authoritarianism may be coming into play. The Kremlin is, at this point, controlling a single point of lifestyle; that being a linkage institution. They do not want society to become rampant and be able to make such blatant statements as society once did when democracy was unleashed and they were able to reveal their complaints about the hardships they had to face to the Kremlin. They are trying to control this aspect so that people know and understand that they can’t do everything they want. The Kremlin is trying to make sure that they still have legitimacy, therefore they are suppressing the media in ways that they have direct influences.
In conclusion, I believe that Russia is still going to work on the path of democracy, but eventually there might come a time when people are going to become fed up with the freedoms they are permitted and will possibly commence a coup d’etat to reform the government so that their life is controlled and they know the boundaries under which they are to maintain themselves and live.
In order for a person to really be able to examine this question, I would suppose you would need to compare the current regime to the Soviet Union’s regime. When doing so you kind of get a lot of mixed signals. Some evidence shows that they have taken long strides to genuinely allow a liberal democracy to grow within their political system. People are allowed to move from country to country, individuals can now express their views, and there is some privatization that is prospering within the country. When compared to its history of Tsarist rule and again in Communist rule, this is revolutionary. Especially when you understand that the people once had to have permission from the Communist government to get a divorce, the freedoms the people have are enormous when compared to before. On the other hand, Putin does seem to moving away from the ideals of democracy. He is gaining larger amounts of political and economic power, restricting the power given to opposition parties, and allowing censorship to a certain extent. It seems to me that Putin has kind of restricted the growth of democracy. I am not saying that this is necessarily a bad thing though. Yeltsin and Gorbechev revolutionized Russia so suddenly that when people were given the sudden rush of freedoms, corruption, lawlessness, and economic woes ran rampant. Putin intelligently slowed the pace down. With the power he had amassed, he did many good things for Russia; he reduced lawlessness and corruption within the country and raised wages. He is the strong ideal leader that Russia desires. What really worries me, however, is the political restrictions he imposes on the opposition party and public figures that oppose his government. I don’t see any merit in doing such an act and see it as a flagrant violation of democracy. This suggests that there is still some possibility that Russia may become authoritarian once again. It’s too early to decide right now though. It took decades for the U.S. to fully master democracy. Russia has only had about a decade or two to practice democracy. Who knows if it’ll be successful? Only time can tell.
I kind of like the way Gorbachev puts it, “There are frequent accusations that democracy is being suppressed and that freedom of press is being stifled. The truth is, most Russians disagree with this viewpoint… Our transition to democracy has not been a smooth one, and we must assess our successes and failures not in the context of some ideal, but in the context of our history. When Putin first came to power, I think his first priority was keeping the country from falling apart, and this required certain measures that wouldn’t exactly be referred to as textbook democracy. Yes, there are certain worrying tendencies… However, I would not dramatize the situation.”
I agree with bleau. Russia is rejecting Democracy. Just like Great Britain, they too have their traditions that they cling to. Russia’s tradition is the people being told what to do; The state having complete control and the people not really questioning. Although the people do usually complain about it, much like all governed peoples, they don’t really like it to change. Why would they? Yes, things are bad, but they could be worse. Those in charge who decide to change the government (Yeltsin, Gorbachev, Putin) seem to have an idealistic mind set. As strange as that may sound. Putin is hopeful. The people are hopeful, but, they aren’t willing. So, the Russian leaders seem to be taking on what the people are lacking making them all too crazy about change. And what could be more of a change than from totalitarianism to democracy? So is Russia’s “fling” with democracy over? The real question is has it even really begun. If the answer is twisted to be yes then….Good luck to Russia.
Democracy, the idea of a government in which the supreme power lays on the will of the people is highly extolled by the western hemisphere as being the greatest thing since sliced bread. But even then its influence has reached to the opposite end of the world, affecting countries such as Russia in this case that attempted to reform their governments into to this picture perfect ideal. It is evident, however, that democracy may not be the solution to all countries problems. Attempts of democracy in Russia through the 1990’s are often looked back on a being a “period of chaos,” but what is even more interesting is the reasoning behind such disillusionment at the time. While existing under a communist state under the Soviet Union Russia’s inhabitants often feared the government and wished for liberty, however they received essentials needed for basic existence. This became an important point when viewed at the situation during the cold war. The cold war demonstrates the absolute dependency of the people upon its government. It includes more than trusting the government do what is considered best, it includes the reality that the people are completely willing to avoid most inconveniences. They even appeared to be willing to give up most freedoms to “prevent war at all costs”. While the intent of brining democracy to Russia may have been to provide further liberties for the people, it perhaps provided too much. Unused to being faced with so many liberties the people were not really sure what to do with them. It was the rise of corruption, crime, and economic instability. Along with this came the privatization of businesses, which was also supposed to help in creating a middle class, but instead only benefited the elites, and those who had ties with them. This plunged most Russian’s into further economic distress. Materials were no longer provided, it came to be part of their responsibilities to become more independent as well.
It was with the coming of Putin into office, that new reforms were quick to take place. While claiming to still be a democracy, it fails to enact several of the most prominent characteristics of democracy. The freedom of the press for example is considered to be extremely important, and a means of people to express their ideas, as well as be informed as to the governments actions. This, though, is not being carried out. As Gorbachev himself said the “first priority was keeping the country from falling apart, and this required certain measures that wouldn’t exactly be referred to as textbook democracy”, but when did textbook democracy become communism? It is argued that Putin’s new plan is not a work of democracy, but instead he is taking the country as a whole back into communism. But would that really be a bad thing? After all control has been implemented into the country from its very beginning, it is the roots of its political culture. Obviously people are unable to live with complete freedom, being completely unused to it, it is no surprise they would go on a total freedom high, much like children after too much candy. They are unable to establish clear boundaries and the country suffers for it. While on the other hand Puttin’s actions may be viewed as a step back, a way to satisfy the people, and then begin the whole democratic processes once more. In this case Putin’s actions could be considered borderline genius, since radical revolutions don’t seem to do the trick. Changes so drastic as Russia has attempted to integrate need time to work themselves into a country. The change from communism to a democratic society is completely deranging the schema of a country; it is not merely implementing a new law. You can’t wake up one day and think, “huh, well I think being an anarchist would be a good way to start off the week,” there is a process that must be dealt with first. And while Russia may currently appear to be undergoing it’s final dance with democracy there is the possibility that if dealt with gradually enough it may stand a chance, even if it means taking a step back.
Danceqt, I would like to address some of your ideas.
“The cold war demonstrates the absolute dependency of the people upon its government. It includes more than trusting the government do what is considered best, it includes the reality that the people are completely willing to avoid most inconveniences. They even appeared to be willing to give up most freedoms to “prevent war at all costs”.”
In all honesty, the citizens of Russia really don’t want to give up their freedoms; they want to keep them and expand upon them and live with them forever. Yet I do agree on the fact that this unleashing of freedom has led to corruption and malbehavior in the name of recklessness. However, Russians really don’t trust their government or the officials because of the great instability as you seem to think; they have no trust in what they do in fear that they may do something else stupid and make life even worse than it already is. Even though most people claim that life now is better than it was some 20 years ago, authoritarianism is the hope and mindset for the future, or that’s what the Russian populace seems to want. They act as proponents for statism, they crave the old ideas of government taking a stand and telling them what to do (this implies that Russians are morons because they are unwilling to think for themselves; hence, they may need to spoon-fed for awhile longer until they can mature and develop brain cells that are active. If I have offended any Russian descent person or people, I’m sorry, but the truth hurts.) To finalize, I wholeheartedly agree with your idea of “step[ping] back”, for that does seem to be the only systematic way to bring democracy into the mainframe of Russia. So is this the “final dance”? The answer is, in a blatant yet questinonable assertion, NO!!!
Russia is not done with democracy! Russia was faced with democracy very suddenly, and people have seemed to moderately adapt to it not very well but no very bad either. It seems that Russia still wants to stick with it because it has brought them freedom and sense of equality as an individual although democracy has brought them to some falls and negative turnouts.
Now that Russia is a democracy it has given the people freedom of choice and not a forced daily routine of do’s and don’ts, they seem to have hope in fully adapting to make a more positive outcome. Yet their are some doubts because some people still seem to drift back to having their decisions made for them etc.
Putin is an excellent leader for Russia; he is exactly what they needed. Putin brought democracy into their lives but not forcing it onto them with large amounts, but instead fed in to them a very slow and comfortable pace. Putins way of bringing in democracy did many good things for Russia such as more freedom, less corruption, and raise wages.
As far as Russia staying a democracy or turning back to authoritarian is a risky thing to decide right now! id say democracy will stay but who really knows?
Putin has brought democracy into Russia in a very smart manner. The way putin has brought democracy into Russia I would say is the major reason why I believe Russia will continue as a democracy. Putin did not overthrown Russia with exceeding amounts of democracy; he instead brought it in a moderate way, which made it easy for the people to adapt to. Also this moderate and slow pace of democracy in Russia managed to accomplish great things such as giving the people freedom as individuals, freedom to travel, and make their own decisions, as well as decreased corruption and also brought more money into the community.
In my opinion, Russian is defiantly not going to convert back to authoritarian, although yes there are a few things here and there that show people swaying back towards that direction. For example many people that work for the government like teachers etc, are in a new from of government but still have the same materials or knowledge of doing things the old way. In opposing that issue, democracy I think is better for Russia and being favored increasingly.
Despite all the good things, democracy has done with Russia it hags also brought some down falls, but nothing too extravagant.
Truly there is no way to be completely sure, but i have shared with you what I believe is going to stay for good.
Callirox1661 and zizu, both of you are either very confused and clueless as to what you are saying, or you are in complete oblivion to hardline fact. Both of you claim that Putin has brought democracy into Russia. ARE YOU INSANE? ARE YOU FORGETING GORBACHEV AND A FEW DECADES LATER THE IDIOTIC YELTSIN? WHERE ARE YOU GETTING YOUR INFORMATION?
OR
Maybe both of you are not necessarily stating what you want to say in the correct manner. From what both of you assert, Putin is the founder of the grand democracy that has taken root in the Russian Federation. However, possibly you mean that Putin is the really the first leader to put a spin on democracy to where things are not out of hand and he, as danceqt states very well, is taking a “step back” so that he can rework democracy into a productive manner of governmental rule.
Both of you seem very dubious to the past are only living in present day terms. You must broaden you horizons and delve deep into the past so true undertanding can be found and reasons can be concluded as to why the status quo is such as it is today.
Russia is not becoming authoritarian, it’s fling with democracy is far from over. Democracy is of course having residual effects, but that is what can be expected when you do not ease into it gradually. People lost their morals and took everything to their extremes, simply because they could. Currently Russia is experiencing an economic boom that has given Putin power and popularity. He has raised wages making the people in favor of his strong stable leadership. People today are free in their everyday lives to do and act as they please. This is what most people consider free, however some liberties are being taken away. Putin has abolished the elections of regional governments and replaced it with appointed members. In this manner he has minimized his opposition forces to a handful allowing him to speed legislation through parliament before anything can be said. The Kremlin is reestablishing control of key economic sectors such as the oil industry yet the people are happy because the economy is good. There is also talk of canceling local elections so how can this be a move toward keeping democracy and not an authoritarian state? Well maybe it is necessary to take back some of the control to get the country moving in the right direction. Then maybe democracy can be effective and legitimate. People can become more actively involved in the democracy and actually understand democracy in order to truly implement it. The lack of elections is a startling but I think a true test to the legitimacy of Russia’s government and their fling with democracy will be if Putin truly steps down.
Russian democracy in my opinnion just needs time, like our nation when it was first inroduced. The United states didn’t exactly know how to start but we look and recieved inspieration from the greeks, eventuallly with time, we place a governemnt that is fluid and workds well. Still it has a lot of work needed, but i confodent, just like the united states, russia will grow to be strong democracy.
Putin is digging his heels not to be some dictator, only to try to stablized the inner government before he takes action on to the country. Iam sure after he has streghten the government then he will act on the country’s problems like education.
Putin is also trying to slow down the effects of shock theropy, he wants to take some steps back totake a different approach.
I don’t think Russia is heading towards an authoritarian regime, but simply strengthening the central government.
From a Western point of view, it certainly seems that Russia is becoming more authoritarian, with a loss of civil liberties/rights. However, in comparison to the situation in the Stalinist USSR or tsarist Russia, then it is easy to see that Russians do enjoy an unprecedented political, social, and even economic freedom than in the past. I strongly disagree with Bleau’s statement, “Russia is marked with backwardness….the people would chose free sausages over democracy.” Your comments are not only derogatory, but also demonstrate your ignorance. Just because Russian’s have different priorities or the political system and current regime differ from your perception of what it should be, doesn’t make it backwards. Russia has made remarkable progress towards democracy from Communist rule, but economic/democratic reforms under Yeltsin weren’t implemented efficiently, which allowed for corruption and the exploitation of the people and resources to run rampant. Putin is trying to keep Russia stabilized and hopefully allow it to prosper. His government has gone after the people who exploited Russia, for their selfish gains.
About the other part of your comment, “the people would chose free sausages over democracy.” For many people, democracy has not benefited them. So they can speak freely or protest, but what good is it for them to have these civil liberties, when they are impoverished and starving. At least under Communism, there was a sort of guarantee that they’d survive. But with Yeltsin’s democracy, it was an abrupt change. They no longer had those types of socialist guarantees, but instead it was a race for survival, that is still going on to this day. Putin is a stark contrast to Yeltsin and he symbolizes that old guarantee; he provides hope and reassurance to some impoverished Russians. Once again, your comments are derogatory and lack understanding of the socio-economic situation that Russians are faced with.
While the Russian government is centralizing, people still retain freedoms. And while it seems as if Russia is going towards a socialist direction, that doesn’t mean it’ll become a communist or authoritarian country. Here’s a news flash: the President of Spain, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, is a democratic socialist (a member of the Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party); the government of the U.K. is to an extent socialist (as seen with such institutions as the NHS). If Russia is able to achieve a socialist-democratic state then what’s the problem? AND if- that’s a big if- Russia actually became an authoritarian state, it will be with the will of many Russians who have experienced democracy and have suffered under it (but I don’t think Russia will really regress to a Stalinist/authoritarian state).
I want to clarify a statement I made: “Russians do enjoy an unprecedented political, social, and even economic freedom than in the past.”
But later, I write of impoverished Russians that are dissatisfied with democracy.
My point is that some Russians were able to adapt and prosper in a free-market oriented/democratic society, while others didn’t have a clue. The whole system was an alien concept for them and they had no basis or prior experience/education for which to rely on.
And some Russians were able to adapt and prosper better than others, such as Boris Berezovsky, a billionaire that profited under glasnost and throughout the 1990’s, gaining access to companies such as Aeroflot (airline), AutoVAZ (car manufacturer), Sibneft (oil company), and several television and newspaper outlets.
When talking about democracy in Russia, it can become an exhausting task that goes around in circles. History says that democracy in Russia is doomed, while some current facts prove otherwise. Fumbling through the dark with a dim flashlight (the Energizer bunny must have lost his footing or energy somewhere) I have come to the non-surprising conclusion that I, nor anyone, can actually say that Russia is completely through with democracy. Before anyone starts ranting and raving and attacking me, I’m not saying that Russia is headed on the right path toward westernization and democracy now either.
Russians enjoy many personal freedoms that they never have had before. Legislator Vladimir Ryzhkov sums it up well, “The state no longer interferes in private life. You can be gay or lesbian, do what you want in the privacy of your home. You can listen to any music, read any book, and travel to any country. Outside politics, Russia is an open country.” What this is basically saying is that Russia has advanced in the private sector, people can indeed enjoy their lives as long as they do not cross the line. The problem with this is the undefined line. Once a person becomes too much of a threat to President Vladimir Putin’s liking, he/she is removed from the picture. This in turn leads to evaluating Putin’s political/economic morality. Television is state run, 200 journalists have been killed in Russia over the past 15 years, the election of regional governors has been abolished, and the government has tightened it’s grip on the corporate sector.
The saying “count your chickens before they hatch” holds more true to Russia than almost anywhere else. And both sides need to do the counting. Russia has constantly seen a tsar, authoritarian, or totalitarian regime in control. Yet, Russians are doing better than ever in many sectors. The truth is that the future of Russia is still too foggy to determine the winner between democracy and oppressive control.