Analysis Of Putin's Russia

Democracy was already viewed poorly in Russia, whose only other experience plunged them deeper into the depths of World War 1. This is significant because a majority of the Russian people felt during that time that their voices were not heard. Therefore, it should be noted then, that when Yeltsin took power, Russian’s had not seen true representative democracy. When, Yeltsin took power after the fall of the Soviet Union, Russians were wary. This illegitimate view towards democracy was one of the reasons the resource curse had such a profound effect. The other that the economy was weak and the government was unstable. This in part was attributed to the loss of over 15 states when the Soviet Union fell, and the trade and overall economic problems that the new Yeltsin government assumed when this occurred. Even if Putin had been in power during this time, he would have faced similar problems, the regime was not to blame. When the Soviet Union fell, it was during a time where oil prices where falling, in fact, they would continue to fall until around 1996. The falling oil prices dramatically hurt the Yeltsin administration. When Putin took over, world prices has begun to rise, further Putin privatized part of the oil industry, which allowed new technologies to form, thus causing a booming oil economy in

One country is comparable to the United States of America in terms of world power and prominence. Russia makes their name known beginning in World War 2 (WW2), later in the Korean War, Cold War, and today’s proxy war in the Syria. Russia’s culture, environment, politics, military, and economy do not just make Russia a regional powerhouse, but slowly becoming a region of influential power to surrounding countries with the end state of a global superpower. All the factors that make Russia the powerhouse that it is slowly becoming, highlights the impressive trend that supersedes the previous Soviet Union and past leaders.

During the Communist regime in the former Soviet Union, life was very difficult. The people who lived within the countries controlled by the Soviet government experienced levels of oppression akin to slavery. They could not express themselves through any means and had to conform both body and soul to the views of the Communist Party. People could be arrested, imprisoned, shipped off to exile or executed often without trial. Some twenty million people died while Joseph Stalin led the USSR and for many years after his death it was still dangerous to dare criticize his regime, although some scholars put that number closer to forty million people who died. Now that the Soviet Union has broken up and Russia is its own country there is more freedom, but the people still live under the yoke of an oppressive leader who does not tolerate political or social challenges. The people do nothing to stand up to this government because they have all been scarred by the decades they lived under Stalin.

“There are no morals in politics; there is only expedience. A scoundrel may be of use to us just because he is a scoundrel.” -Vladimir Lenin. Because of the changes in Russia’s government and economy over the years, authoritarianism has changed drastically, but the common theme of strong government and limited freedom for citizens has stayed the same.

How significant was war in bringing about political change in Russia in the year 1856-1964?

During the Communist regime in the former Soviet Union, life was very difficult. The people who lived within the countries controlled by the Soviet government experienced levels of oppression akin to slavery. They could not express themselves through any means and had to conform both body and soul to the views of the Communist Party. People could be arrested, imprisoned, shipped off to exile or executed often without trial. Some twenty million people died while Joseph Stalin led the USSR and for many years after his death it was still dangerous to dare criticize his regime, although some scholars put that number closer to forty million people who died. Now that the Soviet Union has broken up and Russia is its own country there is more freedom, but the people still live under the yoke of an oppressive leader who does not tolerate political or social challenges. The people do nothing to stand up to this government because they have all been scarred by the decades they lived under Stalin. In the book The Unquiet Ghost: Russians Remember Stalin, author Adam Hochschild entered Russia an interviewed people who had survived Stalinism. What he found was that despite the fact that Stalin has been dead for decades, he still lives as a tangible presence within the country. His memory functions as a reminder to all those who dare to criticize President Putin or other members of the current government about how bad things could be and this fear pushes them into

The Russian state has been characterized by its strong heritage of powerful, autocratic leadership. This domination by small ruling elite has been seen throughout Russia's history and has transferred into its economic history. Throughout the Russian czarist period, to the legacy of seventy years of communism; Russia has been a country marked by strong central state planning, a strict command economy and an overall weak market infrastructure (Goldman, 2003). Self-interest, manipulation and corruption have all been present in the Russian economy, and have greatly helped the few as opposed to the many. To this day, Russia still struggles with creating a competitive and fair market.

His citizens respect Putin’s laws “for the desire of avoiding the harsh conditions of Russian penitentiaries” (CP Meta). When Putin came into power in 2000, he took control over the three main TV stations in Russia. In 2001 he took control of the two biggest TV channels and the state broadcaster was already under his control. Russia’s media is fully controlled by Putin, therefore, Russia only views the news from his perspective. He appoints editors and general directors, either officially or unofficially.

In Putin’s Kleptocracy: Who Owns Russia?, Karen Dawisha relates Russian President Vladmir Putin’s rise to power. She overarchingly claims that Putin is an authoritarian leader who has obstructed and even reverted Russia’s path of democratization, citing, amongst many factors that enabled his ascension, his “interlocking web of personal connections in which he was the linchpin” (100), money-laundering to tax havens and personal projects, and the complicity of the West. With copious research, journalistic interviews, legal documents, and even sporadic informational diagrams, it is evident why her book is so popular amongst scholars and history enthusiasts. Unfortunately however, in spite of the grand yet oftentimes substantiated claims she generates, a more subtle yet noteworthy assumption is made: that the state is a protector, as Olson proffered. She employs this theoretical underpinning from the beginning, though is not representative of Putin’s actual authoritarian regime.

Oligarchy as it is known in Aristotle’s politics; is a government run by a small group of people, ‘elites’. However, the oligarchy which this essay addresses is currently referred to in Russia as “a very wealthy and politically well-connected businessman...one who is the main owner of a conglomerate of enterprises and has close ties with the president” (Aslund and Dabrowski, 2007; 144). In the 1990s Russia’s economic reforms are said to have created the rise of a small group of oligarchs who gained an overwhelming amount of power and control. By 1997, this small group of previously unknown businessmen and bankers, often with gangster ties, had acquired control of many of the key parts of the Russian economy. Why did they emerge? It is argued by David Satter that three processes facilitated the emergence of the oligarchs. The first was hyperinflation and the social, economic and political consequences. The second was the process of privatisation, and finally the third was criminalisation (Satter, 2003). However, were these powerful oligarchs just a phase during the transition from Soviet to Post-Soviet Russia? Even with Putin’s efforts and declaration to distance the oligarchs from politics and power, and start a war against them exemplified by the Khodorkovsky affair, are oligarchs still significantly powerful in contemporary Russia? What is the role they play in Russia? It seems that the power of those original oligarchs of the 1990s has decreased or been concealed in

Russian political culture is a culture that has an emphasis on power and security. However, both of these ideas have their

In recent times, no one can take total power by force alone; you must offer something favorable to the people in order to obtain support. Unfortunately, there are some countries that follow a dictatorship system, which is a form of government that includes social and political power to ensure that the individual’s capability remains strong. Vladimir Putin is a contemporary dictator of Russia. His rebelliousness as a child has led him to his leadership. His cold-heartedness to his rivals and invasion towards countries has led to an opposition towards him. Vladimir Putin’s experience as a street thug led him to his leadership, which easily rose him to power: Not only has he committed crimes against humanity, but he has made groups of people and countries oppose him.

Instead, the regime programmed people with the notion of social order, with traditional attitudes to great power, superiority and history, “Orthodoxy” the primary religion of the state and military. The area where politics and civil society should have been was "purged" decreasing the rights of citizens unknowingly. “If participation were not contained, the Kremlin feared the state would lose control; if the constraints were too tight, citizens would not participate, and the state would again need a cumbersome bureaucracy to get things done” (Richter 41). Political parties, independent television channels, non governmental and public organizations, the system of elections, the courts and law-enforcement bodies as autonomous bodies

The present day Russian Federation involves a democratic system, given the presence of elections, an independent judiciary, and the supremacy of law. Yet, in democracy, the crux of it involves an inevitable paradox: law limits state power, but the state must have the power to enforce the law. However, finding the balance of the ability to enforce laws, and therefore maintaining order, while not infringing on civil liberties, requires a mutual understanding, a social contract, between the rulers and the ruled. This requirement has not found its place in the Russian political arena, especially since “creating a rule-of-law-based sate out of dictatorship is not easy” (Bressler 2009). In addition, the Russian psyche views authority as a source of force and violence (Yakovlev 1996), an etymological result of a continuity beginning from imperial Russia. Although the Russian Federation, the Union Soviet Socialist Republics, the Russian Empire, and the Tsardom of Russia differ significantly, a strong state remains prevalent in the core of Russian history and politics. In short, the nature of political rule in Russia involves a never ending tug of war between the seemingly undying authoritative soulless entity known as the state and the equally undying Russian people’s hunger for liberty.

Russia’s Return as a Superpower. There are concerns that Russia may once again “reassert itself militarily” (Wood 7). After the original fall of communism in 1991, Russia seemed to be on a path to democracy. Currently the notion of a democratic Russia seems to be fading as Russia “has been centralizing more and more power in the Kremlin” (Putin 2). Regional governors, who were once elected by the people, are now being appointed by Moscow.