How Effective Is Vladimir Putin's Power Vertical?

“With power comes the abuse of power. And where there are bosses, there are crazy bosses. It's nothing new.” -Judd Rose (Brainyquote.com) Abuse of power is nothing new. Just like in The Family Romanov by Candace Fleming, abuse of power happens quite often and is not unexpected by either the readers nor the citizens in the book. This book tells a tale of abuse of power from many, most of whom are the rulers of Russia. The government is ultimately brought down by these rulers because of their incompetence and inactiveness. They easily ignore and look down at their citizens even though the citizens are the ones that make up the country. Nicholas ignores his people and instead gets caught up in family messes and chooses to focus on family problems. Alexandra is guilty of the same. There’s also Rasputin who uses his control and influence on these two to do whatever he wants. Then there’s Lenin and Stalin who claim that they are making a better government but are actually not improving anything and might actually be making the citizen’s lives worse, especially Stalin who because of equality, kills people and destroys lives and freedoms. Through these many examples, Fleming suggests that abuse of power, although easily happens, should not happen as it is the route to ruins, as the abuse of power happens often and tends to lead to loss of that power.

From 1856 onwards the aim of turning Russia from a once agrarian, illiterate and backwards country and into a political superpower was set. A multitude of developments began with Nicholas II being a catalyst of change for the Russian people. Writers of Marxist Russia such as Joan Hasler1 however believe that the Tsars abdication merely prevented revolution happening for a few years. The significance of his abdication caused demands for a new and improved governmental structure to be in place in order to get Russia back on its feet after the devastating defeat in world war one. New political developments took place after the abdication of the Tsar including a new improved Duma who quickly realised they had little trust and loyalty to the tsar and decided to take it upon themselves to improves Russia on their own. Nearing the end of the Romanov dynasty there were 3 new political groups aiming to rule Russia, the duma, the Bolsheviks and the soviets which alone gives us significant evidence that the Tsars reign and abdication created a significant turning point in the political development 1856-1964.

In a burgeoning climate of autocracy, the Romanov dynasty was firmly established in the societal framework of early 20th-century Russia. Having been in varying degrees of absolute political control over an approximate time period of four hundred years, their eventual undoing marked a power shift polarising the imperial regime laid out by countless Tsars beforehand. Nicholas II, the last Emperor of Russia, is recognised to have a degree of personal responsibility for the downfall of the Romanovs, yet the extent to which his decision-making skills can be held accountable is questioned by some historians. Despite this, multiple political, social, and military facets of Nicholas II’s reign were handled with instability, and his perceived lack of legitimacy due to this poor decision-making ultimately was a major causative factor to the downfall of his family’s vast dynasty.

Russia has a great history with many different kinds of rulers, some good as well as bad. All of Russia’s leaders have had an impact on Russia today for the better or for the worse. The people who ruled Russia during wartime have had a great effect on its economy in addition to the conditions of its citizens.

There are also the patterns of Russia’s political development of what happened in the past maybe completely accidental under the Tsarist or Soviet systems. Hence, the question remains with all they emerging Russian governments, has the autocracy of governance changed over the last century. That being said, Russian political development has been shaped by the same set of factors that influence the

The beginning of the 20th century brought radical changes to the social and political structure of autocratic Russia. It was a period of regression, reform, revolution and eradication. Eradication of a blood line that had remained in rule for over 300 years; the Romanov Dynasty. The central figure of this eradication was Tsar Nicholas II, often described as an incompetent leader, absent of the “commanding personality nor the strong character and prompt decision which are so essential to an autocratic ruler...” (Sir G. Buchman, British ambassador to Russia from 1910 in H. Seton-Watson, The

The Russian Empire was a vast state that ruled over many different nationalities. All people in Russia had to face a highly authoritarian regime, the Tsarist Autocracy. The most crucial of the defining features of the Tsarist Autocracy was the fact that the ruler, the Tsar, had an absolute power which was said to be derived from God and knew no constitutional limits. This had very deep political and legal implications: decrees of the Tsar were considered laws, and with such authority there was no need for any political system. Below the Tsar existed his government and a vast bureaucracy which was administering the state affairs. Lack of control and accountability generated high corruption in the public life of Imperial Russia. Another characteristic of the regime was the absence of political freedoms and civil rights, censorship and strong repression of opposition with a strong role of the secret police which in turn made Russia a police state.

It can be argued that Lenin was the most significant leader of Russia and the USSR due to his revolutionary ideas, such as the implementation of socialist reforms, his New Economic Policy in 1921 and the transformation of the Bolshevik faction to the Communist Part of the Soviet Union leading to a huge Marxist-Leninist movement in the USSR. However, when assessing the ‘significance’ of a leader, it’s crucial that four main themes are taken into account, these being – economics, foreign policy, social change and leadership ability. It can be argued that other leaders of Russia and the USSR have been more

At first, it seems unlikely that Stalin was the most successful leader of Russia in the whole of the 100 years. In order to perceive success, it is necessary to consider how the leaders were able to maintain themselves in power, their popularity, their contribution towards economic success, concern for the welfare of the people and whether the gains, indeed out weight the costs. It is also important to note that recently, Putin resurrected Stalin’s image.

From its humble beginnings as a united east Slavic state in 882, to its profound global impact in the 21st century, Russia has always been ground-breaking. Russian political, economic, and social thought has historically been prized as both revolutionary and progressive. It wasn’t until the 19th century that this thought gave rise to an actual revolutionary movement. From Alexander Radishchev (1749-1802) to Michael Bakunin (1814-1876), Russian thought and action during this period took on a new façade. During this time, movements of dissent, change, and advocacy sprouted up throughout the nation. This period of revolutionary thought and activity was caused primarily by an overbearing structure of government, and the suppression of ‘common people’.

Historical Origins of Bureaucratic Dominance in Russia The latest vogue among Russian political scientists is to use Russia's imperial past as a myth to create a frame of reference to justify current political actions undertaken by Russia. These perspectives distort history, and this is another reason we decided to concentrate our discussion on pre-­‐revolutionary Russian tradition and the modern Russian state. In this essay, we will focus on the development of our main idea that during the formation of the Russian state in medieval times, a system of bureaucratic governance emerged that has played a dominant role in Russian political life throughout the nation's history. This system of governance rested primarily on two bureaucratic

Within the course of one century in Russia, there was two great empires fell. However given that there were seventy-four years between the two legacies there were similarities and differences. Beginning with the similarities between these empires then working towards then the differences. Although there more similarities than differences in this scenario. One the first similarities were how the empires were run thus giving a respectable background to run into the ground once trouble hits. The monarchy had over a thousand years of history and culture built into its past but ruled by one person who legitimate to the throne. The Soviet Union had seventy-four years of trials, turmoil and affairs but was ruled by one man who gained power. Upon the death or stepping down this created a power vacuum and thus led to a group of people to decide who goes in the spot. For the monarchy it was the Duma and the USSR it was whatever party was in control at the time of the vacuum. The second similarity is what the last person in power did prior to the fall of each empire. Gorbachev relinquished the freedom of speech to the people and Tzar Nicholas relinquished his

In Russia societies are split into Stalinists and anti-Stalinists. But is outdated now. According to sociologists the majority of Russians represented in 60 percent , have two apparent mismatching images of Stalin: a cruel dictator who killed or caused the death of millions of people and a wise statesman who led the Soviet Union to prosperity and richness. The perception

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

The constitution, which was established in 1993, gives too many and strong powers to the Russian President. Sometimes, people compare Russia's presidency with Charles de Gaulle in the French Fifth Republic Everyone knows about the authority and rights which Russian President has. He can issue decrees and directives that have the force of law without legislative review, but they should not contradict that document or other previous laws. The President has a power to make so many appointments of key officials. The winner should get more than 50% of the votes cast. If no one gets more than 50% of all votes, two candidates who got more votes than others are going to face each other in a run-off election. A the beginning, presidents had only