How Russia Is Not Ruled By Allen C. Lynch

Throughout its long history, Russia has been trapped in a continuous cycle of authoritarian regimes; only interrupted briefly with periods of tumultuous democratic transitions that were plagued by poor bureaucracy and weak institutions. Therefore, time and time again, Russia has turned towards authoritarianism. In the late 1900’s to early 2000’s, Russia again saw the fall of democracy coincide with the rise of a competitive authoritarian regime. This rise of competitive authoritarianism in Russia in the late 1900’s to early 2000’s was largely the result of the resource curse which granted Putin’s Administration false economic performance legitimacy. This in turn reinvigorated past strongman ideals, while at the same time solidified negative

A comparison between the U.S. constitution and Russian constitution is interesting due to the fact that America is often regarded (at least from the view of most Americans) as the pinnacle of freedom and democracy. The Russian Federation on the other hand has a much more complex image. The Russian Federation was formerly a country known as the Soviet Union, which was the pinnacle of communism throughout the 1900’s. Communism is a polar governmental structure compared to the U.S. The Russian Federation is today classified as a democracy, however, there are still remnants of the communist structure seen among leaders as a result of the way that the constitution is constructed.

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.

The government of the modern day Russian Federation must be traced back to the early 20th century in order to understand its current posture. In 1917, tired of the sequestering limits of a Tsarist system, a small revolutionary group called the Bolshevik Party gained control of Russia . The Bolshevik Party, led by Lenin and inspired by Marxist ideology, attempted to establish a Constitute Assembly. However, a post- revolutionary environment and an unsupportive public forced Lenin to abolish rival political parties and establish a dictatorship to retain The Bolshevik Party’s power. In 1919, the

After the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, the world watched Russia closely as the largest country remaining from the former superpower built itself into a democracy. However, within a short amount of time, Russia has slipped into competitive authoritarianism, giving much of the governmental power to its current president, Vladimir Putin. In contrast, another semi-presidential system, the government of France, is a strong democracy. France’s government has been largely successful since the creation of the Fifth Republic in 1958 and the most recent constitution. In addition to this, the roles of the president and prime minister have been balanced and checked since President Charles de Gaulle stepped down in 1969. These two countries, while sharing the same basic political skeleton, are vastly different in power division and, ultimately, the success of democracy. Unlike France, Russia’s democracy slid into competitive authoritarianism because of the overpowering amount of unchecked power the president has.

The foreign policies of Russia also compliments in many ways its domestic policies, both in the apparent want for dominance and security in the focal point on sovereignty. These aims lead to an importance on bringing back Russia’s international status and removing positions of power that Western states have had in Russia

Russia began its reform with political liberalization, and many believe that Russia’s failure was partly due to focusing on political reform first and they should have begun with economic reforms which China had done. This lead to political turmoil so severe that in 1989-1993 workers were politically neutralized and unable to stop Yeltsin’s liberal market reforms. But, a small group of oligarchs helped to

Lastly, is the politics which would form from a dictatorship government across nations, and the effect that had on the economy. Marks demonstrates how each Russian theme influenced world history by citing before mentioned individuals and the regions which were impacted: United States, England, Mexico, and China to name a few. This is done using studies conducted on revolutionary violence, examinations of Russian characters in Chinese fiction, and visual examples embedded in the text. Counterevidence is not his burden, however had he touched on it more some of his connections would be more concrete, for example anarchism on its own is a stretch. There is a lack of context, or it is brief when he discusses how the topics influenced the world but is understandable as he deals with complex and broad topics. In general the book is an advancement in Russian inclusivity with world history simply by existing, a great addition to a topic long neglected. While it is an interesting read, it may seem incomprehensible to those with limited historical background, it is directed to the academia

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 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.

The Russian Revolution of 1917 set the country on a course that few other countries took in the 20th century. The shift from the direction of a democratic, parliamentary-style government to a one party communist rule was a drastic change that many did not and could not predict. Looking back on this key moment in Russian history, many historians ask the question ‘why did the political power in Russia shift to the Bolsheviks’? Since the revolution in 1905 Russia was becoming progressively more democratic, distributing power throughout the political sphere. This came to an abrupt halt when Vladimir Lenin was put into power by the Bolshevik takeover of the Provisional Government. Many authors have had different takes on this event. Two particularly interesting ones were Arthur Mendel and John D. Basil. Their pieces On Interpreting the Fate of Imperial Russia and Russia and the Bolshevik Revolution give various perspectives on the Russian Revolution and attempt to answer the question of the power shift. This key point in Russia’s history sets the tone for the next 100 years. Russia became a superpower, an enemy of the United States, started multiple wars directly and indirectly, and started using an economic system used by various countries around the world. Today we still see the effects of the 1917 Revolution. Looking at both Mendel’s and Basil’s attempt to answer why the power shifted to the Bolsheviks. Since both historian 's account of the events is different they cannot

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.

The catastrophes of the past are the foundation of the future, events that occurred in the past cause people to envision a “better life” of not only for themselves but a society as a whole. By envisioning a better future individual rose up, advocated ideas, and policies that they believed would help in advancing their countries. For the purpose of this course, let us discuss the uprising of the Russian government and the European Council; both as single entities have their own goals, but collectively they seek to benefit their country(‘s) and promote prosperity, but through history and the changes of power has that aim been reached? Or if it is already has reached it, will these forms of government fail?

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.