President Islam Karimov Left His Country

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

The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan just to see themselves as the big “Losers” of the war. The defeat of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan was a serious blow to the prestige of the Army, to national pride and faith in the soviet political leaders. The scars it left on many of the remaining soldiers created social and political problems. A reform of the military was necessary. In the midst of all these turmoil, “there was also corruption and inefficiency within the states bureaucracy” (p.3 smitha.com) and nothing seemed to get done. The soviet people and some Eastern European countries were fed up of all these ongoing problems the Soviet Union was facing. The soviet people were fed up with the high communist party which stood ground and dominated the entire soviet politics, as this was the only party in the states since Stalin’s regime. The party had become rigid and corrupt which discouraged younger party members who saw little chance of advancement. At this stage corruption was the order of the soviet system of government which buoyed lack of commitment to the government.

Half a millennium ago, kingdoms were all the rage and those not under monarchial rule were savages and uncivilized creatures. In 500 years, democracy may not be the ideal Western government. We could, for say, come to the great realization that we should be ruled by artificial intelligence. It may be popular now to say that democracy is the best form of government, but that may not be true for the West in the future and it may even not be true for some parts of our present world. Some cultures would reject democracy, like some countries in the Middle East such as Afghanistan, where the U.S. is still attempting to prop up a democracy, despite Afghanistan’s high place on the Fragile States Index, by The Fund for Peace, with a score of 107.9, putting them at number 6 out of 178 measured countries. By this ranking, they fail in many aspects as a nation-state, such as protection.

With the shah still sick, it was hard to manage what was back in Iran. The speed of change in Iran was too hard to get command. “The shah was in trouble, reaping the harvest of years of brutal and unpopular policies, including the use of secret police that controlled dissent with arbitrary arrests and torture.” It was obvious that the shah had lost all control of his people of Iran, but the president had hoped for an alliance of opponents to be formed. A man

It is said that people fear what they don’t understand. The unknown has always inspired anxiety in us as a species. Feelings such as that are to be expected, even healthy, to have. If we had no fear, it is quite unlikely humans would have survived until now. Self-preservation is paramount to survival; yet, in the era in which we live it is often used against us. Fear mongering is a device used by advertisers, media, and politicians. Russia’s government is a perfect example, as mentioned in Maia Szalavitz’s essay, of how fear can blind one to long-term damage while concentrating on instantaneous threats. Governments such as Russia’s use so called politics of fear as a weapon to maintain control over their people by repressing or removing those who oppose them; this is exceptionally evident in the assassination of Putin critic, Boris Nemtsov (Gel’man 8).

To modify Winston Churchill’s quote on Russia Putin “…is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.” We can unwrap this mystery by analyzing Putin’s foreign policy through the eyes Morgenthau which will be the basis of this paper. By understanding the mystery we can say that Putin is following a Realist perspective and not the liberalist perspective especially with the Crimean Conflict.

The [Bush] administration found it consistently difficult to get the measure of Tehran. Bush depicted it as a “nation held hostage by a small clerical elite that is repressing and isolating its people,” but the reality was far more complex. (482)

Thomas Jefferson once said, “The purpose of government is to enable the people of a nation to live in safety and happiness. Government exists for the interests of the governed, not for the governors” (McAdam np). In a totalitarian system, however, this is often not the case. Because it requires complete subservience from its citizens and focus primarily on power, a totalitarian government does not, if fact, exist for the interests of the people. Mahmud II’s various policies reveal his totalitarian tendencies regarding issues both foreign and domestic.

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?

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.

Uzbekistan is a former soviet bloc country in the central Eurasia region. It was a functioning member of the USSR from 1924 all the way until the fall of the Gorbachev administration in 1991. Since then it has struggled with the formation of a functioning democratic system within its own borders. It has formed what appears to be a form of the famous multi-representative democratic system, modeled after the system birthed by the United States. However, it has done poorly at that and has descended into what could be accurately characterized as a single party state, masked from that definition by shady bureaucratic technicalities. The president of Uzbekistan, Islom Karimov, has unconstitutionally sustained his presidency since the formation of the democratic system. He holds an inordinate amount of power with the ability to supersede both the legislative branch through dissolution and the judiciary branch by blatant executive power. He has diminished opposition by allowing only parties that support him in elections, and only voters that are registered to those parties. Furthermore, Karimov has eliminated the right to protest, resulting in the arrest of many and even the death of some unlucky dissenters. Because of the amount of power the president holds, other political officials exist solely to uphold the wishes of the executive branch, with little power to do much of