Putin Chapter 1 Summary

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

The Kremlin does not take kindly to any who would question its authority, whether through speech, essays, or social media. In fact, all protests except those authorized by the government are illegal. Another example of their censorship is visible in 2015 when the Kremlin attempted to disconnect Russia’s internet from that of the rest of the world in order to close the country from outside influences (Soldatov 396). The reason for such adamancy on the subject of censorship is due to the fact that Russian authorities have reimplemented their repressive tactics towards opponents since Vladimir Putin’s presidential reelection in 2012 (Gel’den 7). The Kremlin bases its success off of the extent of control it can exert. Thus, the breeding ground of ideas that is the internet is dangerous to their objectives. While it is impossible to completely shut the country off from external influences at the moment, Russia is definitely capable of stifling domestic opposition; especially that of the people

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 United States and Russia have been battling off pernicious factions menacing the stability of their democracies over the years. Russia has come a long way over the past century, enduring a number of different phases that have completely desecrated any power Russia may have had paralleled to the rest of the world. The United States, however, has been evolving into a prosperous world power that has led to new respect from many other nations. Both Russia and the United States have struggled in the past at maintaining a significant amount of cultural commitment to preservation of specific aspects of their respective democracies. Having a relatively new democracy, Russian citizens have different perceptions and expectations of government from those of United States citizens. With new liberties and freedoms, Russians are struggling to grasp the concept of capitalism and participation in government. In order to preserve strong features of democracy, such as the right to vote or freedom of speech, a country 's constituents must respect and positively view their government. They must have faith in that the government is working for their best interests. Physically, the United States and Russia have been impacted greatly by their geography. Historically, the backgrounds of Russia and the United States are of stark contrast. Traditionally, Russians have a difficult time believing in the stability of their government as it has changed a number of times.

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.

19). That begin said, Russian politics have always governed around protecting themselves from threats inside and outside their boundaries both economical and militarily. In addition, Lynch elaborates that the capability of a state is so important in developing; in order to form a democracy since having been a built on post communist and Imperial auspices (Lynch, p. 5). In other words, a democracy does not merely come out of nowhere in a civil society, unless there is a capable national service where a political authority may draft, pass and enforce legislation. Furthermore, it is the neopatrimonial model that best describes the functioning of the Russian state that took hold in post communist Russia ruled by Yeltsin and Putin (Lynch, pp. 128-30). To clarify, it was significant that Russia established itself in a liberal economy, which was mostly supported by Western states, however the emergence and eventual consolidation under Putin established a neopatrmonial Political system.

The president of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin, has created and/or passed certain legislations that furthermore limit freedom of citizens. One of them gives almost unlimited power to the government to restrict access to “harmful to children or extremist content.” Additionally, the president has been known for his encouragement of severe punishment of non-violent protests and direct criticism of his power. Some protestors on the Bolotnaya Square have been sentenced to years of imprisonment for protests that should have been punished with administrative fines for minor cases of “public misconduct.” The president’s superior power is not only against ordinary citizens but against some of the wealthiest people. One such case was with Mikhail Khodorkovsky, once wealthiest man in Russia, who was repeatedly sentences for years of imprisonment for new crimes, which seem to have few legal justifications.

In order to improve and conduct a nation, new reforms and new implementation are essential to be addressed. Valdimir Putin, the current president of Russia, has diligently delegated and decided upon many proposals, and therefore assured the safety of his people. Putin has considerably secured Russia’s stability by founding a family holiday, influencing a decrease in poverty, and deciding upon opposing NATO.

Putin is former KGB and he has deep Soviet ties as well as ideology. Russia is a one party dominant state. Putin utilizes his power in order to keep his people in check and assert his dominance. The annexation of Crimea in 2014 was a great show of his power to everyone in the world. Russia occupies Crimea but they have vitrually no power, this is another example of Russia assymetrical federalism. Putin and the Kremlin have been known to take out most people who oppose them. For example Anna Politkovskaya a journalist who was suddenly killed because she was speaking out against the government. Another example is Alexey Navalny who is a political activist and he often times gets arrested right before an organized protest takes place. Vedzhie Kashka is just another example of the tyrant that Vladimir Putin

My answer is this. No. They don’t. Since 2000 and Vladimir Putin’s election Russia has become more authoritarian, he has gotten away with this through massive economic growth, increased living standards and a much better lifestyle. The Russian government these days openly rigs elections (2011), seizes oligarchs property and assets (Mikhail Khodorkovsky), assassinated journalists (Anna Politkovskaya) and defectors (Alexander Litvinenko) and has passed laws banning homosexual propaganda. Every one of these actions has gone against what I fought for in the Soviet Union. However there are even more violations against what I stood for; today all of Russia’s major companies are state owned and the Russian government is taking over all sectors of the economy, notably agriculture and technology companies, which is completely against economic liberalisation, an idea that I believe is pivotal to a country and its people as it closes the gap of wealth inequality. Modern day Russia is a perfect example of economic inequality, with 110 individuals (Oligarchs) owning 35% of Russia’s wealth. This is worse than Soviet days and I have always pushed for wealth distribution. Furthermore, the Russian government has taken it upon itself to ban women from certain jobs (that are for men) and also it has become more prominent than ever the assassination and silencing of thousands of activists across Russia. However, the recurring theme here is that government is the one continually interfering in the day to day lives of ordinary citizens. It is also very simple why. So that it retains its power and its control of power. So, therefore the biggest opposition and threat to human rights in Russia and as a matter of fact for the whole world is governments. Governments that are corrupt and take and do not

Machiavelli makes a point that to be a successful leader one must both be feared and loved by his people. One must instill enough fear so that they do not rebel against him. However, one has to present himself in such a way that his people overlook the bad because all they remember is the good. Putin’s military capability instills the fear that prevents actions such as rebellions, revolts, or uprisings.

Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin was one of the KGB’s (Komitet Gosudarstvennoy Bezopasnosti, or in English, Committee for State Security) greatest spies. Actually Vladimir Putin’s KGB career was, at best, mediocre to terrible according to the KGB. Nothing in his background suggests his bad record. It could just happen to be that his assignments failed due strictly to random chance, then again, this is the KGB; are they hiding something about their current president? Maybe what they are hiding is that he was one of their greatest spies.

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.

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.

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.