Russia A Hybrid Regime Is A Pseudo Democratic Regime

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.

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 many cultural characteristics that have shaped the country we know today. A nation 's culture can define its actions and make them more predictable as a state on the international level. Understanding a nation’s culture gives great insight into the motives and reasoning behind their aggression or acts of force. Factors such as geography, weather, political landscape, military, and key infrastructure provide a clear understanding of Russian culture and how it has shaped the nation over the past century.

In Russia, Westernization was nothing new as the late nineteenth century had rolled around, for they had already been immersed in political conflicts of Western Europe by the earlier parts of the century. Russia’s Westernization had even been started by Peter the Great. Being so well adapted to the politics of the West, the conservative Russian nobility had feared revolutions by the liberal West. Russia then had attempted to

Russia, as a country, has had a long and proud history. However, for a small time starting in 1917, things started to take a turn for the worse. There was widespread famine, disease, and killing by the instituted government. There was also no Russia. Instead, there was the glorious United Soviet Socialist Republics, or the USSR. This new country did not come around peacefully, but instead under the 1917 Russian Revolution and the revolting communist Bolsheviks. The Russian people were not in a better condition after the Russian revolution due to Stalin’s leadership of his country; the reason being the GULAGs that Stalin was sending his people to, the communes that the peasants were sent to, and the disastrous effects of his five year plans.

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.

We can certainly view modern-day Russia as a world power which has superficially characterized itself as a nation operating more ethically than they were in past years. However, it seems that there are social norms and historically immoral behavior that the Russian government continues to impose upon the population. Over a ten-year span while Stalin was in power, approximately 5,600 people were convicted of bribery (Heinzen, 2007). During that time, there was an emphasis placed on punishing the judiciary members and law enforcement who were corrupting the systems of Russia. Looking back at this period it becomes more clear that the newfound morality among leaders of the country were nothing more than a method of deflection.

From a western, secular perspective, it seems that Russia has not yet reached a place where it is really laic. It is believed that political power and religion are tightly intertwined, and that one can’t go without the other. However, when we look further than what the media tell us, we actually notice how complicated this relations are. This is why this essay is going to explore how in Russia, religion and political power really work with each other, and to what extent. It is meant to see how religion can be manipulated by politicians, and why, but more specifically how can religion shape a society.

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.

I would take a risk to assert that at present time Russia does not have an ideology or a system of values able to unite the society. To say in short, I strongly argue that Russia needs a new strategy of development, a new national idea which can replace (or, in fact fill the vacuum remained after the collapse of) the old communist ideology which had been guiding Russian politics for nearly 75 years. We can, of course, discuss about the very necessity and the usefulness of an ideology or a national idea as such and whether it is not a mistake to create any national idea, because this idea may become an idee-fixe, which may mean intolerance to the others.

Russia, one the last remaining authoritarian superpower has had an undeniable impact on the global scale, from the massive tensions during the cold war, to the possible medaling in 2016 U.S elections, Russia has always had its thumbprint in history. But, like its ally North Korea, little is known about their government. Putin brought an interesting and dangerous political system of Kleptocracy, which is usually the state to expand their own wealth and exploit the resources of the country to further propel a few members of the government. Putin is worth well over two hundred billion dollars making him one of the richest human beings on earth. An institutional argument can be used to describe how Putin’s empire was created, “No sensible

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.