Russia after the Fall of the Soviet Union

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

Since then President Putin of Russia has gradually attempted to re-unite the Soviet Union by re-staking claims to certain of the previous member states. This post-cold war resurgence by Russia to dominate other states is another illustration of the struggle between power and freedom or

In 1945, one major war ended and another began. After World War II, the United States and its allies and the Soviet Union were involved in what became known as the Cold War, which was a period of mutual fear and distrust. The war was given the name "cold" because the two sides never actually came into direct armed conflict; it was a war of words and ideologies rather than a shooting war (Crawford, 2009, p. 6). The Soviet Union and the United States came out from World War II as the new world superpowers, and despite their common victory with the defeat of their enemies, their primary bond was broken. There were deep-rooted ideological, economic, and political differences between the United States and the Soviet Union prior to the Second World War. Their differences, most notably their political systems and their visions of a postwar Europe, were intensified as a result of their mutual suspicions and during and after the Second World War drove the allied nations into an ideological conflict that lasted for 45 years.

Post World War II, both the United States and the Soviet Union were fearful of fighting each other directly from fear of nuclear weapons and mass destruction (D. Johnson, P. Murray). Instead, they fought each other by participating in wars on separate parts of the world. Cold War tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union constantly fluctuated due to both sides trying to influence political and economic developments around the world (D. Johnson, P. Murray).

During the era of the Cold War, starting in 1947 and definitively ending in 1991, the United States and the Soviet Union faced off in conflicts with each other through smaller states.

Historically, France has had a much harder and rockier road to established democracy than America. France’s government has been through many phases characterized as the Five Republics. The constitution of the Fifth Republic (which is in place today) was drawn up several weeks after Gen. Charles de Gaulle was invested as the last prime minister of the Fourth Republic. The new constitution, which was adopted by an 80 percent vote in a popular referendum held in September 1958, was tailor made for de Gaulle. It contained much of what the past four republics had such as both a president and prime minister, as well as a bicameral legislature in the form of the National Assembly and the Senate(4). It is important to note here that France has both a president and a prime minister thus making the Head of Government and Chief of Staff two separate roles, respectively. This is what makes France a semi-presidential system

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.

Russia has now moved toward a centralized semi-authoritarian state in which the leadership seeks to legitimize its rule through managed elections, populist appeals, foreign policy focused on enhancing the country’s geopolitical influence, and continued economic growth (CIA, 2015).

As the largest country in northern Eurasia, the Russian Federation is known as a federal semi-presidential republic. As defined by the official Semi-presidential website, “Semi-presidentialism is where a constitution includes a popularly elected fixed-term president and a prime minister and cabinet who are collectively responsible to the legislature.” This is a difference from what we see in the United States because it means that the Prime Minister and the President both are active in the running of the country from day to day. The model allows for duties where the President is the Head of State and the Prime Minister is the Head of Government. So, there is an additional layer that we do not see in the U.S. government structure. Another difference is that the president is elected to a 6-year term instead of 4 and more than two terms can be served as long as no more than two are consecutive. Additionally, leaders can switch between roles as President and Prime Minister as current President Vladimir Putin has done since 1999. This shows us that change in executive leadership is less frequent and other government policy change may also be slower for Russia than the U.S.

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.

There has always been a debate over which form of government is the most stable. For a long time, there was either a choice (within democratic models) of presidential systems of government, in which the executive is all powerful, or parliamentary systems of government, where the legislature is the supreme power. However, in the past century, a middle ground has emerged between the two: semi-presidential systems of government. Semi-presidential systems, as defined by Maurice Duverger (an early writer on such models), are systems “where a president of the republic, elected by universal suffrage and given personal powers, co-exists with a government resting on the confidence placed in it by parliament” . This means that semi-presidential models of government generally have a directly elected president and parliament, along with a prime minister, who is appointed. The question of whether these systems are more or less stable than presidential or parliamentary then becomes the focus, and must be looked at in practice for this measure. Semi-presidential systems, as seen in France and Russia, can at times be either very stable or very unstable, depending on the composition of a particular government. France, a pioneer in the concept of semi-presidential systems, has seen stability go either way, depending on the affiliation of elected officials. Conflict started occurring in the late twentieth century that challenged the stability of the current French system. Russia, since the

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