Russian Authoritarianism

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 democratization, economic liberalization, and eventual collapse of the Soviet Union is commonly attributed to Mikhail Gorbachev's Perestroika and Glasnost reforms during the period of 1985-1991. This purpose of these reforms is still a trenchant question as the countries of the old Soviet Union, particular Russia, are being pressured to further liberalize their economies.

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

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.

Former Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev presided over the disintegration of a country based on an uncompromising ideological dogma, the unlikely inheritor of Marxist/Leninist communist philosophy. The Soviet Union’s unwieldy economic superstructure left it vulnerable to Ronald Reagan’s aggressive economic/military policy, an approach based on the belief that a military build-up would force the Soviets to spend to keep pace, an effective strategy because it pushed the Soviet economy over the edge into ruin. The subsequent implosion ended communist domination in Eastern Europe and opened the way for democratic elements that radically altered the political landscape in Moscow. When the Soviet Union officially came to an end in 1993, it briefly recalled the end of tsarist rule in 1917, with the potential for the kind of chaos and violence that turned the Russian Revolution into a bloodbath. President Boris Yeltsin used the military to disband parliament but his call for new elections moved the country toward a more open, democratic form of government. Lacking any real background in representative government, Russia ultimately proved incapable of fulfilling the promise of democratic government and descended into a form of anarchy riddled by increasingly strong criminal elements. In recent years, the rise of Boris Putin, a new strongman in Moscow, helped restore a sense of order and allowed the resurgence of communist elements. The government that now holds power, and which

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

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.

Socialism offered an ‘ideal’ and classless society in which the state controlled everything, yet the people utilized the practice of controlling politics. He formed a highly centralized government, which was furthered to totalitarian goals by his successor, Joseph Stalin. Stalin focused on military and industrial gains which, by his death in 1953, had “crippled the Soviet state” because his successors could not make any reforms without undermining the CPSU—the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (367). A heavy reliance on secret police and a militarized economy was already in place when Mikhail Gorbachev came on the scene. He was elected General Secretary of the CPSU in 1985 when the USSR was in middle of continually diminishing economic productivity; it became stagnant. With his powers as secretary, he saw room for reform to change the USSR drastically. He planned to do this through instituting glastnost, or openness, in society, which he believed would ameliorate levels of corruption. Corruption was a detriment to democratization, which he believed would heal the economy. He brought back the first contested elections in many years. With democratic procedures in place, Gorbachev lost his power to Yeltsin. Notwithstanding the amended constitution, Yeltsin took liberty to control parliament to “cope with the country’s economic problems” (369). Yeltsin’s successor was chosen as Vladimir Putin who has severely radicalized the

Yet the election was not like the ones that preceded it- there were large scale demonstrations on the streets of Moscow and other metropolitan areas that were against (and some in support) of Putin. These large scale protests as Elkin notes while certainly disruptive and cast a negative light on Russia globally forced Putin to reaffirm his power when he won the election in 2012. Putin was as discussed by Moskowitz and others in class able to use the media to effectively convey his agenda. But Elkin also notes that the resurgence in popularity for Putin was not simply due to a stymied media presence. Putin strategically allowed Medvedev to become the nation’s prime minister, where he was relegated to a position where he could quietly work on making the changes he set during his presidency. Putin set about “restoring” national prestige by being firm on dealings with the west. In particular, during the crisis in Syria, he averted crisis by securing a deal that allowed Syria to dispose of the chemical weapons while also preventing U.S aggression. Elkin notes how Putin would frequently play on populism and patriotism in justifying his action- a formula which combined would ensure that in the crisis to come regarding the annexation of Crimea that he would have the support of the Russian people.

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.

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 end of the Cold War and the dissolution of the Soviet Union resulted in major shift in United States foreign policy. For years, the United States supported tyrannical dictators in return for stable anti-communist government receptive to United States interests. The Cold War resulted in a new world order with the United States as the lone global hegemonic power. In Eastern Europe in particular, the end of the Cold War ushered in an era of economic growth and a large increase in the number of liberal democracies. Although the world saw a large increase in liberal democracies, a new regime type referred to as competitive authoritarianism began to emerge. According to Levitsky and Way, “In competitive authoritarian regimes, formal

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.

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.