Comparative Politics Gerard Chretien
RUSSIA: POLITICAL STRUCTURE:
Summary: Why the democratic structure in Russia is proving to be unsuccessful.
INTRODUCTION:
The Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, disintegrating into thirteen different states. Ever since the political structure of Russia has been viable and lacks stability. Many reasons can be cited for this instability out of which the bearish economy and a shaky democratic system are the main causes.
ANALYSIS:
The reforms taken after Russia’s disintegration have yet to be proved fruitful. The economy is in no better shape then before and politically Russia has great set backs in the name of the ongoing war with Muslim freedom fighters in Chechnya.
“The most important factor that needs to be established is economic growth. Successful economic development will ease the transition and enable violence and dissention among the races very avoidable. If resources are abundant and properly distributed then multiple markets can grow. However, when resources run scarce and competition arises for limited assets then violence and animosity become the only plausible alternatives. If two industries fiercely compete for limited resources then one is likely to be forced out of the market. A sound and developing economy is essential for the happiness and orderly conduct of the people (Barner-Barry & Hody, 1995)(1).
Another problem cited in the progress is the difficulty of transition from communism to democracy when the government officials are trained in the old system. The process of privatization requires lengths of time and willingness of the people to take upon the businesses for which they require full governmental protection, easy paper work and full rights over their property.
“If Russia is to make the transition, it must rediscover civil society (the informal network of family, church, service organization and the like). Strong civil society provides the political culture that supports liberal institutions, but the Communist Party deliberately destroyed many elements of civil society to ensure party dominance. Russia faces moral, economic, and legal gaps in its civil society. Hence Russia has a difficult road to achieve democracy.”(2)
It was a widely held belief that with the fall of the Soviet Union Russia would make a rapid transition into democracy and free markets. “This overlooks the crucial role of political culture in shaping and supporting political and economic institutions. Russia did not have the political culture appropriate to western-style institutions and so became chaotic and lawless. For Russians, democracy became a dirty word, as it symbolized Russia’s troubles.
...oved to be singularly influential and daunting. This is, perhaps, the greatest obstacles to achieving true democracy in Russia—the authoritarian and repressive traditions that refuse to die out with the passage of time.
Corney, Frederick “What Is To Be Done With Soviet Russia? The Politics Of Proscription And Possibility.” Journal Of Policy History 21.3 (2009): 264 – 281. Political Science Complete. Web. 23 Nov. 2013.
In 1985, Mikhail Gorbachev came to power with a vision of reform, perestroika and glasnost, which means to restructure the economy. Gorbachev would like to privatize farms, make industries more efficient, and trim down imports. In order to get people’s support of perestroika and glasnost, Gorbachev conceded some individual rights and freedoms. For instance, mass media like newspaper was allowed to criticize the missteps and wrongdoings of the Stalinist era. In addition, Yakovlev, Gorbachev’s confidante and Secretariat of the Soviet Communist Party, restored creative works such as such as books and movies and returned more than 400,000 religious buildings and places of worship to publics. Public affairs, press, politics, education, and free speech were glasnost. Without surprise, glasnost and perestroika gradually became people’s favor and overthrew the socialism. As a result, owing to loosening controls over the people and making reforms to the political and economic elites, liberated minority groups, under-represented and mistreated for ages, began requiring self-determination and the Soviet government emerged weak and vulnerable to the publics. Furthermore, one of the reform, the permission of private ownership, exacerbates the economy of the Soviet Union because the nation subsidized unprofitable private enterprises and the paucity of state oversight
Historically, Russia’s relationship with the West has been shaky at best. From the Crimean War in the 1850’s to alienation following the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution all the way up to the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia has been “under attack.” This has forced them to adopt a mentality that is based in self sufficiency and autarky. As Western nations attempt to strengthen democracy in Russia in the 21st century, Russia has responded negatively to these perceived “intrusions.” Therefore it is important to ask what role the West should play in Russia’s development and what is hindering this from happening? In her book Russia: Lost in Transition, Lilia Shevtsova outlines two different ways the West can approach development with Russia: let them figure it out themselves or patiently create an international environment that the Russians feel comfortable in. Shevtsova clearly favors the latter. The West’s involvement is hindered however by double standards, ideological differences, and negative perceptions of the West’s motives by the Russian people. These must first be analyzed before showing how a cautious, assertive approach is the best way for the West to assist in Russian development.
"For hundreds of years, dictators have ruled Russia. Do they still? In the late 1980s, Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev launched a series of political reforms that eventually allowed for competitive elections, the emergence of an independent press, the formation of political parties, and the sprouting of civil society. After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, these proto-democratic institutions endured in an independent Russia" (McFual). However history has shown how Russia has always been an anti-democratic country; power having shifted to authoritarian rule under both the Communists and the Russian Tsars. Under the previous authoritarian rule, Russian citizens were stripped of their rights and freedoms, but in t...
...eeded in putting communism on the political map of the world. Governments across Europe and Latin America emulated Stalin and instituted their own brands of communism within their respective countries. Yet, what was to be the permanent revolution, has infected and affected the world for almost an entire century. Every year since 1917 has seen people in revolt. Economics, austerity, and political corruption have been the common causes of popular uprisings across the world, and whether the revolutions have been peaceful or violent, the result has nearly always been a change in the political structure and the redrawing of boundary lines. The continued presence of Russian-backed revolutions combined with the cries of the European people for independence and security reflect the ongoing influence of the Russian Revolution on the whole of Europe and, possibly, the world.
Russia is generally apportioned the benefit of having introduced a political phenomenon that basically provided an alternative for capitalism; communism. Since this concept was only set in motion at the turn of the 20th century, we can therefore deduce that, to a large extent, Russia is, to most people, synonymous with leaders such as Lenin, Stalin, Khrushchev, and Gorbachev. This supposition is entirely based on the premise that the Russian revolution of 1914 inherently altered the socio-cultural and socio-political direction of the nation, bringing into birth a never before envisioned era where Russia was not ruled by the Tsars, but by simple men; men who spoke to and articulated the needs of the masses. To this extent, communism, therefore, is largely misconceived as having been the fulcrum of Russia’s civilization. Much of this misconception , as signaled earlier, is based on the growth and progression of the Russian society in the years after the revolution until 1990, when the Berlin wall fell, essentially bringing down with it decades of Soviet Union tradition based on communism.
Russia, a vast country with a wealth of natural resources, a well, educated population, and diverse industrial base, continues to experience, formidable difficulties in moving from its old centrally planned economy to a modern market economy. President Yeltsin's government has made substantial strides in converting to a market economy since launching its economic reform program in January 1992 by freeing nearly all prices, slashing defense spending, eliminating the old centralized distribution system, completing an ambitious voucher privatization program, establishing private financial institutions, and decentralizing trade. Russia, however, has made little progress in a number of key areas that are needed to provide a solid foundation for the transition to a market economy.
"From Autocracy to Oligarchy." The Structure of Soviet History: Essays and Documents. Ed. Ronald Grigor. Suny. New York: Oxford UP, 2003. 340-50. Print.
The Russo-Chechen war that ended in 1996 should have given the Russian government a feel of things to come when they decided to attack in late September of last year. Triggered by security challenges to the State, Russia decided that the democracy would be in danger if they didn’t act. Russia was in a politically unstable situation right now with the resignation of Yeltsin, and the current Presidential elections looming. Also looming on the political horizon was the concern over rampant corruption in the government. If they had done nothing Yeltsin’s party would have stood to lose, yet Putin, (Yeltsin’s successor) succeeded in focusing the medias attention on the war rather that the domestic corruption.
"From Autocracy to Oligarchy." The Structure of Soviet History: Essays and Documents. Ed. Ronald Grigor. Suny. New York: Oxford UP, 2003. 340-50. Print.
Gill, G., 1994. The Collapse of a Single-Party System: The Disintegration of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Cambridge, New York: Press Syndicate.
On one hand, the change in politics in 1991 helped the country to integrate, but at the same time it changed a lot in a bad way since the Ukrainian crisis. Firstly, from 1991-2000 there was very difficult time for Russian people, where there were many opportunities for people to do what they to do in the lives, but however that time was full of violence and corruption. Previously, all housing was government-owned, but during that time many people started to buy them (L.Alien, 2008). That was the time, when Russian mafia was born, there were controlling many businesses, and it was ordinary thing to hear shots in the middle of the day. After that time, started a calm one, people started to open new businesses and slowly get rid of mafia, which was controlling it before. A lot of foreign clothes was brought to Russia, where it was very popular, along with technology, which has improved the lives of people and government as well, like German technology, Japanese car, American food. Many foreign restaurants were opening, so people, who even do not have a chance to visit another countries, could not try a bit of different cultures. Many languages became available to study for children in schools and travelling became more available, for people did not even dream of it. Russia stated to globalise slowly but on the right track. Very country has fluctuations in it’s development, that also
Despite making a recovery after the 1998 market crash, Russia remains weighted with numerous holdovers from the Communist era that keep its economy from taking advantage of free-market reforms. In short, Russia has not prospered under capitalism because it has not yet discovered it. In order to do so, the Russian government must engage in extensive reform in several key areas: improving the rule of law, creating stable monetary policy, and ending a policy of favoritism to particular businesses. Engaging in these reforms would lower the extremely high transaction costs of doing business legally, stimulating a wave of new investment and wealth creation within Russia, as well as encouraging investment from abroad.
Exploring the October revolution and the establishment of communism, Richard Pipes concludes that the origin of communism can be traced back to the distant past in Russia’s history. Pipes states that Russia had entered a period of crisis after the governments of the 19th century undertook a limited attempt at capitalisation, not trying to change the underlying patrimonial structures of Russian society. (Pipes, 1964)