Russian Democracy Failure

The Failure of Democracy: Russia vs France (1392 Words)

The state of Russian democracy is lamentable with a government that is very similar to its Soviet-era predecessor. The Freedom house index which measures political rights and civil liberties places the current “democratic” regime in the same category as the soviet regime as “not free”. The reason for the failure of Russian democracy is not readily apparent as when compared to a nation such as France, which is listed as “free” by Freedom House, the two share great similarity in terms of political organization; both nations have a semi-presidential system. The answer lies in an assessment of the differences in democratic values between the two nations. The primary contributor to the failure

of democracy in Russia is a lack of democratic values which are necessary for a successful implementation of democracy.
The specific democratic values in question are free speech and fair elections which are critical components of any functioning democracy. An analysis of the Russian people today reveals that they lack a significant concern for these values. Statistics from a Pew Poll in 2012 asking the Russian people what their nation’s top priorities must be reveals a great disparity between the values associated with having a strong state versus those associated with having a strong democracy. The percentage of respondents who listed law and order and economic prosperity as top priorities were 75% and 71% respectively. In sharp contrast, the percentage of those who listed honest elections and free speech were 52% and 44% respectively. An even clearer illustration of this disparity: Pew research reveals that three in four Russians favor a strong economy over a good democracy. Perhaps just as revealing is the fact that Putin’s approval ratings lie at 72% despite his active role in silencing political opponents, weakening civil society, and controlling the press. In contrast, the French people have more diverse expectations from a political leader as in the case of Hollande. As the article “After Janvier” from The Economist points out, the French believe, “He must be exceptional and ordinary, a monarch and a man of the people, above politics but legitimate in his party, in command of diplomacy and armies as well as domestic affairs”. While a proper response to national security threats may provide a boost to approval ratings, such ratings are not stable since other expectations must be met as well.

Such a diverse array of expectations is evidence that the French are concerned with qualities of a leader beyond his performance in areas such as national security. Overall, the French public is much more reactive and inclined to shift its approval of a political leader and this indicates a deeper and broader interest and involvement in the governing of the nation.

The history of Russian leadership has been characterized by strongmen who ruled with absolute power over a repressive and strictly enforced caste system. Starting with Ivan the Terrible, the system of serfdom was further institutionalized making it harder for serfs to escape their servitude. While Peter the Great instituted several reforms aimed at modernization of the army and education of the elites, his reforms had very little impact on the serfs. Nicholas I ruled by the fist and quickly suppressed any revolution making clear the fate of anyone who challenged the status quo. This tradition continued into the Soviet-era with leaders such as Stalin who aimed to increase the capacity of the state rather than to improve the lives of its people. This rough history with deep

social cleavages and severely limited social mobility has left its impact today as Russian political culture still accepts to a great degree the separate spheres of political elites and the public. Putin’s status today is a great example of this as McFaul and Stoner-Weiss point out in their paper titled “The Myth of the Authoritarian Model”, “Putin may have rolled back democratic gains, the story goes, but these were necessary sacrifices on the altar of stability and growth. This narrative has a powerful simplicity, and most Russians seem to buy it”. Although Russia’s economic growth has little to do with Putin’s leadership, the narrative about the importance of strong leadership is so strongly instilled in the Russian public that they are willing to acknowledge and accept a weaker role for themselves in governing their nation. The history of the French leadership has also been characterized by strongmen, but the policies of these strongmen and the regime in which they ruled is what sets them apart from those in Russia. France had developed from a feudal government into an absolute monarchy in which the head of state’s primary task was to collect taxes, wage war, and create and enforce laws. While French society was also divided into social classes known as Estates, these classes were actively involved in governing their nation. This was done through the estates general; an assembly of representatives of each class with whom the emperor would place certain responsibilities upon. This relationship contrasts greatly with that of the one between Russian commoners and elites who had strictly enforced boundaries which prevented any kind of participation in the government. The importance of such a relationship in French society is exemplified by the rule of Louis XI who after deciding to ignore the Estates General while waging expensive wars left the state in economic crisis. Realizing what must be done, his grandson convened Estates General in search of desperately needed support. Recognizing the importance of their role, the third estate made up of commoners would rise in revolt when rejected greater representation in the Estates General. The following history of French political leadership was characterized by a tension between the need for a strong leader and the desire for a greater role for the people which manifested itself in numerous revolutions. The leadership of De Gaulle is a good example of this ongoing tension as he was elected in a time when there was a desperate need of strong leadership, but as the country as able to recover, his leadership was soon challenged by those who felt he was bordering on authoritarianism (Cases 162). As exemplified by De Gaulle, this history has left its mark on French political culture which acknowledges the need for a strong leader, but not at the expense of democracy.
The lack of democratic values in Russia is a significant barrier to the successful implementation of democracy because it sets the stage for strongmen like Putin to consolidate power without consequences.

Democracy relies on a set of institutions such as elections and civil society to function properly. However, when there is little recognition of the importance of such institutions, they become vulnerable to attack by powerful executives. By exhibiting indifference to attacks on democratic institutions such as elections and civil society, the Russian people have allowed themselves to lose, in a large degree, key avenues through which they can express their voice. The Russian people’s prioritization of security through law and order over democracy has been exploited by Putin who emphasizes such priorities as an excuse for his infringement on democratic institutions. Stoner-Weiss expresses a similar sentiment in her article “It is still Putin’s Russia” saying, “The erosion of the content (if not formal institutions) of Russian democracy has been gradual, but it has been steady. Putin accomplished it in part by increasing the importance of the security apparatus in governing the country”. In the face of a public that does not recognize the importance of democratic institutions, Putin has been able to consolidate power and infringe upon democratic institutions without accountability leading to a nation that is formally democratic, but in reality has strong elements of

authoritarianism.
Russia’s failure to democratize even while sharing a similar style of government with a successfully democratic state such as France is due to a lack of democratic values amongst its populace. Influenced by a history of limited social mobility and clearly defined social classes, the Russian people are skeptical of democracy. Instead, they turn to Strongmen like Putin who they look to bring economic prosperity and security. This is done at the cost of democratic institutions which are readily infringed upon by powerful executives looking to further consolidate their power. Without a clear respect for democratic institutions, the Russian people look onward as they lose their voice, comforted by the promises of Strongmen who have for so long defined Russian politics.