The State of Democracy in Russia

THE STATE OF DEMOCRACY IN RUSSIA

The most recent presidential and parliamentary elections in Russia have sparked heated debate concerning the future of Russian democracy. Many social scientists and Russian politician's say that hopes for a true Russian democratic system have been crushed. Few have an optimistic outlook for democratic prosperity in Russia.

These concerns can be substantiated through analysis of many articles on the subject of Russian Democracy. In a recent article entitled, What the Polls Tell Us, Yuri A. Levada (2004) describes Russia as a "Managed Democracy," in which President Vladimir Putin controls the government and has illegitimately swayed the opinion of the Russian people. Levada (2004) argues that the overwhelming power of the United Party has all but completely destroyed the chances of a true democracy in Russia. Authors Michael McFaul and Nikolai Petrov (2004) explain in their article, What the Elections Tell Us, that although the electoral system in Russia is stable and institutionalized, recent elections have had little meaning and therefore do not demonstrate a legitimate democracy. In yet another article entitled, Force, Money, and Pluralism, written by Stephen Sestanovich (2004), the author does not focus on the failings of the Russian democracy, but rather, he concentrates on how Russian businesses and corporate institutions can affect the ultimate outcome of the post-soviet democratization process.

The aforementioned articles present strong arguments that make it difficult to believe that there is much hope for a sustained democracy in Russia. However, it may be possible, through a system of "free and fair elections," for power to be obtained by a party that will embrace democracy and work to properly transform the Russian system of government. However, in the short term the outlook for Russia's democratic future seems bleak.

Levada (2004), McFaul, Petrov (2004) and Sestanovich (2004) have similar viewpoints on the future of democracy in Russia. Levada (2004) describes the Russian form of government as lacking a pluralistic system, so that various branches of the current government are controlled by whoever sits atop a hierarchical pyramid of bureaucracy. President Vladimir Putin now sits at the top of this pyramid, controlling every facet of the Russian government, thus degrading the democratic system. McFaul and Petrov (2004) explain that although the recent elections in Russia demonstrate a thoroughly institutionalized system, the incumbent President, Vladimir Putin, had an unfair advantage over his opponents. By way of his increased control of the Russian government and media, President Putin and his political party, United Russia, were able to overwhelmingly defeat any opposition. Sestanovich (2004) explains that President Putin created a centralized state bureaucracy in an effort to improve the development and growth of the Russian economy and government. However, it is felt that Putin can no longer afford to rely on this singular power base and must now restore pluralism to the government or face backlash from economic leaders.

Levada's (2004) argument as described above, is similar to many who study Russian Democracy. However, he uses Russian public opinion polls to prove many of his theories, but his analysis of the polls may be skewed and somewhat incorrect. He justifies his belief that Putin's control of the government is detrimental by explaining that Russian citizens have been purposefully misinformed by the government. Thus, Lavada (2004) believes that the Russian people support Putin without fully understanding the consequences. However, are the Russian people wrong in supporting Putin? Are they truly misinformed? Putin has brought economic prosperity to Russia and has brought about relative stability there. There may not be enough clear evidence to support the assertion that Russian citizens are clearly misinformed. The same argument applies to McFaul and Petrov's (2004) theory that the elections where grossly skewed in favor of Putin. Was it truly a diabolical plan crafted by Putin to crush his opposition that enabled him to win the last election? Or, do the Russian people believe in Putin because he is simply a strong leader who has improved the Russian government and economy?

Sestanovich (2004) has overlooked some key elements in his somewhat optimistic analysis of Russian Demcocracy. One of his main arguments is that the Russian economy may encounter a major pitfall in the near future, causing business leaders to revolt against Putin and his United Party. This in turn, according to Sestanovich (2004) may allow for a power change and an increase in pluralism. Sestanovich (2004) states that hundreds of companies, "have already begun to mobilize in support of the creation, for the first time, of true capitol markets" (Sestanovich 3, 2004). However, if the Russian economy fails, the Russian people may loose confidence in democracy and turn back to communism for a quick fix. Will Russian enterprises have enough power, success and prosperity to keep a stable democratic government in place?

In Levada's (2004) analysis of Russian opinion polls, he found that Russians don't consider political pluralism important. He states that, "In the public mind, economic prosperity is a more important criterion for democracy than are multiparty elections and political pluralism" (Levada 2, 2004). Levada (2004) believes that this is a major problem. In a true democracy, pluralism is vital and allows for various branches of government to, "Cooperate while remaining separate from one another" (Levada 5, 2004). This allows for the safeguards of rights and liberties established in a Democratic System. According to Levada (2004), President Putin has created a "Managed Democracy" and is now controlling every facet of the government while masquerading an elaborate show of government reform. Levada (2004) explains that the economic prosperity and governmental reform imposed by Putin have lead Russians to believe that all is well, while in-fact Russian democracy is degrading underneath a shell of deception.

Levada's (2004) opinions may be well grounded, however, it cannot be proven that Putin's governmental reforms are merely for show without clearer evidence. Furthermore, Levada (2004) seems to view citizens through the eyes of Plato and does not trust in their opinion. There is a possibility that the large majority of the population, who believe political pluralism is not important, may be right. Russian Democracy has evolved differently than other western democracies have. The current Russian Democratic system may well be what is best for Russia under the conditions

...