Semi-Presidential Systems Analysis of France and Russia - Essay Example

?What explains the rise of competitive itarianism in Russia? Given that both France and Russia have semi-presidential systems, why has France remained a democracy while Russia has slid into competitive authoritarianism? What factor was most important? Introduction Let us begin by having a substantial look how authoritarian form of governance differs from its democratic counterpart. Perhaps, majority of the nations in the world today have already declared among themselves democratic. However, there are still those nations taking the plunge into imperfect democracies, but still moving their way forward to becoming perfect in the application of democracy. Democracy is simply understood as highly associated with freedom. On the contrary, it would be a bit harder to define authoritarianism due to the fact that it is quite supple and diverse in its form. In other words, it is very interesting to find out why some countries ended up themselves in authoritarian regime knowing the fact that there is no individual freedom associated with it. In addition, it is very complex and not everyone could substantially express their freedom. At some point, there must suppression of individual rights involved. After all, authoritarianism requires absolute obedience to authority. This is the basic requirement in authoritarian regime contrary to emancipation of individual freedom in democratic regime. In democratic regime, it is the people who have the higher authority to select among themselves somebody to be seated in the higher rank, to represent their voices. Submission therefore to this instituted authority would mean complete obedience and respect of the voice of the majority. In this case, it is always the majority wins and has ultimate right over the minority. This only means that for as long as there are minority groups, democratic regime should always subject itself to varying amendments in many aspects in governance. For instance, the emancipation of law should at some point be allowed to undergo process of voting prior to its implementation. In the legalization of abortion, democratic regime always has the chance for ratification by the majority. Substantial debates are necessary just to make sure that everybody’s possible voices on the said issue are heard. On the contrary, one could always associate authoritarianism with dictatorship, monarchy, one-man rule, autocracy and even police state. This what it means about authoritarianism being diverse. In democracy, the rulers are restricted by a constitution, law and even oppositions such as the minority group and even some insurgents. However, this is not the case in the issue of authoritarian regime. There is a repressive control of the people in authoritarianism. Seeing these definitions and illustrations of authoritarianism and democracy would somehow suggest that it would be impossible why countries remarkably engaged themselves with authoritarian regime. It is important to look at this issue in detail most especially in the case of Russia. In this paper, the proponent tries to elaborate some factors that could probably explain why Russia has slid into competitive authoritarianism. Based on history, Russia like France has semi-presidential systems. However, France chose to remain democratic but Russia decided to slide into competitive authoritarianism. There are many probable factors that one could elaborate for the reason of acquiring substantial explanation. However, in this paper, the proponent chose to discuss one of the most important factors considered to be elemental for the institution of authoritarian regime in Russia. This is the issue concerning democratic value. Democratic value People lack democratic values. Perhaps, this is a good point to start with. In Russia, history could tell that in its archaic society, the leaders always decide for the people. People were never thought to decide among themselves and thus lacking responsibility and freedom to think of different things for the good of the country. This is a remarkable impact and heritage of the Soviet era which from the point of view of modern governance in the 21st century would be completely outmoded. In this reason, it is always important to think that people in Russia eventually lacked the chance to expose themselves to becoming more responsible citizens. In a democratic country, people have always the chance to decide among them and to voice out what is the good for the country. There is always a consensus among everybody, leading to the emancipation of rules or laws for the benefit of all, both the majority and minority. Based on history, Russian people were substantially suppressed from expressing themselves. For instance, Gorbachev and his reforms used to head to preserving Soviet system. We know for the fact that Soviet era did not want to align with democracy. In the same way, Gorbachev together with his reforms intended for the preservation of Soviet system, which placed remarkable control of satellite states. In this manner, people were still not having the opportunity or chance to be responsible enough in living a high level of developing civilization. In fact, from the point of view of post-modernism, the implementation of democracy which marks the application of democratic values is a must. At this point, individuals may have the capability to decide or choose among themselves what exactly are good for them. On the contrary, the preservation of Soviet system paved only the way for more detailed authoritarian regime. In fact, it only increased the chance of maximizing the power and perpetuation of semi-presidential systems that at some point may be democratic in form but in actual practice it is purely about authoritarian regime. In other words, it could be pointed out that Russian governance was substantially exposed to giving more responsibility for leaders to decide and think for its people and not the other way around. People were significantly accustomed to this political culture which only stagnate the chance of Russian people to live in a high developing civilization based on the institution of democratic values. As a result, political culture can hardly be remarkably altered. This culture always carries itself a resemblance of the past authoritarian regime. One of this is the continuing level of political culture based on suppression or control. In post-modernism, the rise of competitive authoritarianism in Russia is vivid and clear. Although formal democratic institutions remain, Duma’s power was still limited; there was elimination of federalism, changes in electoral rules and suppression or control of the media. For instance, the death of Anna Politkovskaya, a Russian journalist could substantially justify this claim. Politkovskaya was known to be an active opposition to Russian President Vladimir Putin and the Chechen conflict. In post-modernism, it is Vladimir Putin who remarkably took the chance and opportunity to place Russia under competitive authoritarianism. It is known that Putin remarkably used his authority in order to perpetuate his power and maximize his control over the state. How he consolidates power is a very important issue. Among any anomalies associated with him, Putin hires ousted minister amidst wide massive public outraged. From the definition of democracy, people must have substantial voice over their leaders. The public must always have the right to express among them their unified voice against somebody especially elected officials. In the case of Putin, there was a strong resistance on his part to listen to these people. In fact, the liberal Yabloko party was substantially hindered, so as they could not contradict as opposition for the perpetuation of Putin’s power and his autocratic regime. In France, people always have the chance to be heard. Perpetuation of personal interest if ever there is any is substantially minimized. Unlike Putin, the prevailing regime in France tries to accommodate the voices of the people especially on issues concerning interest of the people. Hiring of ousted ministers would be a significant disgrace to the prevailing democratic governance of Russia. The opposition would claim that this is unconstitutional. Therefore, if it is indeed unconstitutional, then it would be a failure on Putin’s part to exercise such governance because of lack of consistency and credibility. Here, there is a clear depiction how Putin remarkably preserves the Soviet era mentality. His resistance to listen to wide massive public dispute is a failure on his part to exercise democracy. He definitely lacks democratic values by being too strategic in dealing cases concerning on how to proliferate its authoritarian regime. He could remarkably employ unconstitutional moves which is the very criteria of authoritarian regime. As stated earlier, the authoritarian regime is not restricted by the constitution, people and even other essential factors for the preservation of democracy. Conclusion It is important to consider that there are many factors that could be elaborated why democracy fails in Russia. However, one of them which could be most obvious is the lack of democratic values and this itself mirrored in Putin’s regime. In his reign, a remarkable political culture obtained from the archaic society of Soviet era prevails. Suppression of democracy was an essential criterion why Putin remarkably presents Russia in a competitive authoritarianism. In here, he substantially competes with his people when it comes to who substantially holds the power. This remarkably results to suppression of the people’s power and even their right to express and think the best things for their country. Read More