Consolidation of Democracy in Post-Soviet Russia - Research Paper Example

Consolidation of Democracy in Post-Soviet Russia Outline I. Introduction II. Background to Russian Democracy III. Challenges to Democratization Processes in Russia a) Capitalist Democracy Antagonism b) Nationalism IV. The Future of Russia Democratization Agenda V. Conclusion Consolidation of Democracy in Post-Soviet Russia I. Introduction Up to December 1991, Russia was in the union of soviet socialist republic fondly known as the USSR. The disintegration came after the end of the cold war and the union broke to the individual countries that constituted it, Russia being one of them. The Union of soviet was majorly communists, this placed them in a contest with the US over the ideology to be spread in the Latin America, and this was significant in facilitating the Cold war between US and the Soviet Union. After the disintegration, Russia became an independent country on its own and the adopted it unique governance principles (Bradley, 98). Democracy can be defined as provision of the enabling environment in which the people of a nation can exercise their rights by deciding the king of leaders they want in each elect ion calendar in a free, fair, just, and credible way. Democracy though has been faced with a plethora of challenges in most countries due to totalitarian and authoritarian regime that have subverted the will of the people and ruled with iron fist. The concept of democracy has been considered a fundamental human right and is entrenched into the constitution as a way of dispensing social right and rule of the law. This paper analyses the consolidation of democracy in Russia and a number of issues related to the same. II. Background to Russian Democracy The disintegration of Russian was in the 1991 elicited more concerns than what could only be considered as a political factor. Russian was intertwined in the communist ideology then spread by the union and most of the countries that formed part of the union shared the same. The communist ideology provided a powerful blend of the political and the economic, which resulted into the limitation of the democratic space in Russia after the disintegration (Smith, Bruce, and Danilenko, 143). The situation has made Russia to be in a difficult situation in harmonizing the economic and political issues related democracy. Democracy to this extent had made Russia to see democracy as a mirage and the consolidation of democracy in Russia. The different nationalist and the ethnic issues in Russia have worsened the situation. According to Ken Jowitt, democracy has to satisfy some of the basic requirements in this case referred to as “developmental trinity.” The developmental trinity requires that national building, democracy, and capitalism form the basic facets of the enhancement of the democratic space (Oates, 76). The situation when considering Russia faces different contradictory issues as they considered the provision of capitalism as a way of ensuring that there is the democratic space and its subsequent consolidation. In Russia, the provision of the Jowitt proposal towards the enhancement of the democratic space is not in conformity with their economic and political thoughts; this makes the achievement of democracy in Russia to be a mirage and faces several bedeviling factors (Smith, Bruce, and Danilenko, 155). In considering Russia and the development of democracy, it has not witnessed a much vigorous revolution of the democratic space to champion for the ushering in of a new democratic agenda and concern. The hope of attaining democracy in Russia faced a major setback when Putin assumed power and opted for a totalitarian regime that propagated the authoritarian regime. Consolidating democracy in Russian has assumed a dwindling pace due to lack of political good will for the leaders given the establishment of the political process in the country. The Soviet Union from which they broke provided no alternative process of governance through a way of promoting and enhancing the democracy for the facilitation of human rights and wishes. The problem of consolidating g democracy in Russia is thus largely traceable in the established form of governance the country has gone through since the establishment of the Soviet Union (Wesselitsky, 64). Another challenge facing the democratic space in Russia is the need to institutionalize the democratic institutions in the country as well as the balancing it with the secession programs. The situation makes Russia to be in a dilemma in providing democracy faced with two issues that requires proper democratization of the society. Inadequacy of the democratic institutions has made the Russians people to make their identity as ethnic groups than considering that they belong to the same nation. This has also contributed in slowing the pace of democracy in the country. III. Challenges to Democratization Processes in Russia Even though there have been attempts to make democracy thrive in Russia, there have been little results realized in the efforts. This is partly because of what is considered to be lack of institutions that should enhance democracy, this coupled with the fact that there are ethnicity in the country, there tend to be more consideration as ethnic groups at the expense of the nationalistic look. This consideration has made democracy consolidation to face immense challenges to overcome in a short period. The challenges to the democratic rule entrenchment in Russia can therefore be categorized into two blocs a) Capitalist Democracy Antagonism Russia is largely known for the ideological preference of communism in the management of economic issues since the period of world war. This position has not been easily challenged by the intrusion of capitalism in the country. Capitalism in Russia is therefore one of the challenges that face the effort to consolidate the democracy in the country. Following the ideological preference of capitalism, democracy has been perceived to be threatened following the market formation systems. The efforts to install capitalism as a way of economy in Russia do not augur well with the enhancement of democracy and has significantly contributed to the slow pace and at times interruption on the consolidation of democracy (Colton, Timothy, and Jerry, 114). To achieve the desired democratic space and practice, there has to be a balanced way of entrenching the policy to the people. b) Nationalism Nationalism can be viewed as the perception given to the individual based on the territorial boundary. This provision allows for the ethnic provisions and the concept of democracy to assume a unidirectional trend. Russia is such one country in which the concept of nationalism has led to the underdevelopment of the democracy. Nationalism has brought with tit several challenges in the effort to consolidate democracy. Whereas the concept of democracy puts it for that, the rule f the majority will carry the day, there are also the other parts of the same provision allowing the minority to be respected, and their rights are given. The heterogeneity of the ethnic groups in Russia thus is a challenge to the development of democracy in Russia since the majority always dominates in areas where numbers matters. Nationalism in this case has contributed to the disintegration of the democratic space (Colton, Timothy, and Jerry, 128). The preposition by Fish in this case summarizes the effect of nationalism in Russian democracy, in a country that experience weak democratic systems, there are high chances that ethnic precedent and dominates instead of democracy. This is even believed to accelerate since the political institutions in Russia are either weak or not established completely. This occurrence has enabled the citizens to consider themselves more ethnically as opposed to the nationalistic look that should be considered. The ethnic orientation has contributed to the underdevelopment of the democratic society in Russia. To achieve democracy, the citizens of Russia have to realize the strength that lies in the nationality as opposed to ethnicity. IV. The Future of Russia Democratization Agenda Following the challenges that has faced consolidation of democracy in Russia, one would be inquire o know the prospects of democracy in the country. Following the analysis of the event how they have been unfolding since the fall of the soviet in 1991, it is accurate to argue that there are prospects in the realization of democracy in Russia. As part of the corroborating evidence, I have considered some of the events that show that democracy has been explored and that the future of democracy in Russia is bright. The treaty signed between Tatarstan and Yakutia provided proposals for the enhancement of the democratic processes in Russia (Eckstein, 177). Within the proposal was also the economic blueprint that was to be used for the horizontal dispensation of power as well as finding the solution to the ever-growing tension amongst the communities to provide a foundation for nurturing democracy in the country. In the progression of the democratic space in Russia, Michael McFaul recounts that the development of democracy in Russia stated with the 1999 Duma elections in which the parties were weakened. The efforts to create a new party unity and laws governing political parties formation that was choreographed to give unprecedented support to the then Russian leader Putin (Wagner, 98). The consolidation of the political issues by these laws gave the then leader, Putin the power to directly appoint the composition of the Federation council and this was a direct affront to the democracy in the country. The government support of the Chechen war and the wide manifestation of the disrespect to the human right and freedom also manifested the decay of democracy in the country (Diamond, Larry, and Marc, 149). The freedom of the press was also curtailed in the country characterized with the detention and torture of the reporters. The political system of the country then did not allow the publication of any material that is anti government. During this period, the democratic space I the country was much limited and no one had the idea that democracy would have a place in the country. The treaty that was signed between Tartstan and Yakutia was aimed at providing the relation of power from the periphery to the central administration (Fish, 213). This was envisaged to propagate the essence of democracy in the county unfortunately; it was fiercely opposed by the Yeltsin regime that elicited Chechnya war with the confederation of Russia. Though many have confused the war as an ethnic confrontation, keen analysis and reports indicates that the war was much connected with power struggle in the capital Moscow than the false façade of economic and ethnic struggle. The war was about the expansion of the territorial influence than that of liberation and struggle for democracy. It was also noted that there was the shift of power considering the central government and the governors in the regional federals. The power became more concentrated at the central government unlike the horizontal distribution of power to the federal governors; this step was an affront to the democratic space and extent. The state became more concerned about the civil society and their operations were monitored and controlled. The state then formed their own civil society that would treat them with favors (Diamond, Larry, and Marc, 139). The centralization of power was highly opposed by those who proffered multiple centers of power in the country. The unprecedented establishment of the FBS in bringing sanity in governance brought a sudden change in the organization of power and assumed the governing body in the country. There was the exponential growth of the FBS in the country including in the presidential and in the ministries. This governing body has edged several oligarch families out of power who thought that they could use there proximity to Putin as a way of getting away with economic and political crimes and intolerance. For instance, the FBS arrested the manager of Sibur (one of the most successful gas and petrochemical industry). The arrest sent shock waves to those who believed that the proximity with Putin would cushion them from all the economic and political crimes they committed (Diamond, Larry, and Marc, 156). It demonstrated that it was not only the political rules but also the economic that were important in the re-negotiation. All these having happened, there were some democratic developments that were realized during the reign of Putin unlike Yeltsin. During the reign of Putin, he endeavored to enact both economic and political reforms as well as those of foreign policies. Putin ensured the inept, lethargic and the ineffective leadership, and quasi-anarchy were brought to an end. He also labored to see into it that there was the re-strengthening of the state for the Yeltsin’s weaker one. His form of governance was clearly different from that which would be easily be determined as dictatorial. Although Putin’s leadership was popular with the people, it still did not provide for the needs of the people in terms of liberating the country from cycles of corruption, the courts were still partial and could be easily manipulated. The legal reforms were also moving at a relatively slower pace. Despite all these developments, McFaul posits that there has not been success in the introduction of liberal democracy in the country. Reasons for the failure to introduce the liberal democracy in the country in this case are summarized into two; the culture of the people of Russian and the actor-centric in Russia. Culturally, the Russian people and their culture has not known democracy for a long time, they have been succeeded by dictators and those who disregard democracy and they have acclimatize to the system without any democratic space. The place of democracy was squandered and manipulated by those who came to power in the earlier period and institutionalized dictatorial regime that did not respect the rule of law, democracy, and justice (Devlin, 187). Even thought the future of democracy in Russia looks bright, there are several issues that has to be addressed given that they have not been addressed for long and thy form important tenets of democracy. For the democracy to prevail in Russia, important issues like contest of the border issues, political regimes, property rights, and the economic institutions should be addressed. The Russian situation was complex and not only solving these problems would bring normalcy, the process of finding the solution was equally tricky given the nature of what was in contest. This coupled with the distribution of power within the political actors, the capitalist and the communists had equal strengths and believed in fighting as both thought they had probable winning chance and take over the administration of the country. Certainly, there is hope in the development of the democratic systems in Russia; this is largely attributed to the fact that there has been no proposal in the provision of an alternative way of governing the country (Devlin, 201). Issues that has made the country be antagonistic towards one another has increasingly become smaller and so do the risks of overthrowing the designated system. The polling data shows that, a larger proportion of the Russians believe in the democratic governance and though it has it weaknesses, the best is yet to be noticed. Conclusion Democracy is very important for the governance of a country, it provides for the account of every arm of the government and allows people’s views and decision to take precedence. With democracy, the majority will always have their way while the minority will have to be heard and have their say. Russia was majorly a communist country; the democratic system could be a problem in adopting and effecting but with time democracy will evolve and be established in Russia given the pace and the will the current leadership is taking Works Cited Bradley, John. Russia: building democracy. Special ed. Austin, Tex.: Raintree Steck-Vaughn, 1996. Print. Colton, Timothy J., and Jerry F. Hough. Growing pains: Russian democracy and the election of 1993. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 1998. Print. Devlin, Judith. Slavophiles and commissars: enemies of democracy in modern Russia. New York: St. Martins Press, 1999. Print. Diamond, Larry Jay, and Marc F. Plattner. Democracy after communism. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002. Print. Eckstein, Harry. Can democracy take root in post-Soviet Russia? explorations in state-society relations. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, 1998. Print. Fish, M. Steven. Democracy derailed in Russia: the failure of open politics. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Print. Oates, Sarah. Television, democracy and elections in Russia. London: Routledge, 2006. Print. Smith, Bruce L. R., and G. M. Danilenko. Law and democracy in the new Russia. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1993. Print. Wagner, Viqi. Russia. Detroit, MI: Greenhaven Press, 2009. Print. Wesselitsky, Gabriel de. Russia & democracy: the German canker in Russia.. New York: Pub. for the Central committee for national patriotic organizations, 1916. Print. Read More