Private Property and Democracy in Russia - Essay Example

and Section Private Property and Democracy Although Russian President Vladimir Putin did not coin the phrase “sovereign democracy,” (Philips) he is an acknowledged proponent of the concept, which creates a clear distinction between ‘democracy’ as defined by the West, and as viewed by Russian leadership. The status of democracy in Russia has become a subject of debate in international circles. Some Western observers assert that Putin has significantly rolled back the process of democratic reform, ruling with the unchallengeable authority of an old-style Soviet party chairman (Maceda). With the power to appoint mayors and regional governors, in addition to stifling opposition politicians, it is difficult to argue that the Russian leader has not significantly consolidated power around his presidency. Putin has predictably not reacted well to criticisms from the West on the question of democracy in Russia. In a well publicized response to President Bush’s expressed concerns on the subject during a 2006 press conference in St. Petersburg, Putin quipped: “We certainly would not want to have the same kind of democracy that they have in Iraq, quite honestly” (“Putin rejects”). Despite the aforementioned centralization of power under the office of the president, at least the trappings of democracy remain in Russia, with the attainment of office through direct elections. To distinguish their system of government from those of the West’s, Russian officials first used the phrase “managed democracy,” later changed to “sovereign democracy.” The latter term, in particular, seems to connote a firm rejection of negative assessments coming from outside of the country, and a refusal to adhere to standards adopted by the West (Plattner 142). The reported Russian moves towards authoritarianism provide an interesting comparison to the political theories espoused by two of the West’s most revered philosophers, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. Hobbes (1588 – 1679) in his famous 1651 work “Leviathan,” posited that citizens should accede to a “social contract” in which they submitted their individual rights, including those involving property, to governmental authority in exchange for personal protection as well as for the prevention of civil strife (“Hobbes’s Philosophy”). This theory dovetails to a great degree with Putin’s assumption of greater power, specifically utilized to get the Russian state back on its feet after the disastrous attempt at market liberalization under his predecessor, Boris Yeltsin. By nationalizing key industries, such as oil production, Putin has put the state firmly back in control, rather than allowing the privatization trend to continue. So far, the results have been very positive as the Russian economy – mainly due to high oil prices – has come roaring back, and its policy stances are now extremely relevant in what was supposed to be a unipolar (U.S.-dominated) world. If Putin were indeed following Hobbes, he could hardly have done a better job of adopting the philosopher’s theories. The Russian people have submitted to his authority, and so far have benefited handsomely for having done so. Locke (1632 – 1704), on the other hand, in his “Two Treatises of Government” and other writings, encouraged the seeking of truth on a personal level and opposition to authoritarianism (“John Locke”). Unlike Hobbes, Locke believed that it was through the collective power of enlightened individuals that would optimize the flowering of human society. This theory, obviously, flies directly in the face of “sovereign democracy.” However, while promoting man’s intrinsic nature as being one of reason and tolerance, Locke did allow for the occurrence of war, which – according to his theory – would only be caused by the deliberate violation of the rights of others. Since war can only be properly fought under the auspices of a government of some type, a case could be made under his theory that “sovereign democracy” was a collective Russian response to the willful violation of its rights by the West through privatization and market liberalization, which all but destroyed the social safety net existent under the old Soviet system. Putin, to be replaced as president on May 7 by protégé Dmitry Medvedev, will assume the role of prime minister where he will preside over United Russia, the majority party in Parliament. In 2000, when his presidency began, Putin consolidated central control over the country’s administrative districts, a move that many considered to be anti-democratic. More controversial has been the deliberate stifling of opposition parties. For example, former Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov was prevented from participating in the March presidential election won by Medvedev when a significant percentage of the two million required signatures were judged to be forgeries by the Central Election Commission (Harrison). Other stratagems, such as limiting the size of meetings that opposition parties can hold has had the desired chilling effect, further enfeebling and discouraging the Russian liberal democracy movement. In a January article published by the Interfax news agency, former Russian president Mikhail Gorbachev was very critical of the changes made to the country’s electoral system, calling for extensive reforms. Among his recommendations was an end to the solely party-list elections for Parliament that prevent independent candidates from running, thus keeping the legislature in the hands of Putin loyalists. Also suggested was a return to direct public elections for governors’ positions and a greater degree of civilian control over the entire electoral process (Chivers). Putin has put the clamps not only on political rivals, but also on private industries. Former Yukos Oil tycoon Mikhail Khodorkovsky remains imprisoned on a number of charges, including tax evasion. However, many believe that his true sin was to allow too much Western access to the vital resource, a situation that was effectively ended through the Russian government’s actions. His arrest and incarceration signaled a wave of nationalizations in which previously independent businesses were absorbed into the state apparatus (von Klaeden 1) Putin’s popularity with the Russian people has soared along with the country’s economy. For the past few years, the latter has been growing at a rate of more than 6 percent. Between 1999 and 2007, real disposable income has more than doubled. In addition, Russia now possesses the third largest current reserves in the world (von Klaeden 1). This represents a complete turnabout from the 1990s, which saw a financial collapse in 1998, along with the rampant privatization of vital industries by Russian oligarchs. For these reasons many Russians, who welcome their newfound prosperity and sense of importance on the international stage under Putin, view Yeltsin’s tenure with distain. This state of affairs has translated into unprecedented levels of popular support, higher than for any other leader in the world. According to a Pravda newspaper article, in June 2007 Putin enjoyed a domestic approval rating of 81 percent. Since November 1999, it has reportedly never fallen below 65 percent (Sudakov). Conducting interviews in the Russian city of Yaroslavl, the BBC News agency found that citizens were genuinely appreciative of the very real improvements in their standards of living. One family, the Rozovs, enjoyed shopping at the city’s many new supermarkets filled with products that were unavailable a decade ago and eating out at restaurants where it can be difficult to secure a table. According to Mr. Rozov, all of these benefits flowed from having a strong government, far more preferable in his view than a democratic government, as defined by the West. He is not alone in this assessment and though many international commentators have decried the Russian return to authoritarianism, ordinary citizens seem to be very much in agreement with the direction that the country is taking (Grammaticas). In conclusion, it is clearly possible to have a reasonably happy populace under a government other than a liberal democracy. After the privations of the 1990s, Russians are encouraged to see such strength exhibited by Putin and other national leaders. Not only do they perceive that their own lives have been bettered, but feel national pride for a country whose power and influence is definitely on the upswing. Works Cited Chivers, C.J. “Gorbachev criticizes Russian electoral system.” International Herald Tribune 28 Jan. 2008. 5 May 2008 . Grammaticas, Damian. “Has Putin sapped Russian democracy?” BBC News 14 Jul. 2007. 4 May 2008 . Harrison, William. “Kasparovs opposition in check.” Guardian Unlimited 3 May 2008. 4 May 2008 . “Hobbess Moral and Political Philosophy.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 12 Feb. 2002. 4 May 2008 . “John Locke.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 5 May 2007. 4 May 2008 . Klomegah, Kester Kenn. “Non-Presidential Putin Prepares for New Power.” IPS News 30 Apr. 2008. 3 May 2008 . Maceda, Jim. “Putin’s ‘sovereign democracy’ looks familiar.” MSNBC 30 Mar. 2007. 4 May 2008 . Philips, James K. “Elections and Party Politics Dominate Democracy Discussion.” New York Times 30 June 2006. 3 May 2008 . Plattner, Marc F. Democracy Without Borders?: Global Challenges to Liberal Democracy. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2007. “Putin rejects Bushs Iraq democracy model.” CNN.com 17 July 2006. 4 May 2008 . Sudakov, Dmitry. “Vladimir Putin’s trademark begins to decline.” Pravda 25 Jan. 2008. 5 May 2008 . von Klaeden, Eckart. “The president and the prisoner.” International Herald Tribune 2 May 2008. 4 May 2008 . Read More