Comparative Arguments of Russian Politics - Literature review Example

Comparative Arguments of Russian Politics Comparative Arguments of Russian Politics Introduction The political systems, events and ideologies of various countries or regions around the world have attracted a lot of comparative debates and arguments from different scholars and analysts. Similarly, scholars have argued for or against different political ideologies and assertions with the central focus revolving around capitalism, liberalism, neo-liberalism, and federalism among other forms of political arrangements (Ostrow and Chakamada, 2008). Scholars of political processes and systems have also recognized that investigation of political development and aspects is always tenuous and multifaceted and hence the reason for divergent and variant views. In most of the political system and ideals literature, criticism and arguments are common; through their arguments, scholars and analysts have always tried to justify in comparison, the existence of different political systems or ideologies in particular countries or regions. The main aim of this paper is to carry out a comparative analysis of two arguments in relation to Russian politics. In order to address the question and to shed more light on the issue, the paper will rely on the arguments and theories provided by different scholars and authors in various scholarly articles. The major aim of this paper is to provide comparative theoretical arguments that are based on scholarly literature. Discussion Many scholars and analysts have proposed different arguments; moreover, they have provided comparative analysis on the political ideals and actions that have shaped Russia from several decades ago to the present. Particular, the central focus of most scholars and analysts has been on the Russian nationalism and democracy and how they have evolved and propagated. The paper is based on two scholarly articles; First, is the book written by Richard Sakwa, titled, “Russian Politics and Society.” In this book, the author has advanced various arguments that have underpinned the considerable changes that have been experienced in the political system and structure in Russia in the last two decades. In particular, the author has delved on issues relating to electoral laws, party development and how the regional politics has shaped different political ideologies in Russia. Furthermore, the author has focused on the development of phoney democracy between the years 1991- 1993 and also given a comprehensive historical evaluation of the Yeltsin leadership and given a similar evaluation concerning Putin presidency. In advancing his arguments and affirming his comparative analysis, the author has also focused more on foreign policy issues and how other international countries have influenced the political system and structures in Russia. Finally, in his arguments and comparative analysis, the author has also discussed the development and emergence of civil society and the subsequent problems of democratic consolidation in Russia (Sakwa, 2008). The book has highlighted how different political actions and ideals that have shaped Russia from the past through to the present. The second core text that is used as a comparative scholarly source in this paper is a book by Astrid Tuminez. The titled of the book is “Russian Nationalism since 1856: Ideology and the Making of Foreign Policy.” The author has given variant nationalist ideologies that have been propagated in Russia. In addition, the author has traced the history of political ideologies that have shaped the current or modern political system and development in Russia. The author has further explained and advanced various ideas that according to him have played integral in influencing and determining the political discourse and aspects of politics in Russia. Tuminez (2000) has given his view with regard to the position of many scholars and analysts who see the Russian nationalism as a dangerous force by asserting that he is rather concerned with the malicious and vicious impacts of Russian nationalism on the international front, more so, on foreign policy. Similarly, the author gives a clear account on how the conceptualization of ideas from others scholars and writers have promoted different political ideas in trying to explain the political development in Russia. There is a possible way that the Russian political system, more so the changes and the transformation were based on the transition that were witnessed in other European countries. The political ideologies and actions pervaded the social and cultural aspects of Russia as the west tried to introduce their ways through social and political position (Tuminez, 2000). Sakwa (2008) argues that the post communist system of Russia had two central features and characteristics authoritarianism and democratization. Western style democracy was introduced in Russian through the intense pressure from major Western countries. The authoritarian regime in Russia was associated with autocracy that was coupled with absolute and indivisible power. The Russian political administration dis not delegate and distribute power but instead concentrated it to a few individuals (Bjorkman, 2003). The diversity and transition of political development in Russia has given more leeway to scholars and writers to engage in broader and comprehensive discourse and research. Various scholars have, and continue to engage in several comparative political discourses with regard to the change of political regimes and ideologies. The authors have provided different theoretical basis of Russian politics. Other scholars have argued that no specific political systems or ideologies can be linked to the Russian structure. According to Tuminez (2000), the Russian political system endeavored to mirror and copies the models of the Western European democratic societies in a superficial way. The author goes forward to assert that the entire sociopolitical context of Russia was different from other western European democracies. According to most authors, the western style democracy led to the demise of communism in Russia (Lakoff, 2011; Sakwa, 2008). However, a consensus among the authors is evident when most of them agree that the political development in Russia, particularly in the last two decades was largely based on authoritarian ideal regime model and not on democratic ideal model. In fact, the leadership, political mobilization, and ideologies resembled the authoritarian regime models. The breakdown of the communist regime was characterized by three distinct political innovations namely, the transformation of political among various political actors from secrecy to transparent forms, the institutionalization of political competition and the creation of the field of mass electoral politics (Ross, 2002). The influence of modernization theories in influencing the formation of political actors and the emergence of a field of mass electoral politics in Russia has been advanced by various scholars and writers. The array of development toward democracy in Russia was largely shaped by Western powers including the United States. According to Lakoff (2011) the authoritarian regime in Russia gradually moved towards the adoption of democracy due to the pressure from Western countries that were advanced by opposition political actors in Russia. Although there is a contestation among scholars as to whether Russia has indeed bowed to democratic ideals, the fact of the matter remain that the country has made significant progress in adopting western style democracy. As explained in the previous sentences, the move by Russia to adopt democratic ideologies was because of powerful forces from the pother powerful wester nation that had already adopted the system. The adoption of the democratic ideals played integral role in transforming Russia in the direction of other western European countries (Bjorkman, 2003). It can be argued that to a greater extent and degree, the state of the Russian political system is a combination of national and international influences. From the arguments and comparative analysis that have been provided in several scholarly articles and literature, the influence of the western actions and ideals in fostering or hindering nationalism in Russian is a major subject of debate as it has elicited a variant of ideas, suggestions and criticism from all sides of the divides (Ostrow and Chakamada, 2008). Some sections of the scholars have argued in favor of the role of the western countries in positively influencing nationalism in Russia while at the same time, a considerable number of scholars and criticism have advanced the argument that indeed the influence of the western countries have indeed hindered and restricted Russian nationalism. Sakwa (2008) argues that the predominant belief from most western countries, particularly the United States that Russia is currently a democratic nation is false and is further from the truth. He advances the argument that the modern regimes in Russia have inculcated a culture of dictatorship that is based on authoritarian ideal models and not on democratic models or ideals. The scholar opines that Russia, through its current leaders have made grave choices that have undermined and constrained democratic political development in Russia. He asserts that indeed Russia has not managed to make the transition from authoritarian model to democratic ideal model but it has instead made a transition from dictatorship to dictatorship (Sakwa, 2008). Dissident ideas and counter-arguments have also been advanced by different authors who also give their view that indeed Russia has not yet advance to a democratic nation. Bjorkman (2003) hold the view that Russia has not created free democtratic instituions and it has a slow progress toward achieving democtratic order. Many dissident authors or scholars have lashed out at their counterparts from western powers who have penned that Russia made a transition from authoritarian regime to democratic regime. The same individuals who were at the forefront in liberating Russia from authoritarian and dictatorship regimes are the same people who have presided over the transition of Russia from dictatorship to dictatorship. In their book, “The Consolidation of Dictatorship in Russia: An inside View of the Demise of Democracy”, Ostrow and Chakamada (2008) hold the view that that Russia has become a dictatorship amidst the great hopes and belief from several western countries that the country has attained and assumed democracy that was previously inevitable and elusive. The authors cite the role that Russian leaders such as Putin played in transforming Russia from authoritarian rule to democratic rule. For instance, Putin was one of the most prominent democratic activists and played integral in the events that steered Russia toward the path of democratization. However, the authors are appalled and dismayed that most of Russian leader who championed liberalisation and democratization in Russia have now become opponents of democracy in modern Russia (Ostrow and Chakamada, 2008). Similarly, the argument is also advanced by Tom Bjorkman in his book titled, “Russia’s Road to Deeper Democracy.” He asserts that the renewed efforts of Russia to build western-style democratic insituituions in the past decade has stagnated between the democracy has understood in the west and the authoritarian order that was inherited from the former USSR that is still being practiced (Bjorkman, 2003). The demise of democracy in Russia is also endorsed by other scholars apart from Ostrow and Chakamada. Sakwa ( 2008) also argues that Russia has, and will never achieve and create a viable democracy as long as the authoritarian and sectarian regimes are still dominating the regions. Cameron Ross on the other hand gives another perspective on the democracy in Russia by advancing an argument that the democratic order in the country or the democratization process in Russia is hampered by federalism or regionalism. According to Cameron Ross, most of the federal states in Russia have failed to make the transition from autocracy to democracy since they are unable forge formidable and viable democratic institutions (Ross, 2002). Currently, most of the federal states in States in Russia are still run by strong political bosses amidst the belief that Russia has embraced full democracy. Fundamental to the political development in Russia is the influence of diverse ideologies by political leaders and the political consultants. Some scholars have argued that the political development in Russia in the last decades was not based on any elaborate or guiding ideology although they concede that there was a distinctive mentality with regard to definite political ideologies in Russia (Ross, 2002). However, the above view and assessment is disputed but other scholars, analysts and writers, notably Sanford Lakoff who advance the view that participation in the political system was not done through a well-developed autonomous civil structure that gave way for competing political parties (Lakoff, 2011). Other authors and scholars have discredited the concept that has been advanced by Tuminez (2000) that the political development in Russia was based purely on authoritarian ideal model. Several scholars and authors have cited that there were two primary factors that shaped the political structure and development in Russia. Furthermore, what has emerged from the comparative analysis of the scholarly articles is the existence of a political system with limited and responsible political pluralism but one that is extensively based on the social and economic pluralism (Lakoff, 2011). However, just as explained in the previous paragraphs, scholars and authors are divided on the transition on the assertion that Russia has made the transition to democracy. Counterarguments on the issue are based on the role played by post-communist political leaders and the function of identifiable political or social groups in Russia. A section of scholars have argued that democratic ideals have not yet been entrenched fully in the every aspects of the politics in Russia due to fragmented political culture that is evident and reflected in the political party systems. It is a common agreement among political scholars that the core foundation needed for successful democracy in any country is well-organized political parties (Ostrow and Chakamada, 2008). Whereas Concerns have been expressed especially during the administration of Putin with regard to the consolidation of vertical power and the recurrent and persistent stifling of the media and human right activist, some scholars argue that Russia currently posses a civil society that is considerable and reasonably active and semi autonomous (Sakwa, 2008). Some scholars also posit that while the administration of Putin has been criticized for centralizing the political systems, his actions have not entirely produced authoritarian results (Lakoff, 2011). The arguments from some scholars and authors advancing a blurred view of democratic potential Russia of are based primarily on the actions of current regimes. The skeptic about the Russian democracy has advanced by other scholars also stems from the persistent stifling of the independency of the media (Ostrow and Chakamada, 2008). The alteration of the Russian political process, according to the authors was a factor of national interests and influence of international actors. The influence of other Western countries on Russian thinking was evidenced in the political opposition structures and systems. Both scholars have argued that the political development in Russia is multifaceted (Bjorkman, 2003). The destruction of the opposition by the Russian tyrants is a clear indication that the previous political system was largely based on authoritarian ideal models. Tuminez (2000) puts forward the argument to the effect that Russia has evolved from an empire state as opposed to earlier argument by other scholars who argue that the country as evolved from a nation state. According to Lakoff (2011) the Russian political opposition in most of the circumstances tried to evolve and generate a political transformation process that was based on Europeanization. However, due to influence of the Russian tyrants, the opposition was unable to achieve and stabilize this process and instead the system maintained the autocratic model. Scholars have provided alternative ideas on the political discourse in Russia by suggesting that the model of Russia’s post communist political system has formed progressively within the context of nationalism and the influence of democratic ideals (Ostrow and Chakamada, 2008). Apart from the two scholars / authors, the many actors including political leaders, writers, journalists, publicists, religious authorities, civic activists and military authorities have also engaged in active debate about the Russian political development. A major focus of the debate has been on the organization of the political system in Russia and the role of the state, the discourse and debate on the Russian political development has also been biased toward certain theories. Another issue that is explored with regard to the comparative political development in Russia is imperialism; Imperialism has also dominated and characterized the debates about the political development of Russia (Sakwa, 2008). Summary Argument Table Book’s argument Counter-Argument Point one (1) Previous political regimes and political development process were based on authoritarian political ideals and models Although the previous development process is Russia were based on authoritarian and political consolidation, elements of democracy were present Point two (2) The transition from authoritarian political process in Russia has been influenced by western-style leadership The transition to democratic political system in Russia has been shaped by both the ideologies from western countries and national processes. Point three (3) Russia has transformed fully to a democratic country Democracy has not yet been realized in Russia. Russia has stagnated between western style democracy and authoritarian rule Conclusion The role of scholars, writers, analysts and other authorities in shaping ideas that in turn become legitimate is evident in greater percentage of the Russian political literature. It is evident from the literature provided by the authors that political development in Russia was shaped and influenced by wide array of factors, including democratic and authoritarian ideologies, international interests or foreign pressure. From the comparative analysis, it is true that the Russian political ideological system has been a subject of extensive scholarly discourses that has generated a lot of debates with each and every scholar arguing in favor of his her own position. While it is evident from the scholarly literature that Russia has adopted democratic ideologies and transformed its political structures, democracy has not yet developed fully. Some scholars have also criticized modern democracy as practiced in Russia where they have argued that the political development process in Russia is still laced with certain elements of authoritarian ideals. The scholarly discourse and debates with regard to the political development and ideologies in Russia is an ongoing affair that does not seem to either relent or abate since the scholars and authors are emerging with new ideas, views and criticisms. References Bjorkman, T. (2003). Russias road to deeper democracy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Lakoff, S. (2011). Ten Political Ideas that Have Shaped the Modern World. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield. Ostrow, J. M., & Chakamada, I. M. (2008). The Consolidation of Dictatorship in Russia: An Inside View of the Demise of Democracy. Westport: Greenwood Publishing Group. Ross, C. (2002). Regional Politics in Russia. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Sakwa, R. (2008). Russian Politics and Society. London : Routledge. Tuminez, A. S. (2000). Russian Nationalism Since 1856:Ideology and the Making of Foreing Policy. Rowman & Littlefield,. Read More