Democracy in Russia - Essay Example

Democracy in Russia al Affiliation) Introduction Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) is an international research program. The program seeks to provide the first complete concept of global democratization comprising of seven key values and principles. These principals include the majoritarian, participatory, liberal, consensual, egalitarian, deliberative and electoral democracy paradigms. V-Dem breaks down its core principles into about 50 essential constituents, which in turn totals approximately 300 cautiously preferred indicators assessing democracy across key social institutions and political regimes. Various existing democracies constitute different attempt to implement these general normative assumptions. They have executed these principles through several formal institutional measures and informal procedures and practices. Based on the seven verities principles, this essay will intellectualize and empirically analyze this variety within the established democracy of Russia. (Joshi, 2012). Electoral Democracy is the foundation on which most of the other conceptions build; the electoral principle of democracy identified with the elite, competition and contestation. Minimal Schumpeterian or realist democracy is the idea that democracy is attained through tough competition among leader groups, which contest for approval from the electorates. Elections and parties form the core part of the procedural account of the process. In most cases, it involves an active media, civil liberties, an independent judiciary and a written constitution among others (Joshi, 2012). The populace within the country determine the individuals that govern them, or have the ability and right to vote. However, on numerous occasions, such democracies are only so by name; real political opposition may be lacking Currently, the electoral democracy of Russia is facing limited success. The judicial system is highly influenced by the elite and rich in society. The electoral process has lost potential and as a result, the elections have damaged party organizations, which is the biggest problem to attaining electoral democracy. Recent studies have proved that the ability of parties to engage the public on critical issues is faced with limited success. Recent evidence indicates that under the current structure, proximity to elections decelerates the party-building progress. Most coalitions amongst parties do not agree on economic, political and cultural issues salient to the electorate. In addition, with this election system as in the earlier systems, voters are confronted with an entirely revised political scenario in which some significant contenders have declined quickly while newcomers are emerging rapidly with no or limited knowledge to share to the public. Liberal Democracy adds guarantees of basic political and civil rights and balance, and institutes checks that guard the tyranny of the majority. In addition, it emphasizes on civil liberty, transparency, horizontal accountability (effective checks on the rules), rule of law, and minority rights. These should not be seen as aids to political competition but as defining features of democracy (Joshi, 2012). The liberal theory takes an opposing view of administrative power insofar as it evaluates democracy quality by the restrictions imposed on government. Doctrines and measures must be established to ensure that the majority rule does not end up oppressing the minority or depriving them of their liberties. As Montesquieu put it in his famous argument of the English constitution in Book XI of De Esprit des Lois , a recognized ‘separation of powers’ among the government and the policymaking institution, the judiciary and legislature plays an important role in keeping ‘balances and checks’ that are extensively considered to be a vital defense of a democratic system. It seems, however, that Putin’s administration has been branded by a degradation of this structure, with the judicial and legislative branches of government becoming submissive to the executive. In addition, alongside the extensive corruption in state institutions, corruption appears in all angles of ranging from schools, hospitals, higher education, police protection, to obtaining essential things like passport and landing property. This prevalence of a corrupt culture diminished the equal access and distribution of resources, with individuals on lower income unable to afford basic services (Joshi, 2012). Discrimination based on race, gender, religion, ethnicity, sexuality continues to prevail within societies, affecting women and immigrants. Women continue to occupy lower positions at work places and the safety of religious minority is uncertain. This was evident in the denial of permits for certain churches unless they provided proof of being in existence for more than 10 years. All the aforementioned have jeopardized liberal democracy in Russia. Majoritarian Democracy is partially at odds with Liberal Democracy that concentrates power in the hands of the majority. It represents the principal that the wishes of the majority should be sovereign. The majority should prevail over the minority. To facilitate this facet, government regimes must concentrate and centralize, rather than disperse power (within the concept of competitive elections). For instance, centralized and strong parties, a unitary constitution, and plurality electoral laws. Following Putin’s election to the Russian Presidency, most political scientists from the west argued that he would introduce a new face to the Russian democratization. Undoubtedly, the 2000 elections granted Putin his an unprecedented opportunity to limit a transition within the Russian transition but not in a manner most people had expected. Instead, he pursued a plan that is currently known as the ‘managed democracy,’ which has established the government’s control over all spheres of civil and political life. Indeed, it appeared to be characterized by the limitation of various democratic principles such as media freedom, the ability to form or join interest groups, and absence of civil liberties. It took full control of electoral process while exploitation, both in civil service and government institutions became dominant. As a result, Putin appears to establish a political system characterized by a week institutions and strong presidency (Joshi, 2012). Participatory Democracy inspires the engagement of citizens in various stages of the political setting and development. It is usually viewed as a lineal descendant of the direct concept of democracy, as borrowed from the Athens principle- though the features of this principal may be described in republican thought within small communities globally. The incentive of participatory democracy is the ease of delegation of responsibilities and authority to representatives. Citizens, whenever possible, prefer direct rule. Moreover, within the setting of a representative government, the participatory democracy is the most essential element of the principle. This type of democracy defines the process of voting and the importance of voting through citizen assemblies, referenda, party primaries, social movement, juries, town hall meetings, and public hearings, among other forums of citizen involvement (Joshi, 2012). Since the declaration of Putin as the president of Russia, the executive has reinforced itself with the elimination of regional voting and direct selection of the councils by the President himself, concentrating the political power within the Russian state. This change in the political structure has equipped Putin by enabling him to channel his views into several regions of the nation. For instance, former KGB officials began to control both regional and federal government, holding significant political posts. This revealed the degree of increased presidential powers currently called ‘super-presidency’, with top political positions reserved for individuals with the president’s trust. Deliberative Democracy mandates authorities to provide the public with concrete justifications for their decisions. The principle focusses on the decision-making process. A deliberative process involves public thought focused on a common good to motivate political decisions- as contrasted with solidary attachments, parochial interests, emotional appeals and coercion (Joshi, 2012). According to this principle, democracy needs more than mindless aggregations of existing preferences. It calls for respectful dialogue at all levels from preference formation to final decisions among competent and informed individuals who are open to persuasion. The goal of this principal is to transform private preferences through a process of deliberation that can withstand public scrutiny. Specific political institutions serve a specific deliberative function; they are consultative bodies (panels, hearings, assemblies and courts). Political regimes with such institutions are more deliberative than those without them. In the case of Russia, most decisions made by the senate and Putin have underpinned the sense of public alienation rather than stir Russia into a state of outrage. Putin appeared ready to disapprove his critics by the decisions he made. National television and other private media were overtaken by kremlin friendly organizations. However, Putin threatened anyone who analyzed his decisions. For instance, most journalist have been forced into exile while others like Politkosvskaya, were killed (Joshi, 2012). Egalitarian Democracy is encouraged by the certainty that political Equality is unachievable without some degree of social and economic equality. The principal emphasizes that political rights and civil rights are insufficient for political equity. The political regime should address the inequalities of material and immaterial entities that inhibit the rights of liberties of the citizens. Ideally, groups as defined by wealth, income, religion, ethnicity, education, race, and sexual identity among others should have equal representation, agenda-setting power, protection, and participation under the law and most importantly influence on policy-making and policy implementation. The egalitarian principal requires combined state efforts to realize social and economic equity (Joshi, 2012). Putin’s popularity since his take-over of the presidency of Russia in 2000 has been on an explicit denial of the confused liberties of the Yeltsin era. Putin’s combination of political power in a central state, massive control on media, his manipulation of the Russian parliament and his over- reliance on Russian nationalism as a form of social glue all impede the idea of the egalitarian principal. Putin has nurtured the idea that Russia’s authoritarian customs are morally equal to the western democracy. His supporters claim that Russians value economic growth, a strong state, security more than democracy and, institutions which have no ancestries in Russian antiquity. According to a report by Transparency International, the Russian judicial system is characterized by massive violation of human rights and freedoms and failure to comply with the both Russian legislation and rule of international law. Additionally, a further outcome of the politicization of the legal branch of the government manifests itself in low rankings of public trust in the court system. In a survey by a Russian think-tank, it emerged that 78.6% of the participants decided not to resort to the courts because they would not get justice. Increased bribery in courts has prompted judges to make verdicts on cases based on the financial ability of the victims favoring the higher bidder (Joshi, 2012). In addition, due to decisions made in courts, most natural resources are controlled by the state, including oil. Consensual principal; this principal favors several multi-veto facets and the inclusion of various political viewpoints as much as possible rather than decision making by the few majority or pluralities. The principal emphasizes on a large party system, proportional electoral laws, supermajority decision rules, the separation of executive and legislative powers, and supermajority cabinets. In the case of Russia, several opposing forces hinder the realization of the fruits of this principal (Joshi, 2012). Highlighted in the fusion of legislative and executive powers is the present government regime compounded by Putin’s control over the judicial system. The call for judicial system reforms started way before Perestroika, when courts were mere platforms to express the verdicts made by the-then popular communist party. However, after Putin’s declaration as the president of Russia, he made it clear from the onset that his objective was to institute a recognized political presence in the judicial system. This emerged Putin’s direct appointment of a “chairperson” whom he granted the power to monitor court verdicts. This allowed for the dismissal of open-minded judges such as Melikov, who declined to follow the command of the Moscow City Court Chair (Joshi, 2012). With magistrates facing security threats, this implementation of control advanced Putin in his desires to influence case verdicts. In conclusion, it is emergent that contrary to popular expectations, Russian democracy has become an increasingly distant possibility to attain since Putin took office in 2002. Indeed, data from the Freedom house catalogues between 2002 and 2009 indicates a disturbing diminishing trend in the nation’s political trajectory, from ‘partial freedom’ in 2002 to a ‘captive’ regime in 2009. Furthermore, Russia fails to meet the description of a democracy from all spheres of the seven principles. From the discussion above, Russia emerges as an authoritarianism state. Reference Joshi, D. K. (2012). The protective and developmental varieties of liberal democracy: a difference in or degree?. Democratization, 4, 1-28. Read More