Is Russia a Democratic State under Putin - Research Proposal Example

Is Russia a Democratic State under Putin? Introduction The issue of democracy in Russia has elicited great interest among scholars of Political Science, as well as international organizations. Before Putin took over leadership, Russia was not a democratic state based on the fact that totalitarianism and dictatorship was the main form of governance in the country. In the 20th and 21st Centuries, democracy became a popular concept, even as different relevant international organizations encouraged more countries to embrace democracy. Most countries today consider themselves democratic states, based on their forms of government that are characterised by democracy. In Russia however, since the end of the era of Stalin, which was clearly dictatorial and totalitarian, the succeeding governments through their rule have not demonstrated democracy in a clear manner. Putin has come under sharp criticism from the international fraternity regarding his governance approach in Russia. It thus becomes hard to tell whether or not Russia is a democratic state under Putin. Therefore, it is important to conduct a study in an attempt to address this uncertainty. Research Question The study mainly aims at answering the question: Is Russia a democratic state under Putin? Analytical Framework This study will mainly focus on the situation of Russia under the leadership of Putin with regard to its adoption of democracy. Democracy is however a broad term thus will need to be broken down for effective analysis. In this regard therefore, it becomes important to adopt an analytical framework. In this case therefore, the analysis of level of democracy in Russia under Putin will be based on the 2004 UN General Assembly’s seven principles of democracy. The state of Russia will thus be analysed based on its performance in (i) the separation and balance of power (ii) independence of the judiciary (iii) a pluralistic system of political parties and organizations (iv) the rule of law (v) accountability and transparency (vi) freedom of the media, and (vii) respect for political rights (Meyer-Resende 2011, 5). If the results show that the country performs well in all these seven areas, it will be indicative of its high level of democracy. On the other hand, if results show that the country performs poorly in these areas, it will indicate that the country is not democratic. Literature Review Introduction The issue of democracy in Russia has been a major area of interest for many scholars of Political Science as well as different international organizations and the world at large. This is mainly because of the position of Russia and the contribution it makes to the world economy among other areas. For this reason, there are various research studies that have been conducted to ascertain whether or not Russia is a state that embraces democracy today under the leadership of Putin. These researchers and scholars have taken varying perspectives of approaching this aspect. However, a major conclusion that most studies reach is that Russia under Putin continues to grapple with democracy, and cannot be considered a fully democratic state due to different factors inherent in the country’s governance. Democracy The concept of democracy has become important and popular in the modern day world, even as more countries are encouraged to embrace it. According to Bassiouni et al (1998, iv), the concept of democracy is a goal that different world countries must aim at achieving irrespective of economic, cultural, political and social differences in their populations. State governments must adopt democracy as a form of governance where the citizens are granted rights, freedoms and equality; and governed under responsibility and transparency. Democratic countries ensure that their citizens have dignity, experience equality and enjoy their rights. Being founded on the primacy of law, democracy ensures the exercise of human rights and puts no one above the law of the country. The outcome of democracy in a country is economic, social and political development (Bassiouni et al 1998, v). Meyer-Resende (2011) in his article focused on the seven principles of democracy as laid out by the UN General Assembly in the year 2004 and applies these to the case of Tunisia, Egypt and other Arab countries that are faced with conflicts. The seven principles of democracy include (i) the separation and balance of power (ii) independence of the judiciary (iii) a pluralistic system of political parties and organizations (iv) the rule of law (v) accountability and transparency (vi) freedom of the media, and (vii) respect for political rights (Meyer-Resende 2011, 5). A major recommendation is that the governments of countries affected by conflict should incorporate these elements of democracy in their governance for peace to prevail. Is Russia a democratic state under Putin? Putin Vladimir took over presidency in Russia from the former Russian president Yeltsin Boris at the beginning of 2000. Yeltsin was the first president of the Russian Federation and had served as president from 1991 to 1999. After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, it is evident that Russia started to exhibit some form of democracy even though this did not characterise the structure and norms of a mature democracy. Under the presidency of Yeltsin, Russia exhibited an electoral democracy. For instance, elections in Russia were fair and leaders were selected in competitive elections, as opposed to the communist regime that was highly dictatorial. Whether Russia under Putin is a democratic state or not is an important question that can be answered objectively through research, as there may be different arguments on whether or not Russia is a democratic state today. Evidence brings out the notion that Russia is not a democratic state under Putin. Such evidence is based on the political situation of Russia today, including presidency and governance. In addition, an analysis based on the core elements of democracy applied to the Russian present political situation may show how undemocratic the country is. This is despite the fact that the country considers itself to be a democracy. Separation and balance of power is a critical aspect of democracy, hence a democratic state must embrace this. In the case of Russia however, this is considered as lacking. According to Willerton, Beznosov, and Carrier (n.d, 220), there continues to be a massive reinforcement of the presidency as opposed to the parliament and local government, and this violates the principle of democracy based on balance of power. Shevtsova (2015) notes that Putin practices personalized power and this is destructive to democracy. Smith (n.d, 533) considers Russia to be among those post-Communist states that have made considerable progress towards democracy but are still faced with great shortcomings. Smith argues that Russia has a weak civil society yet its state institutions and traditions are strong, thus meaning that the political class of Russia and the society lack close ties, even as people are not granted freedom to fight for their rights through the civil society (Smith n.d, 533; Ljubownikow, Crotty & Rodgers 2013). Freedom of expression is one of the human rights that are characteristic of any democracy, thus a state that denies this to its citizens can only be considered to be undemocratic. Since Putin took over office, he has failed to amend the 1993 constitution that is considered to have been violated. He has also failed to upend the institutional configuration of the regime of Yeltsin and has no plans of doing this (Colton & McFaul 2003). This therefore, undermines democracy in Russia. Transparency and accountability in the system of governance and pubic administration is yet a critical aspect of democracy. Accountability implies answerability, whereby those responsible for public office are held responsible for their actions and are liable to punishment. Transparency on the other hand is a prerequisite for accountability, whereby a state should ensure public access to official documents and informing of the public (Meyer-Resende 2011, 13-4). In the case of Russia, Brovkin (2003, 196) notes that the country has previously been under the influence of massive corruption, and this had a detrimental impact on its economy. Being considered as a cultural practice, corruption was highly embedded in all the practices of Russian government and administrators, and this resulted in the country being blacklisted by international organizations. However, when Putin took over power, he promised to address the situation of corruption in the country (Brovkin 2003, 197). Nonetheless, corruption means there is lack of transparency and accountability in the governance system, thus portraying undemocratic tendencies. Cichowlas (2013) compares the present-day Russia to the Stalin era. Since Putin took over power, there have been many transformations in the Russian governance and these can be considered to be not in support of democracy. For instance, there has been a damage of the multi-party system in the country, yet this is an important aspect of democracy. According to Herpen (2014), Putin has adopted the East German Communist “Pluralism” model. Although Putin argues that Russia is a multi-party system, the pluralism model he adopts allows only one official political party alongside other political parties that are not allowed compete and participate as much as the dominant political party, thus this can be considered pseudo-pluralism, which is more of undemocratic. Additionally, the intolerance of human rights has risen in Russia, as well as the domination of the executive power over the legislative power in the country (Cichowlas 2013, 112). Similarly, Willerton, Beznosov, and Carrier (n.d, 220) note that the assaults on the media and political opponents by the Russian government under Putin is a clear indication of a lack of democracy. According to Hale (2009,2) Russians themselves have contributed to the authoritarian state of their country, as their attitudes have in some way promoted the authoritarianism adopted by Putin. The 2008 RES Survey results indicate that most Russians do not consider their country as democratic, as 54% stated that their country is undemocratic, with 28% stating that it is a democratic country (Hale 2009, 8). In this survey, a larger majority also stated that they did not foresee their country becoming democratic in the near future. On the other hand, the 2012 Human Rights Report of Russia indicates that the country has power highly concentrated in the presidency, and is characterised by a weak multi-party political system, and all these defy democracy. The major violations of human rights in Russia included restriction of civil society, violations of the electoral processes, and poor administration of justice (United States Department of State 2012, 2). This therefore, indicates that to a larger extent, the country does not support democracy. Shevtsova (2015) in her article, “Russia’s Political System: Imperialism and Decay” focuses on the state of democracy in Russia. She draws from the historical and current major political aspects in Russia to even predict the future of democracy in Russia. According to Shevtsova, Russia might never experience democracy, as this country has had a history of authoritarian presidents and political systems. She considers Vladimir Putin to have brought back to Russia the old political model that was adopted in the communist era, which was characterised by authoritarianism and dictatorship (117). The assertion of Shevtsova (2015) is quite right even as there is wide evidence that point to this. It is right to consider Russia’s political system as exhibiting personalized power, as the president holds most power. This aspect has resulted in aggressive methods of the presidency asserting its power in different situations. For instance, the recent annexation of Crimea has seen Putin use aggressive methods to assert his power. In this case, therefore, Putin reflects an authoritarian leader, hence promoting the trend of personalized power in Russia. However, Shevtsova (2015) may be wrong in arguing that Russia might not experience democracy even in future. Just because Russia has had a history of authoritative and undemocratic political systems does not mean that the country might never experience democracy. The future is unpredictable and circumstances might force Russia to embrace democracy in future. Primary and Secondary Sources This study will employ different sources, both primary and secondary sources. However, because of the unavailability of abundant primary sources, most of the sources used will be secondary. Although this topic is an area that is of key interest to many political science scholars, there are limited research findings on the topic based on actual field data collection. Many scholars have instead analysed this topic based on the historical and present political situation of the country. Potential Research Problems and Ethical Issues Since this study will not involve field data collection and human participants, there will be no major potential research problems and ethical issues. However, in order to use some of the sources, it might be important to get permission from the authors. Any other problem that might arise will be addressed effectively. Conclusion The literature review indicates that Russia under Putin has failed in its experiment with democracy. Putin practices highly personalised power, the political power is becoming centralised, the current political party is dominant, human rights and freedom of speech is violated and overall, soft authoritarianism is evident in Russia. This is therefore, a major problem that needs to be addressed. Nonetheless, this study will be important in ascertaining whether or not Russia is a democratic state under Putin. This will contribute to a body of knowledge on the political situation in Russia as it relates to democracy. The findings might also be used to influence the political system in the country so that the aspect of democracy is well incorporated in the state governance. Works Cited Bassiouni, C et al 1998, “Democracy: Its Principles and Achievements,” Inter-Parliamentary Union, Geneve, Switzerland, Accessed April 7 2015 Brovkin, V.N. 2003, "Corruption in the 20th Century Russia", Crime, Law and Social Change, vol. 40, no. 2-3, pp. 195-230. Colton, T and McFaul, M 2003, “Russian Democracy under Putin,” Russian Democracy & Putin - JRL 7-25-03. Accessed May 8, 2015 Hale, H 2009, “The Myth of Mass Authoritarianism in Russia,” The National Council of Eurasian and East European Research, Accessed April 7, 2015 Herpen, M 2014, “Putin’s wars: the rise of Russia’s new imperialism,” Rowman & Littlefield, New York. Accessed May 8, 2015 < http://willzuzak.ca/cl/putin/Herpen2014PutinsWars.pdf > Ljubownikow, S., Crotty, J. & Rodgers, P.W 2013, "The state and civil society in Post- Soviet Russia: The development of a Russian-style civil society", Progress in Development Studies, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 153-166. Meyer-Resende, M 2011, “International Concensus: Essential Elelments of Democracy,” Accessed 7 April 2015 < http://www.democracy-reporting.org/files/essential_elements_of_democracy_2.pdf> Shevtsova L 2015, “Russia’s Political System: Imperialism and Decay.” Journal of Democracy 26(1): 171-182. Smith, B n.d “What is the State of Democracy in the Post-Communist Countries?” Accessed April 7, 2015 United States Department of State 2012, “Russia 2012 Human Rights Report,” Accessed April 7, 2015 Willerton, J., Beznosov, M., and Carrier, B n.d, “Addressing the Challenges of Russia’s ‘Failing State’: The Legacy of Gorbachev and the Promise of Putin,” Accessed April 7, 2015 Read More