Did you forget about the optimism when the Soviet Union Died. Free markets. American ally in war on terrorism. Death of communism. Constitutional Democracy.
Journal of Eurasian Studies
Volume 2, Issue 1, January 2011, Pages 40–51
The failure of democratization in Russia: A comparative perspective
Alfred B. Evans
Russia is by far the largest of the former republics of the USSR in both population and land area;
indeed, it is the largest country in the world in terms of territory. In addition, its geographical
location gives it influence on issues in several regions in which the USA is interested, and it has
greater strategic military capability than any other country except the United States. On a deeper
level, psychologically, as the main successor of Soviet Union, Russia represents the core of the
former superpower that had been the main geopolitical and ideological rival of the USA from the
late 1940s until the early 1990s. If the state that had been the core of the superpower that was the
main adversary of democracy could, within a relatively short time, be changed into an ideological
soul mate of our country, the symbolic implications would be profound.
And yet, as the current decade nears its end, the consensus of scholarly analyses and popular
perceptions in the West indicates that, if Russia did enter a transition to democracy, that
transition was not successful. From the point of view of those in the United States and Western
Europe who had high hopes for the spread of democracy, the most important test case for
democratization was largely a disappointment.
And yet, as the current decade nears its end, the consensus of scholarly analyses and popular
perceptions in the West indicates that, if Russia did enter a transition to democracy, that
transition was not successful. From the point of view of those in the United States and Western
Europe who had high hopes for the spread of democracy, the most important test case for
democratization was largely a disappointment.3 During the 1990s, while Boris Yeltsin was the
president of Russia, most Western academic specialists regarded that country as a democracy that
was in an early stage of transition, with some imperfections that did not negate the fundamentally
democratic character of the political regime. Within a few years after Vladimir Putin became the
president of that country, however, the assessment of that regime by most political scientists
specializing in the study Russia changed. Between 2000 and 2005 the outlook of Russia watchers
in the West shifted, so that many began to refer to the political system of that country as
authoritarian (Hahn, 2004 and McFaul, 2004). Stephen Whitefield has noted that during Putin’s
time as president of Russia, there was an “increasing consensus among scholars, journalists, and
policy-makers in the West” that Russian politics had moved “significantly off a democratic
pathway” (Whitefield, 2009, 93).
Russia’s Transition to Democracy and U.S.-Russia Relations: Unfinished Business
Michael McFaul Testimony September 30, 2003 Carnegie
Read more at:
http://carnegieendowment.org/2003/09/30/russia-s-transition-to-democracy-and-u.s.-russia-relati
ons-unfinished-business
The probability of a resurgence of a new Russian empire is low. To be sure, Russian President
Putin seeks to expand Russian influence throughout the territory of the former Soviet Union. Just
last week in a meeting of heads of state from the region, he called for the creation of an economic
union between the major states that emerged after the collapse of the Soviet Union. As the largest
economy and most powerful military power in the region, there should be no doubt that Russia
will continue to exercise influence in its neighborhood. A democratic Russia, though, will not
seek to acquire new territory through the exercise of military force. This threat only becomes real
if a dictator returns to the Kremlin.
Today in Russia, the debate about capitalism and communism is over. Even the Communist Party
of the Russian Federation (CPRF) now accepts the legitimacy of private property and markets.
Just as Republicans and Democrats in this chamber debate about how best stimulate and regulate
the American economy, communists and liberal continue to debate what kind of capitalism
Russian should develop. And what has taken shape so far in Russia is still not what most in the
West would recognize as a market economy. Nonetheless, the trajectory is in the right direction.
Moreover, since becoming president, Putin has done much to accelerate Russian economic
reform. His first major economic reform was the introduction of a flat income tax of 13 percent,
a new code, which has raised revenues.
Throughout most of the 1990s, a major issues of every Russian-American summit was how much
Yeltsin was going to ask from the I.M.F. this time around. During Putin’s visit to Camp David
last week, I.M.F. loans, requests for debt relief, or pleas for other forms of financial assistance
were not on the agenda.
Putin and his foreign policy team are still suspicious of American intentions and worried about
American hegemonic power. Rather than build alliances to try to balance this power, however,
Putin has decided to move Russia closer to the West and closer to the United States in particular,
since he sees Russia’s national interests as best served through partnership, not rivalry, with the
West. On some issues areas, such as the war on terrorism, Putin has even called the United States
an “ally” of Russia. As Putin stated on September 27, 2003, in his remarks after the summit at
Camp David held last weekend, the “fight against terrorism continues to be among priorities of
our cooperation. I agree with the assessment that the President of the United States has just
given. In this sphere, we act not only as strategic partners, but as allies.”
Of the big agenda items from the 1990s in Russian reform and Russian foreign policy, only one
remains – the future of the Russian political system. The empire is gone and will never come
back. Russia is a market economy and will never return to a command economy. The future of
Russian democracy, however, is much more uncertain. If Russia fails to consolidate a democratic
regime, the current pro-Western orientation in Russian foreign policy could also change over
time.
So long as unreconstructed communists ruled there, the USSR represented a unique threat to
American security. When the communist regime disintegrated and a new democratically oriented
regime began to take hold in Russia, this threat to the United States diminished almost overnight.
NOTE: If you don't read all the infor and links you simply won't get it.
