Political Culture of Russia Essay

The nature of Russian political culture and by extension its politics has been shaped and molded over the previous centuries. While we can by no means attribute its entire political culture to a single event or time period, we also can’t point to a time period, say the Soviet time, and draw our perception of Russia’s political culture from that alone. That being said, the totalitarian nature of the Soviet State is by partial means attributable to Marxist-Leninist philosophies. The nature of Russian political culture was (and still is in many regards) authoritarian. Throughout Russia’s history there has been an authoritarian attitude in how the country should be ruled. The state was always there, the state was behind forced modernization policies from Peter the Great through Joseph Stalin, and today Vladimir Putin. Russia for the large part of its history been just as vast as it is today. The sheer size of it requires a centralized power to keep regional autonomy down. Every country that followed or still follows Marxist doctrine did (does) so with different flavors of Marxism, none of which are exactly and entirely what Karl envisioned. China and Russia were rivals in several policy areas throughout the 20th century. The same dichotomy can be seen between China and its smaller (communist) Southeastern Asian neighbors such a s Cambodia and Vietnam. Communist countries were partially authoritarian because of Marxism. The nature of establishing and perpetuating a command economy demanded authoritarianism. While China has wiggled out of many of the responsibilities and pitfalls of running a command economy by establishing market-driven economic reform, it remains authoritarian. This illustrates that while the key components of Marxism are abandoned, the system and its actors continue to grasp to power as it seeks to adapt and integrate itself into the world system. This is counter to previous attempts to establish a parallel world system behind Soviet ideology. Bottom line: the only way a Communist system can take continued hold and root itself into the political system is through authoritarianism. Not to mention the guise under which many of the Soviet Republics were brought into the fold and behind the Iron Curtain. These weren’t spontaneous Communist Revolutions toppling several governments around the world; it was the Russian’s moving in after having kicked the Germans out and act ing marionette to their new puppets. If it were populist support that kept Communist governments in power around the world one would not see states efforts to cripple freedoms of the press, of assembly, and of religion. Current Communist governments fear a slippery slope, and perhaps rightfully so, where an inch of social freedom given would mimic Mikhail Gorbachev’s reforms in the late 1980’s and lead to an eventual collapse. Russia’s Political culture is more authoritarian than a lot of countries around the world, but today it is a functioning quasi-democracy with authoritarian overtones. This goes to show that in the right circumstances, Russian’s can and will subject themselves to semi-authoritarian rule. Under other circumstances, such as the situation in the 1990’s that followed the collapse of the Soviet system, it’s a wonder that authoritarianism didn’t come back in force. Putin still governs with legitimacy at the front of his mind, and hasn’t suspended the constitution or ruled by decree. True democracy can and will eventually be realized, but realistically this is only possible through generational replacement and hard, slow change. The privatization process can be viewed with much rightful criticism, it didn’t take into account Russians lack of understanding of the West’s definition of ‘rational economic behavior’, nor did it find a happy middle ground between the two extremes of command economy and wild-west capitalism. What it did do was change the rules of the game being played. We can fault the broad shock therapy method for any number of shortcomings in the economic policy in the Russian arsenal, but it accomplished one incredibly more important goal. It changed the rules of the game. People who knew the rules (or knew which new rules were coming), mobsters, party officials, and Western interests, leapt upon the opportunity to make money hand over fist. This is still a vastly improved scenario as opposed to gradual economic reform, with the state greedily holding onto the â€Å"commanding heights† of the economy, and leaving the unprofitable sectors open for private investment and development. The large majority of the Russian people didn’t have a firm grasp on private property, or selling one of two cows to buy a bull, or how to ‘invest’ with these vouchers. The sharks ate them up in the incredibly free market. This is a point that was necessary for the facilitation o f real capitalism and eventually democracy in Russia. How does one instill in its population the concepts that go hand in hand with capitalism? My answer would be to force them to adapt to a changed environment. Gradual change would’ve perpetuated for a longer time the stagnation and poor cost-management of the Soviet period. An aggressive and immediate changing of the environment began the painful instilling of capitalist values into the populace and government. After the dust cleared and a new millennia unveiled, Vladimir Putin inherited a new Russia, with new problems, and an semi-regulated albeit capitalist system. I also reject the notion that a stake in a company translates to a certain level of commitment and productivity associated with it. I can think of just in my own history a number of bosses with a small level of commitment to the company, they weren’t there to operate or manage, they were there to own. That being said I’ve also experienced several hands-on owners, who corrected the techniques of severa l employees to their liking. My other inference comes from day-traders on the Stock Market. People with no vested interest in a company putting their money up because they think the stock will go up, not necessarily because they believe in the product. One doesn’t need a stake in a company to incentivize success within it, it sure helps, but it is not required and wouldn’t have made the Russian transition any less painful. The decades of propaganda had really affected some 10% of the population and they were the ones who fell off the cliff when the system changed. Russia in the 1990’s was bad, but it was nothing compared to the massive famines that led to the deaths of millions of Russians, or the Great Depression. Many Russian’s who bought into the Soviet ideology were left out in the cold, yet others found jobs, and others made easy money. 1991 was a turbulent time in Russia, the collapse of the system left countless questions unanswered about what the Russian state and its business sector would look like after the dust settled. I see absolutel y no way, no system, no path that could’ve mediated such a drastic change with minimal economic displacement and suffering. We could’ve lessened the blow with a Russian version of the Marshall Plan, but frankly that was much too much to expect from America. We were in a position of triumph after decades of struggle, and the prospect of the massive new markets had American businesspeople salivating. The Marshall plan also wouldn’t have worked as well as it did in Western Europe because the political and economic culture of Russia was very different from Western Europe. Saturating a country with cash and loans to build (or rebuild in the case of Western Europe) modern infrastructure was out of the question. Half the reasoning behind the Marshall Plan in the first place was to cultivate capitalism, and combat the spread of communism. What is to be gained from a US policy of propping up our old foe? This is especially true when there was so much money to be made via exploitation. Russia in the 1990’s was exactly was America desired it to be, complacent. The Russian mob played a major role in blocking true market reforms; they reveled in the post-collapse chaos and orchestrated the major piece of the Russian economy that is sti ll today conducted underground, and more importantly, free of tax revenue. While this percentage has decreased considerably, it still accounts for nearly a double digit hole in economic exchanges. Along with the mob, the Communist Party knew what was going to happen and planned accordingly. They snapped up the profitable sectors of the economy for pennies on the dollar and became fabulously wealthy. Both groups served as major obstacles in the path of real reform, and real democracy for Russia. The fact is that the reforms proposed were free-market in principle and not free-market in practice. Favors, subsidies, inside information, and possessing capital (not to mention the knowledge of how to use it) made for a grossly tilted economic playing field in Russia. Just like water, the money flowed down the tilt and into the hands of elites and future oligarchs, leaving real policy and progress for later leaders and generations to wrestle with. To quote Winston Churchill, â€Å"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.† Western style democracy is by no means the pinnacle of human achievement, it is however a necessary condition to providing the basis for equality of opportunity, rule of law, and political representation. That is not to say that there is no value in the Russian path, or that it is inherently wrong. Order just isn’t as valuable (according to the West) when one holds the aforementioned societal values. Order works for Russia, much better than it ever could’ve worked in the â€Å"Go west, young man† America that encompassed so much of the formation of our identity. Order keeps the barbarians out, order keeps the serfs from rebelling, order centralizes power in an Empire. Russia, without the concept of order built in like ours of liberty, would’ve faltered and fell from the world stage many times, of this I have no doubt.. The two biggest examples of Order trumping Liberty (in Russia) I can imagine are the invasions of Napoleon and Hitler. In the former and the latter, slash and burn tactics were employed. Hell, Moscow was a husk in the dead of winter when Napoleon got there, and I have no doubt that similarly drastic measures would’ve been taken to preserve the Soviet state. People throughout the best land in Russia, burned their property, poisoned their livestock, poisoned their water, destroyed everything of use, and fled. The enormous sense of communal responsibility and togetherness that these behaviors exhibit illustrate that Order worked and may continue to work for Russians, in the same manner that Liberty worked for Americans. I could never imagine American’s destroying everything in the face of invasion and retreating. That’s sacrilegious in this country; luckily we didn’t have quite as aggressive neighbors as Russia had. The Russian political system must meet several criteria I believe before it is widely accepted as completely legitimate. First off, centrist parties crafted by United Russia have to dissipate. They’re there to fracture opposition support, and nullify the voices of the overriding political currents that sway governments to control of one party or another. Representative politics works best when it represents the electorate, if there are pressures to decrease opposition support via backhanded ways, then that is where one sees wide-spread dissent. United Russia may have the backing of a majority of the Russian citizenry, for now, but by treating the opposition as the problem rather than part of the solution, Putin and by extension United Russia is alienating many mainstream voters on the left and right. Their reaction is to then become more extreme and problemati c because they’re being talked down to. When legitimate political parties and beliefs aren’t represented, parties and organizations that hold them have nothing to lose by taking up much more extremist views. If they felt that United Russia would play ball, they wouldn’t be taking the positions that they have taken. They would come to the table with more of a pragmatist view and plan of compromise. The military’s role in the democratization of Russia needs to be minimal. I am of the belief that a Roman-style coup utilizing the military is a very real albeit remote possibility. Civilians need to be the head of their equivalent to the Department of Defense, and ending discrimination in the armed services is a must for minorities in Russia to truly feel that they have a say and a stake in the country as it moves forwards. Divided government demands compromise, and it is yet to be seen whether Russia is ready to grapple with and deal with people who don’t agree with you. As of this point, the answer has been to silence them, or to shuffle them into a centrist party like sheep, or to run up the tally of people who think like you. For Russia to move past the post-Soviet period it must start engaging opposition, utilize independent parties, and stop fighting the opposition. This is very possible, just not at a breakneck pace. Russia’s value of Liberty will inevitably keep the country moving towards a more representative and legitimate democracy, but its value of Order will make sure that it is a slow and deliberate process.