Response #1

Pierre Hassner’s article “Russia’s Transition to Autocracy,” alluded to a previous week’s reading Seymour Lipset’s “Economic Development and Democracy.” At first read, I saw no correlation between Lipset’s ideology and Hassner’s article. And although Hassner praised Lipset’s academic research, after reading his article, I came to the conclusion that Russia’s current state contradicts Lipset’s belief that economic development and urbanization lead to democratic values in a society. His mandates are still part of palimentary and electoral procedures, yet they are completely lacking of constitutional liberalism. Apart from the rising capitalistic culture, there seems to be more at play in Russia than just economic development that leads to democracy. Other factors have affected the course of politics in addition to economic principles. Russia’s political culture has been more than welcoming to the type of autocratic leadership that Putin has instituted. “While most Russians are aware of and condemn the regime's human rights violations, and in principle favor liberal democracy, they are also grateful to Putin for restoring Russia's international power and authority” (Hassner). The main issue at stake in Russia, based on Pierre Hassner’s article is whether democratic values should be sacrificed for the sake of international power. Putin provides the strong leadership Russians want, yet has encroached on freedom of the press and, brutally, eliminated potential opposition and increased xenophobia. Putin’s popularity, in spite of his harsh ruling, reminded me of Fareed Zakaria’s illiberal democracy ideal.

Blog 11/5

In the readings for this week, I found the presentation of post-communist countries, particularly post-communist Russia, to be interrelated.  I was most intrigued by what to me seems to be a connection between Howard’s article and Hasner’s article. Hasner articulates the shift in attitude of Russian government toward the west in the recent past. He suggests that Russia, like other countries in the region, seemed to be headed for a democratic system of government. Somewhere along the way, Putin came to power, and despite President Bush looking into his soul, by 2003 Russia’s official stance toward the West echoed cold war era propaganda.  There was a turn away from democracy and toward autocracy in Russia. Howard’s article claims that there is a significant lack of civil society present in post-communist countries. He explains that this is the case for a variety of reasons, not least of which is a general distrust of communal institutions, since under socialist rule citizens were obliged to participate in them, often against their will. I am curious after reading these two articles if anyone has explored the connection between the two phenomena presented. Though admittedly I am less than knowledgeable about the specifics of civil society in Russia and other nearby states, it strikes me as only natural that weak civil society allows for easier subversion of democracy and a smoother path to autocracy.  As far as I am concerned, a lack of significant civil society means a lack of engagement in the government at the level of the everyday individual. Antipathy would seem to be the prevailing mood. Civil society then, is a reflection of the level to which a society cares about its own governance. If a society doesn’t care, it will be swept up by a government that does, and what that government generally cares about is increasing and maintaining its own dominance.  Howard touches on this in his article, saying, “with civic organizations lacking the active support of the population, such a hollow democracy will remain at risk of being toppled by hostile forces, whether based on nondemocratic historical traditions or a new antidemocratic ideology.” I would be interested to read an article that further articulates or debunks this notion, as it seems an entirely logical one to me. If you consider the U.S., with our hundreds of thousands of public organizations, it is hard to imagine a culture of antipathy toward government. We are accustomed to people belonging to groups who have specific agendas and it is ridiculous to imagine our country turning toward an authoritarian system. There would be widespread, organized public outcry. Without a civil society to defend itself, democracy in other parts of world seems far more apt to crumble.

Response #2

The new Russia under Putin’s rule has considerably changed both domestically and internationally. Putin is indeed an autocratic ruler. Hasner starts out by saying, “no matter how dubious public opinions polls or how rigged elections are in Russia, a majority of the people still support Putin” (3). One reason for this, and something that I found quite interesting in this article, could be the concept of deception. It is a predominant strategy that is used by Putin that seeks to “maintain the appearance of democracy while progressively emptying democratic institutions of their content” (4). This is also known as “virtual” or “imitation” democracy. Another reason that the people may feel the need to support Putin is because even though he has done a poor job of creating institutions, civil society, and a rule of law, he has improved Russians’ economic status. Putin at times also showed genuine support the United States, especially in cooperating with terrorism and his immediate offer to support the US after 9/11.

But after 2003, this relationship changed dramatically. And Hassner points out that the evolution of Putin’s policies is heading in the wrong direction. A key aspect of this idea is that many of his policies are strongly reminiscent of fascism. Putin has eliminated any rival centers of power and has also engaged in the “personality cult” by proclaiming himself “leader of the nation.” Post Communist Russia is becoming more and more authoritarian, and it is also showing greater hostility towards its neighbors—Estonia and Georgia, and especially the West. Putin thought that by converting towards democracy Russia would automatically become a duopoly, but that is not the case. I think that Dmitri Trenin sums it when he states, “what Russia craves is respect. It does not want to be a junior partner—it wants to be an equal” (7).

Response #2

My belief is that when it comes to discussing the new Russia, we are once again faced by the challenge of what to do if “free and fair” elections are held, and the people elect, in this instance, an undemocratic ruler. Based on the reading by Pierre Hasner, as well as the view of the international community in general, there is simply no doubting that Vladimir Putin is an autocratic ruler. Today’s Russia lacks the institutions, civil society, and rule of law that characterize a liberal democracy as defined earlier in the semester by Fareed Zakaria. Yet, at the same time, it is believed that the majority of Russians still support Putin, even when considering the dubiousness of public opinion polls. The explanation of this dilemma is rather simple, for as Hasner points out, “[Putin’s] rule is full of contradictions”. Indeed, this is not surprising, as a democracy in line with Russian traditions may well be expected to be full of contradictions, especially since Russia has been historically-conditioned to a single, dominant head of state. While Putin has not hesitated to curtail freedom of expression and has effectively destroyed any notion of a free press, he has succeeded in improving Russia’s economic well-being and, at times, specifically early in his career, has assisted the U.S. and Europe in addressing key international issues. However, there remains serious cause for concern according to Hasner, due to the fact that the trajectory of Putin’s policies is headed in the wrong direction. Not only is there a definitive trend towards increased authoritarianism in Russia’s domestic policies, but also growing hostility towards its neighbors and the West, as well as socio-political trends “reminiscent of fascism”. To justify this last statement, Hasner points to both the elimination of rival power centers and the growing “personality cult” of Putin that evokes memories of the late Turkmenbashi. Furthermore, Russia has gained greater political clout since the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the recent rise in commodities prices. Indeed, this may be one of Putin’s pillars of popular support, because, as Hasner points out, many Russians are “grateful to Putin for restoring Russia’s international power and authority”. But as for the implications of these trends, we must consider the new dynamic of international politics. As Russia struggles through its post-communist transition, the U.S. remains strong, Europe continues to become more united, and China has enjoyed a meteoric rise. Thus, the whole dynamic of Russian foreign relations may soon be forced to change. However, in the near future, the world must be weary of the possible impacts of an illiberal democracy in a country as important to global politics as Russia.

Rich Hussey - Oct 23 - Response #1

On the topic of regime types and the transition to democracy I feel as though a state is less likely to shift to democracy based on their state's history of legitimacy. If legitimacy was always based on one charismatic leader who had a great deal of power than that regime is less likely to transition to a democratic system as long as this man is still alive. This is because the people of the certain state puts so much faith into that person to think for them that they do not seek fit a systems which puts more responsibility on themselves. Although I see it this way I'm sure this theory is easily falsifiable. On Wright's view of British politics I was confused at what his argument was. If he is saying that the British gives us a look on stable politics than he contradicts himself by quoting Andre Mathiot who states, "(the British system is)… an enviable model of democratic government, one can only regret that it could not possibly be transplanted to any other country" ( Wright 2). One part that really caught my attention was the structure of the British Constitution. I wanted to pose a question of would this flexible form of constitutional laws create a more stable system of government in the United States. I believe it would not considering the stress on constitutional laws that is shown in our current system.