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.