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.