essay for some geez on reddit

­‘Democracy in Russia has failed.’ Discuss.

	In the final days of the Soviet Union, at the turn of the 1990s, many thought that Russia and her now ex-soviets would peacefully and gracefully make the transition to open, market-based democracies. This was, however, not strictly the case. If we jump forward to the current day we see that there are indeed elections, but many would point out that there are inherent biases and flaws in the system. While there are many Russians and non-Russians alike that claim that the 2012 elections were open and legitimate1, many others claim otherwise and report election rigging, such as the notorious practice of ‘carousel voting’ that has been reported.2
	Before the title at hand can be explored, ‘democracy’ must first be defined. For this discussion, I will simplify3 the core tenets of democracy to freedom of information (ergo, a free media) and plurality. My definition of freedom of information includes not only the freedom to investigate, discuss and express but also freedom of access to information. And my definition of plurality in this context means the ability for there to be many political actors (parties, organisations and individuals), all with the same opportunities to stand for elections, gain seats, express themselves and stand in opposition to the government. Universal suffrage is also, naturally, a key component of a democracy.
	This discussion will explore Russian democracy since the fall of the Soviet Union, with particular interest paid to Vladimir Putin and the United Russia party. I feel it is appropriate to focus on Putin and his party since he has had almost unmatched power in Russia for over a decade, whilst he claims to operate in a democratic system. Putin is also the current president of Russia, so it is apt to focus on him and his supporters to give this discussion the most relevance. A large amount of this discussion will center on whether or not Putin and his government’s power in these years has been/is legitimate. This will involve exploring the perpetuation of Putin and United Russia’s power and the mechanisms they used to achieve this, including changes made to the voting system and the silencing of opposition. I will also look at flaws built into the very “democratic” system of Russia, many of which were carried over from the old Soviet system – including Putin, who was a member of the KGB.4 Lastly, I will then look at the role the media plays and has played in Russian political society, bearing in mind that a free media is essential for a successful democracy. To conclude, I will, using supporting evidence, state my thesis that Russian democracy has, for the moment, failed but this is not to say that it is doomed forever.

	Many of the criticisms made of Russian democracy focus on the flaws built into many of the institutions, as well as the dominance of United Russia and Putin, often perpetuated by alleged backroom deals and election rigging.
There are various mechanisms, methods and circumstances that have led to the perpetuation of the power of Vladimir Putin and United Russia. This following section seeks to explore some of these.
	Vladimir Putin has held, or had great influence over, the position of President of Russia effectively since Boris Yeltsin resigned at the end of 1999. In 2008, after completing two 4-year terms, he became prime minister by pre-arrangement with his protégé and the new president-elect, Dimitri Medvedev. This cannot be considered democratic, but instead, corrupt, backroom favour giving, since it is largely seen that Putin got Medvedev his position as president in return for Putin gaining the position of Prime Minister, and maintaining power from that level. 5 This is especially evident after the recent 2012 election, when Medvedev stepped down to allow Putin to run, with little opposition, for the post of President, which I will cover in more detail below.
	In Russia, presidents get to name and fire prime ministers, but they have to be accepted by the Duma – the lower house of the Russian parliament, elected by the population - also. However, if the Duma chooses to reject a nominee for prime minister three times the president can dissolve the Duma and hold new parliamentary elections. Since the president was widely known to have been answering to Putin, there was little to no opposition against Putin becoming prime minister. This was made even easier by the majority in the Duma of the United Russia party, a pro-Putin party. When Putin became PM, he made clear that the power shifted to that office.6 Even with these circumstances aside, it is un-democratic that the president can dissolve the Duma if they disagree with his choice of prime minister. After all, the Duma are the elected representatives of the Russian peoples, and should be allowed to express their opinions, as per true democracy.
	The other house; the upper house of the Russian Parliament is the Federation Council. The Federation Council contains 2 members named by each of the 89 regional governments of the Russian Federation. The relevance to this discussion of this institution is in one of its biggest flaws in terms of its democratic value. The prime minister (currently, and for the past 4 years, Putin, since he has not yet assumed presidential office) appoints the regional governors of the different regions. In turn, these regional governors have great influence over that region’s deputies to be appointed to the Federation Council. Thus, Putin has almost direct influence over who gets appointed to the Federation Council, thus meaning that he can easily gain the support of at least half of the parliament.7 This coupled with the last paragraph and the dominance of United Russia in the Duma meant that Putin has immense power over the whole of parliament.
Putin being able to maintain considerable power over Russia for the past ten years is not a democratic state of affairs. The idea they one man can have such power that he can work his was round the constitution, which says a president can only serve two terms in a row, to get himself into the role of prime minister, and still be seen as pulling the strings of the new president, is deplorable. In the run up to the recent presidential election, Medvedev declared that he would not stand for the post of president again and that he would back Putin’s bid.8 This meant that, essentially, Medvedev had been keeping the post of president warm for Putin for the past 4 years. This further highlights Putin’s influence over Russian democracy. And when one adds the change in law meaning that a president serves 6 year terms from 2012 onwards (meaning that Putin could serve until 2024, by which time he will be 72)9, we can see a further cementation of the flaws in the system.
	Timothy Colton notes how the amount of competition (plurality) in the Russian presidential elections has declined over the years, thus leading to Russians having less choice for the post. For example, while in the March 2000 election there was a respectably competitive battle for the post - with a line-up of ten opponents, three of them (Gennady Zyuganov, Grigory Yavlinsky and Vladimir Zhirinovsky) were political veterans, providing substantial competition – in 2004 ‘facing only five opponents, none of whom was remotely a figure of major stature, Putin harvested almost three-quarters of the votes cast.’10 This decline in competition is very damning for Russian democracy, since plurality is a core tenet of democratic politics.
	This decline is further reflected in the widely cited scores generated by Freedom House. Freedom House is a human rights watchdog group that seeks to, by assessing a wide range of factors, give the countries of the world a rating for political and civil rights on a scale of 1 to 7 (1 being the most free and 7 being the least). In 1991, just after the USSR was dissolved and an independent Russian state was formed, Russia was rated as a 3 on political and civil rights. By 2003, after many years of Yeltsin and the duration of Putin’s first term, Freedom House rated Russia a 5 for political and civil freedoms, verging on dropping into the ‘not free’ category, which contains dictatorships such as Alexander Lukashenko’s in Belarus.11 This indicates a decline in both civil and political freedoms, both of which are essential for a democratic system due to the need for freedom of speech and the right to free and fair elections, and the like.
	The Putin and Putin-led administrations have also controversially banned some parties from taking part in elections, including the People’s Freedom Party12 and the Russian Republican Party, though, notably, the Republican Party has been allowed to re-form in 2012 due to relaxed laws.13 These laws have already had their effect however, leading to a dominant United Russia Party standing alongside a dominant Putin, who won 64% of the votes in the 2012 election.14 This is another factor that reduces plurality in Russia.
	There have also been allegations of election fraud throughout the years. For example, after the 2011 parliamentary elections, allegations of election fraud led to large protests in Russian cities, most notably Moscow and St. Petersburg.15 A New York Times article, reporting from Precinct 451 in the region of Chechnya, during the 2012 presidential elections, mentioned how the number of votes counted by officials exceeded the number of actual voters in the area by 7%. On top of this, Putin received all of the votes in the precinct except 1, which though not impossible, would certainly arouse a lot of suspicion were it to happen in, say, the UK. The report also reports that ‘dozens of minibuses … shuttled voters to, from and — significantly — between polling stations.’16 If this is to be believed, it shows the practise of carousel voting, whereby votes cast the same vote over and over again at different polling stations. These practices paint a picture of a government that is trying its hardest to gain as much support as it can, either legitimately or, if these reports are to be believed, illegitimately. These illegitimate practises are counter to the idea of a free and open democracy, where people are allowed to express themselves freely and plurality is present.
	These many different factors are some of the systemic problems, negative circumstances and downright corrupt practices that plague Russian democracy. They all contribute to the fact that: Russia does not have an adequate democracy. Russia does not have sufficient freedoms, as shown by election rigging; the banning of certain parties, and lack of civil and political rights, among other factors. Nor does Russia have plurality in the political system, as characterised by the lack of opposition to Putin, and the huge amount of dominance that he and United Russia have over the political system, as well as, again, the suppression of opposition. These factors tell us that, for the time being at least, Russian democracy has failed at performing its job properly; it has failed to represent the Russian people’s properly, as well as failing to provide them with the sufficient freedoms and political choice.


	The Russian media has had various shake ups in the past few decades. For the majority of the Communist regime almost all media, and certainly any mainstream media, got channelled through the Soviet structure, inevitably filtered of any reports that contradicted the party.17 This started to change with the introduction of Mikhail Gorbachev’s glasnost reforms, which led to more openness and transparency within the Soviet hierarchy and involved the loosening of controls on the media.18 Under Yeltsin further liberalising steps were taken, notably with the adoption of the Soviet Law on Mass Media, in 1990, which upheld the mass media’s legal independence from state control.19 This did not stay the case for long however.
Soon enough the dominance of the media had moved from the Soviet, state sphere of influence to the private sphere of influence, which sought to promote its own aims, rather than that of a free and open media – and sometimes these two got intertwined. For instance, Boris Berezovsky, a close confidant of Yeltsin’s inner circle, acquired partial ownership and complete control over ORT, Russia’s largest television station. Berezovsky gained control of ORT through the use of off-budget salaries to key employees, by skilfully manoeuvring among the various groups of shareholders and slipping bribes into the pockets of the management elite at the right times.20
The majority of the press ceased to be the free flow of information that was intended in the early years of the glasnost reforms. Practices such as latent advertising and heavily biased political reporting (to the extent that some media outlets would commission articles against political rivals) began to become widespread.21
From the 1980s to the 1990s there was also a move away from the public of consumption of printed forms of media, to televised forms of media. Parallel to this, there was also a move away from Russia being a “nation of readers” towards a nation whom was more passive in their interest in important contemporary events. For example, a 1997 opinion poll showed that, despite the tempestuous political events that had taken place in Russia that year, most Russians named the death of Princess Diana as the year’s most significant event.22 As a result of this, Andrei Ryabov claims:

‘The overbearing influence of television on Russia’s contemporary society and culture is an indication of the underdevelopment of that society and not a sign of progress.’23

By lack of progress, Ryabov means a lack of progress towards a truly open, independent and free media, as is imperative in a democracy.
	When Putin came to power he began to impose restrictions on the free flow of information in an effort to limit critical voices. One of the most widely publicised cases was the Kremlin takeover of NTV in response to the television station’s critical coverage of the second Chechen war. Defenders of the station claim that the Kremlin interfered with the popular station and hijacked it to promote their own, pro-Putin, agendas. There have been allegations of other media organisations, ranging from television stations to newspapers and magazines being actively brought under the control and influence of the Kremlin to silence public opposition.24
	There have also been many claims of journalists being assassinated and harassed by the Russian authorities or on behalf of the Russian authorities, particularly under Putin’s rule.25 A noteworthy case in these allegations is that of Anna Politkovskaya whom, evidence suggests, was assassinated by a contract killer. Many have linked this to Putin’s government, claiming that she was assassinated for her critical analysis of Putin and the Chechen wars.26
	The impeachments on the freedom of the Russian press, some allegations that are open to debate and some hard facts based in documentary evidence, paint a picture of a country with a limited media. The ability to express oneself freely and be able to question the status quo – the government, in this case mainly Putin’s administration – is central to the idea of democracy, as stated in my opening paragraphs. A state without free press is not a democratic one.

	So, has democracy in Russia failed? Put concisely, I believe: yes. Russia has a flawed electoral system which is easily dominated by the strong hand of Vladimir Putin and United Russia. Putin has been able to adapt the constitution to suit his needs and worked the electoral system like putty in his hands to ensure that he has held positions of great power since he was first selected as Yeltsin’s successor. Putin and his administration have repeatedly been met with allegations – many well founded – that they have been trying to eliminate and silence the competition, whether that be by banning certain political parties, excerpting great influence over the media or other means, some of which I have delved into above.
	To say that something has failed is to say that there is no hope for it in the future. Russian democracy, as it stands, is a deeply flawed and bias system. But that does not mean that democracy has failed forever. The Russian peoples are just as much a part of humanity as anyone living in any of the countries that are held up as shining examples of democracies. Therefore, there is a chance that in the future – perhaps pushed by emerging social movements – that true democracy could finally make a long-awaited visit to Russia where it will hopefully take its seat in the Kremlin for good.



Bibliography

Michael G. Roskin, ‘Countries and Concepts: Politics, Geography, Culture’ in Politics in Europe (2nd edition) edited by Tomos D. Davies (Great Britain, Pearson Education Limited, 2012), pp. 304 – 331

Prof Igor Panagrin, ‘March 2012: Media warfare targets Putin’s legitimacy’, found at http://rt.com/politics/putin-rally-west-panarin-237/ [accessed 26/03/12 at 20:22]

The Guardian, Russian election: does the data suggest Putin won through fraud?, found at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/mar/05/russia-putin-voter-fraud-statistics [accessed on 26/03/12 at 22:17]

Moscow Times, Live Blog: Presidential Election 2012, found at http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/live-blog-presidential-election-2012/454018.html reference at ‘7:53 p.m., Carousel Voting Caught by Photographer’ [accessed at 26/03/12 at 21:06]

France24, Medvedev backs Putin for president in 2012 election, found at: http://www.france24.com/en/20110924-medvedev-supports-putin-president-elections-russia [accessed on 27/03/12 at 18:59]

Wikipedia, Vladimir Putin: KGB career, found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Putin#KGB_career [accessed on 26/03/12 at 22:24]

Timothy K. Colton, ‘Putin and Attenuation of Russian Democracy’, in Leading Russia: Putin in Perspective, edited by Alex Pravada (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2005), pp. 103 – 117

New York Times, Russia to Ease Law on Forming Political Parties, found at: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/24/world/europe/russia-eases-law-on-political-parties.html [accessed on 27/03/12 at 19:44]

BBC News, Russia protests: Gorbachev calls for election re-run, found at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16066061 [accessed 27/03/12 at 21:14]

Andrei Ryabov, ‘The Mass Media’ in, Between Dictatorship and Democracy: Russian Post-Communist Political Reform, edited by Michael McFaul et al (Washington, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2004)

Wikipedia, Printed media in the Soviet Union, found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printed_media_in_the_Soviet_Union [accessed 28/03/12 at 19:48]

The Guardian, Putin's win is a hollow victory for a Russian free press, http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/mar/11/putin-win-russian-free-press [accessed on 28/03/12 at 22:41]

New York Times, At Chechnya Polling Station, Votes for Putin Exceed the Rolls, found at: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/06/world/europe/fraudulent-votes-for-putin-abound-in-chechnya.html [accessed on 27/03/12 at 20:29]