Authoritarianism in Russia (Political Science)

Introduction

In January 1992, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, analysts and observers inside Russia and out anticipated the rise of democracy and open politics in a country whose history had only known authoritarianism. The demise of communism had brought transformation toward democracy and market capitalism to many of the states of East Central Europe, and the same was expected to occur in Russia. Indeed, it was liberalizing reforms under the last Soviet leader, Mikhail S. Gorbachev, that triggered the eventual collapse of communist regimes. Russia’s new charismatic, populist leader, President Boris N. Yeltsin, emphatically proclaimed Russia to be the most significant cog in a new global wave of democratization that would unite Europe. On the surface, actions seemed to confirm these hopes with the adoption of a new constitution; competitive elections for representative bodies at the national, regional, and local levels, and for leaders such as the president, governors, and mayors; and the rise of an entirely free and vibrant print and electronic mass media. The economic sphere mirrored these social and political changes with establishment of free markets and privatization of former state enterprises. International affirmation came with Russia’s inclusion in a new G8, expanded cooperation with NATO, and a wide range of new global political and economic partnerships. The end of the Cold War brought euphoria over a new era of globalization and democratization, expressed in such events as the coalition to oppose Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, Nelson Mandela’s release from prison and the end of apartheid in South Africa, and myriad other examples of which Russia’s democratization seemed the inevitable culmination. But this optimism masked the challenging realities of Russian politics, and by 2000 the hopes were firmly dashed when Yeltsin resigned and appointed a former KGB official as President of Russia. Vladimir V. Putin immediately took advantage of a lack of constitutional and institutional protections and dismantled all vestiges of democracy, restoring Russia to an increasingly strong and uncompromising authoritarian regime.

General Overviews

There is no shortage of books, including classic academic studies, on the subject of dictatorship and authoritarianism, but precious few offer clear definitions of either term. Rather, what one finds most frequently are negative definitions contrasting them to democracy, which itself is a term plagued by overuse and lack of consistent definition, including by many scholars, who invoke it. Ostrow, et al. 2007 (cited under Failed Democratization, see p. 6) defines democracy as a political system that “ensures popular control over the state,” through elections but also through institutions guaranteeing ongoing transparency, accountability, and open competition. By contrast, dictatorship is a system in which “how politics are conducted is determined by a single individual,” who imposes decisions “on a populace denied the political freedom to organize, compete and hold leaders accountable electorally or otherwise.” Whether using a minimalist definition of democracy as a political system featuring free and fair elections of officials, or the more expansive one articulated here, Russia does not and never has had a democratic political system. Its history has been of authoritarian rule and dictatorship, as defined here.

Democracy

A large field of study that features little agreement on definitions of democracy or what constitutes a democratic political system. Dahl 1973 offers a definition of “polyarchy” that encompasses more than minimalist definitions based primarily or exclusively on the presence of formal elections (Schumpeter 2008). A burgeoning new field of study of democratic “transitions” (Diamond and Plattner 2009) is similarly fragmented, with little consistency on what is required to build a democratic state, or what contributes to failures in those efforts (see the separate Oxford Bibliographies article “Democratization”). Because so much of the literature on authoritarian systems presents information in contrast to democracy, familiarity with the scholarship on democracy is essential. The remaining sources in this section are the finest general surveys and textbooks on the debates about the definitions and elements of democratic systems and societies.

Ball, Terrence, and Richard Dagger, eds. Ideals and Ideologies. 8th ed. Boston: Pearson, 2011.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
A well-conceived and wide-ranging undergraduate text with classic readings from the range of major political ideologies, with the sections on democracy as the strongest in the volume.
Find this resource:
Dahl. Polyarchy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1973.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Perhaps the most widely read and cited political science definition of democracy, which incorporates competition, elections, and access. Suitable for undergraduates and graduates. While some may quibble that too many of his aspects of modern democracy are simply aspects of elections and campaigns, excluding other mechanisms by which citizens may hold officials accountable, no study of democracy is complete without reference to this book.
Find this resource:
Dahl. Democracy and Its Critics. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1991.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Essential text for survey courses on democracy, including comparative politics courses. Addresses strengths as well as limitations and critiques of democracy, in a defense of both the principles and the system of democratic governance against elitist theories and critiques.
Find this resource:
Diamond, Larry, and Marc Plattner. Democracy after Communism. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
A compendium of Journal of Democracy articles on the successes and failures of democratization and varying conceptions of democracy across the states of the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe in the decade after the demise of communist regimes.
Find this resource:
Diamond, Larry, and Marc Plattner. Democracy: A Reader. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2009.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Journal of Democracy editors provide numerous volumes of articles from that journal on various aspects of democracy, including this useful course text on definitions of democracy; approaches to the concepts of democratization, consolidation, and backlash; and the social and economic factors that may assist or impede the stability of democratic regimes.
Find this resource:
Green, Philip, ed. Democracy. Key Concepts in Critical Theory. Amherst, NY: Humanity Books, 1999.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
A robust text on democracy theory, including critiques and responses to key elements of democratic theory; useful as an introductory overview.
Find this resource:
Held, David. Models of Democracy. 3d ed. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2006.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Comprehensive textbook on the evolution of democracy as an idea and in practice, from the ancients to modern times. Appropriate for undergraduate and graduate students.
Find this resource:
Schumpeter, Joseph. Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. New York: Harper Perennial, 2008.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Seminal work, originally published in 1942, laying out the procedural, rather than substantive, definition of democracy as political system based on institutional arrangements, notably elections, rather than on principles and ideals. The foundational work for “minimalist” definitions of democracy.
Find this resource:
Authoritarianism

As I have written elsewhere, there is a shocking lack of definitions and precious few analyses of dictatorship (Ostrow, et al. 2007, cited under Failed Democratization). Most political science works are about the move to liberalism and democracy from authoritarian regimes (Huntington 1968, Moore 1966, Spencer 1972), or about the ways in which those regimes are not democratic, without elaborating definitions or institutional arrangements of the closed systems themselves (Diamond, et al. 2016). A classic exception is Arendt 1973, and more recent attempts are Brownlee 2007 and Linz 2000. For an extensive resource list, see Danilovich 2015. Also, Arendt 1973 and Moore 1966, which emphasize the totalitarian nature of the Soviet system, provide context for understanding Russia’s unique Soviet system, while the other works detail the more standard Russian authoritarianism both historical and contemporary.

Arendt, Hannah. The Origins of Totalitarianism. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 1973.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Although focusing on the rise of anti-Semitism in Europe in the late 19th century that culminated in the fascist regimes of the 20th century, Arendt’s masterpiece details the social, political, economic, and institutional contours of totalitarianism, the most concentrated and restrictive authoritarian systems yet devised. With emphasis on Soviet Socialism and Nazism, the regimes she analyzes are relegated to history, but the attraction of the form to authoritarian dictators remains relevant.
Find this resource:
Brownlee, Jason. Authoritarianism in an Age of Democratization. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511802348Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Examines how ruling authoritarian leaders maintain power and the varying strategies they adopt. Examines both the mechanisms of policymaking and of ensuring regime cohesion, approaches to internal conflict management and resolution, and varying organizational forms. In particular, compares the differences between strong one-party ruling organizations and more personalized authoritarian rule and their varying degrees of stability against internal pressures for change.
Find this resource:
Danilovich, Vesna. “Authoritarian Regimes.” In Oxford Bibliographies in International Relations. New York: Oxford University Press, 2015.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Annotated bibliography on literature about authoritarianism and authoritarian regimes.
Find this resource:
Diamond, Larry D., Mark F. Plattner, and Christopher Walker, eds. Authoritarianism Goes Global. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
The most recent contribution to analyzing authoritarian regimes focuses on five states with more or less stable closed politics (China, Russia, Iran, Saudia Arabia, and Venezuela), and their strategies for combatting liberalization pressures. The volume lacks any attempt at a coherent definition of “authoritarianism,” rather presenting it as, in essence, not democracy and as troubling evidence of a “reverse wave.” Explains causes of democratic failure rather than the contours of authoritarianism itself.
Find this resource:
Huntington, Samuel P. Poltical Order in Changing Societies. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1968.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
The foundation of “modernization theory” in the field-comparative politics, Huntington’s emphasis is on the inevitable transformation of societies away from authoritarianism to democracy as a process of economic and political development. However, his analysis of “traditional” society and of authoritarian rule in its various forms (feudal, praetorian, oligarchical) continues to describe the essential elements of authoritarian regimes into the early 21st century.
Find this resource:
Linz, Juan J. Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes. Boulder, CO: Lynne Reinner, 2000.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Linz presents a useful typology of authoritarianism, describing three central forms: personalist, military, and party. Remains a useful comparative analysis of the subject.
Find this resource:
Moore, Barrington S. Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy. Boston: Beacon, 1966.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
A tour-de-force work whose bottom line, “no middle class, no democracy,” set the groundwork for modernization theory, theories of revolution, and the entire field of comparative politics. Offers an important connection between economic and political development that remains relevant into the early 21st century. A classic contrast of democracy to totalitarianism and autocratic rule more generally. Oddly, given the title and subject matter, it offers no succinct definition of “dictatorship” but certainly describes such systems.
Find this resource:
Spencer, Herbert. On Social Evolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1972.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
A social theory take to the development of political institutions in a modern Weberian approach. Like Moore, relates social and political development to the economic contours in society. Describes the link between centralized, authoritarian rule to the challenges of maintaining order in the face of internal and external threats, and approaches to establishing such order in different developmental settings.
Find this resource:
Traditional Russian Authoritarianism—Tsarist Rule

Authoritarianism of one sort or another is the only political history the country has known. Since the founding of the country in the late 13th century, Russia has known monarchy, including the imperial monarchy of the tsars, communist dictatorship, and postcommunist authoritarianism in the wake of failed democratization. Russian politics has been that of various authoritarian rulers. While the nature of authoritarianism changed during the course of Russian history, the fact of authoritarian rule did not. Russian politics is most frequently presented in histories organized around those rulers (Riasanovsky and Steinberg 2011, Bushkovitch 2012) and of particular eras of rulers (Montefiore 2016). Even when organized around political culture (Pipes 1995) or social structure (Hosking 2003), or institutional factors (Hedlund 2005), historians universally describe Russian politics through the ages as intensely hierarchical.

Bushkovitch, Paul. A Concise History of Russia. Cambridge Concise Histories. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
A comprehensive introductory textbook with a sweeping take on Russian history. While not exclusively a political history, it tells the story as a creation, decline, and collapse of empire, focusing on the successes and failures of the various autocratic leaders and the nature of their rule.
Find this resource:
Hedlund, Stefan. Russian Path Dependence: A People with a Troubled History. Routledge Studies in European Economy. London and New York: Routledge, 2005.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
A path-dependency argument that the early institutional arrangements of the Russian state cemented a future of authoritarian rule and patrimonial relations from which it has never escaped. Successive changes of leadership and regime have operated within this framework rather than fundamentally changing it.
Find this resource:
Hosking, Geoffrey. Russia and the Russians: A History. Cambridge, MA: Belknap, 2003.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
A social historian’s presentation of the contours of Russian history. Less about the rulers than about the ruled, with emphasis on the effects on social conditions and on the world resulting from the nature of that rule.
Find this resource:
Montefiore, Simon Sebag. The Romanovs: 1613–1918. New York: Knopf, 2016.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
A history of the rise, rule, and fall of the Romanov dynasty, spanning some 20 rulers over more than three centuries. Engaging and thorough take on the nature of these rulers and the policies they pursued during the rise, expansion, and decline of the Russian Empire.
Find this resource:
Pipes, Richard. Russia under the Old Regime. London: Penguin, 1995.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Pipes’s classic history of Russia presents an argument that the patrimonial culture in part explains the patrimonial state. Pipes long argued that Russian culture is not compatible with liberal democracy, and that authoritarian rule is a more natural fit. His sweeping history of pre–Soviet Russia reinforces this perspective through examination of the currents of political history, and the rise of the police state in the late imperial period.
Find this resource:
Riasanovsky, Nicholas, and Mark Steinberg. A History of Russia. 8th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Still widely regarded as the finest textbook on Russian history, Riasanovsky’s volume sets the standard for any introduction to the material. Chapters on every era from the founding of the country in the 9th century, and on the reigns of every ruler in the country’s history. While not exclusively a political history, it is organized around the political contours of the various rulers.
Find this resource:
Soviet Authoritarianism

The collapse of the monarchy with the abdication of Nicholas II, under pressures of declining empire, failing economy, defeat in war, and internal revolution, brought regime change but continued authoritarian rule. Communism’s promise of rule by and for the masses resulted in anything but for Russia. Lenin and Stalin brought crushing centralized power, backed by fear and violence, with waves of state terror and mass murder, intolerance of dissent, and mass political imprisonment, as well as regulation and control throughout all aspects of the economy and society as the system’s signature features. While Stalin’s totalitarianism morphed to less-violent enforcement by his successors, secrecy, fear, and political crackdown severely constricted the social, political, and economic space for the populace, who continued to exist as subjects rather than citizens.

The Political System

During the Cold War, the imperative in the West to understand the Soviet system attracted scholars of various disciplines and approaches. Early approaches emphasized the totalitarian nature of Soviet, and particularly Stalinist, rule (Fainsod 1963), while later approaches sought to describe a more flexible and subtle nature to communist dictatorship (Hough and Fainsod 1979) and its leaders (Tucker 1987). Some emphasized the potential for change (Bialer 1980, Suny 1998), while others sought to explain the causes and dynamics of change (Jowitt 1993) and the conflicting pressures around attempting change as well as the problems such efforts might bring (Colton 1986). Dallin and Lapidus 1991 aggregates a variety of scholars detailing the various challenges that, ultimately, brought down the system altogether, while McAuley 1992 offers the most succinct overarching political history, and Shipler 1983 offers a more breezy, journalistic account.

Bialer, Seweryn. Stalin’s Successors: Leadership, Stability and Change in the Soviet Union. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1980.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Succinct and masterful articulation of “the mature Stalinist system” and the changing nature of Soviet authoritarianism under Stalin’s successors. Focus on elite politics and interactions, and foretells of coming tensions within that leadership. While hindsight will highlight Bialer’s failure to see the system’s fragility of the system in light of those tensions, at the time his presentation made convincing the stability of that system.
Find this resource:
Colton, Timothy J. The Dilemma of Reform in the Soviet Union. New York: Council on Foreign Relations, 1986.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Written just after Gorbachev came to power, this book set the standard for identifying the seriousness and range of problems and pressures facing the USSR, the likely future directions of change, and the dilemmas that reform efforts would pose.
Find this resource:
Dallin, Alexander, and Gail Lapidus, eds. The Soviet System in Crisis. Boulder, CO: Westview, 1991.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Excellent compendium of works on the unraveling of the Soviet system as Gorbachev struggled with reforms, many halfhearted, to keep Communist Party rule together. Impressive collection of experts detail fragmentation in the leadership, failure in policy, and fracturing of society that ultimately brought down the Soviet Union.
Find this resource:
Fainsod, Merle. How Russia is Ruled. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1963.
DOI: 10.4159/harvard.9780674189188Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Masterpiece introduction to Soviet politics, written during the height of the Cold War. Fainsod details the rigidity and control of the USSR as a totalitarian system, the nature of the party-state apparatus, and how it managed and controlled all aspects of social, economic and political development. The textbook standard for introductory courses for a generation of students.
Find this resource:
Hough, Jerry F., and Merle Fainsod. How the Soviet Union is Governed. Cambrideg, MA: Harvard University Press, 1979.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Hough’s reworking of his mentor’s original work was controversial, primarily for the inclusion of Fainsod’s name. Retained little of the totalitarian framework, instead detailing the flexibility and contours of the Soviet political system and society. Organized chronologically around leaders rather than around methods of control, and focuses on the methods of policymaking and implementation across issue areas. Also emphasizes areas of debate, discussion, and change.
Find this resource:
Jowitt, Ken. New World Disorder: The Leninist Extinction. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1993.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Jowitt presents a developmental political history of the Soviet Union, arguing that communism is a “genetic” type with a particular history repeated in every country that attempted to implement the Soviet-type system. Traces the development from revolutionary and radical zeal, to totalitarian xenophobia and terror, to bureaucratic retrenchment, to late-stage corruption, to reform and dissolution. An original and underappreciated approach, particularly given the accuracy of many of his concerned predictions for the future after communism’s collapse.
Find this resource:
McAuley, Mary. Soviet Politics 1917–1991. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Terrific, expansive overview of the historical development of the Soviet political system from foundation to collapse. Essentially a compendium of McAuley’s lecture notes from her introductory course at Oxford.
Find this resource:
Shipler, David K. Russia: Broken Idols, Solemn Dreams. New York: Penguin, 1983.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Best-selling journalistic presentation of Soviet political history, alternating between accounts of Kremlin politics and societal impact. Wanders across space and time to paint a picture of political life in the USSR.
Find this resource:
Suny, Ronald Grigor. The Soviet Experiment: Russia, the USSR and the Successor States. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Magisterial political history of the Soviet Union, detailing the creation and development of the Soviet state and the nature of authoritarian rule under each leader, through the collapse of the system itself.
Find this resource:
Tucker, Robert C. Political Culture and Leadership in Soviet Russia. New York: Norton, 1987.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Survey of the nature of leadership and the nature of Soviet political culture, and the interrelationship between the two. An excellent source for examining the distinctions between and nature of society during the turbulent revolutionary period under Lenin, Stalin’s totalitarian state, Khrushchev’s lurching and often-contradictory effort to ease the state’s grip on society, Brezhnev’s bureaucratic authoritarianism, and the effects of efforts to reform in the final stages.
Find this resource:
Stalinism’s Impact on Society

Stalinist rule brought historically unique impacts to those societies that experienced that form of rule, and one cannot grasp the significance of Soviet-style authoritarianism without considering those consequences. From the system of political prisons (Applebaum 2007 and Applebaum 2011, Solzhenitsyn 1973–1974) to the murderous reign over three decades under Stalin (Conquest 1987 and Conquest 1991), as the most dramatic consequences, all communist regimes featured fear as the primary tool of control. The interplay of the regime and society and how each reinforced the system is, perhaps, the most fascinating aspect of the Soviet system (see Moore 1965, Hosking 1985, and Service 2005).

Applebaum, Anne. Gulag: A History. Norwell, MA: Anchor, 2007.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Western journalist’s account of the Soviet Gulag system, based on extensive archival research.
Find this resource:
Applebaum, Anne. Gulag Voices: An Anthology. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2011.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Companion to her Gulag Voices, this is a collection of writings of survivors of the Gulag.
Find this resource:
Conquest, Robert. The Harvest of Sorrow: Soviet Collectivization and the Terror-Famine. New York: Oxford University Press, 1987.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
The definitive study on the ravages of forced collectivization on the Soviet people. This is the story of Stalin’s reign of terror on the population. The war on the peasantry that wiped out millions was repeated in nearly every Soviet-style state after World War II.
Find this resource:
Conquest, Robert. The Great Terror. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
First published in 1971, this is the groundbreaking study of Stalin’s purges and the elimination of all of the revolutionary generation of Bolsheviks, which also swept away untold millions across Soviet society. Conquest details the terror behind Stalin’s consolidation of power and establishment of his totalitarian system. Remains required reading for any interested in Stalin’s rule.
Find this resource:
Hosking, Geoffrey. The First Socialist Society: A History of the Soviet Union from Within. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1985.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Hosking’s approach is that of a social historian, but is organized around the leaders and the changing nature of the Soviet authoritarian system from one leader to the next.
Find this resource:
Moore, Barrington, Jr. Soviet Politics—the Dilemma of Power. New York: Harper & Row, 1965.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
A look at the interplay of Soviet authoritarianism and the consequences for society and social change, with particular emphasis on the effects of Stalin’s terror on regime-society relations and the pursuit of policy objectives after Stalin.
Find this resource:
Service, Robert. A History of Modern Russia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2005.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Sprawling history of Russia from 1917 to the early 21st century, from a fused approach combining politics, economics, and society.
Find this resource:
Solzhenitsyn, Alexander I. The Gulag Archipelago. Vols. 1–4. New York: Harper & Row, 1973–1974.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Tour-de-force opus on the Soviet system of political prisons, many of which became death camps, by perhaps the most famous survivor and literary master. Provides an overall look into the scope at a grand scale, and of the harsh realities at the minute level of the individual, and still the best window into the horrors of Stalin’s totalitarian rule.
Find this resource:
Post-Soviet Authoritarianism

Mikhail S. Gorbachev’s glasnost, perestroika, and demokratizatsiya reforms; the subsequent collapse of communism across East Central Europe; the rise of democratic movements and regimes to replace them; and then the fall of USSR itself with Russia’s new leaders promising democracy brought a widespread understanding that the Cold War had ended and that democracy had won. Wishful thinking replaced critical analysis in much of the political science field as a “transition to democracy” was assumed well underway. That wishful thinking gave way to disillusionment and cynicism as Russia instead experienced a transformation from one brand of authoritarianism to another.

Failed Democratization

Many scholars of the Soviet Union rushed to embrace what they hoped or thought they were seeing, namely a sudden rise of a “normal” democracy in Russia, which had only known dictatorship and authoritarian rule. Most early writers focused on the newly competitive elections (McFaul 1997) or on party development, campaigns, and media openness around those elections (Colton and Hough 1998), while some later scholars, emphasizing the achievements in the economic sphere (Shleiffer and Treisman 2004), argued Russia was firmly on the path to democracy. For a late and general defense of Russia as democracy, see McFaul 2001. As the reality became impossible to deny, some (Colton and McFaul 2003) sought to preserve the conclusion while tempering the analysis with use of adjectives preceding the word “democracy.” Others pointed to the same general categories of analysis to point out the divergence from democratic principles throughout the period (Reddaway and Glinski 2001; Satter 2003; Fish 2005; Ostrow, et al. 2007). Others turned to comparative analysis to analyze Russia’s failed democratization against theory and other cases (Anderson, et al. 2001; Bunce 2003). There is no shortage of such examples, and many scholars were shockingly late to recognize the lack of democratic essentials in the political system that emerged in the 1990s.

Anderson, Richard D., Jr., M. Stephen Fish, Stephen E. Hansen, and Phillip G. Roeder. Postcommunism and the Theory of Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Compares theories of democratization to practice in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. Chapters detail where existing models and theories are lacking, both on processes of liberalization and factors that can lead to the failure of democratization.
Find this resource:
Baturin, Yuri M., ed. Epokha Yeltsina: Ocherki Politicheskoy Istorii. Moscow: Vagrius, 2001.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
English title: The Yeltsin Years: Essays on Political History. While at times unbalanced and serving as justification, this massive tome from several of President Yeltsin’s top advisors also offers authoritative self-reflection on the failures of many of democracy’s staunchest defenders to realize their aspirations for their country. Offers firsthand insight into the decisions of Russia’s first president, including the rise of the oligarchs and institutionalized corruption, all of which paved the way for the demise of democratic politics.
Find this resource:
Bunce, Valerie. “Rethinking Recent Democratization Lessons from the Postcommunist Experience.” World Politics 55.2 (January 2003): 167–192.
DOI: 10.1353/wp.2003.0010Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Comparative analysis of models of democratization against the evidence across East Central Europe, including the post-Soviet experience. Argues that existing models were grossly oversimplified, and suggests that uncertainty in the prospects for democratization vary widely from one society to another, influenced by factors such as degree of mass mobilization and the nature of nationalist pressures.
Find this resource:
Colton, Timothy J., and Jerry F. Hough, eds. Growing Pains: Russian Democracy and the Election of 1993. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 1998.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Compendium of scholars focusing on varying aspects of the electoral campaign; party development; media environment; and voting at the national, regional, and local levels in the 1993 Russian elections.
Find this resource:
Colton, Timothy J., and Michael McFaul. Popular Choice and Managed Democracy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 2003.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Late attempt by prominent scholars to salvage Russia’s democratic credentials under Putin, attaching the adjective “managed.” More useful for demonstrating the perspective of those eager to see their desires realized than to expose the rigged nature of elections, the significance of the return of censorship, or detail the violent attacks on dissenting politicians that are the hallmark of Putin’s rule.
Find this resource:
Fish, M. Stephen. Democracy Derailed in Russia: The Failure of Open Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511791062Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
A forceful analysis of the failures of democratization in Russia. Offers a compelling definition of democracy as “open politics” in all spheres, and details the distance between Russia’s reality and that ideal. Compelling discussion of the social, economic, and institutional factors that impeded establishment of such openness in Russia.
Find this resource:
McFaul, Michael. Russia’s 1996 Presidential Election: The End of Polarized Politics. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution, 1997.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Prime example of the optimistic approach by the most visible scholar proclaiming Russia’s democratic credentials. Based on extraordinary access and contacts, this study presents a detailed view of Russia’s electoral system and political environment as competitive, open, and legitimate, arguing that any prospect of movement in the opposite direction had effectively been eliminated.
Find this resource:
McFaul, Michael. Russia’s Unfinished Revolution. Ithica, NY: Cornell University Press, 2001.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Meticulously sourced and researched survey of Russian politics in the 1990s. Describes the institutional and legal turbulence of the decade in the context of “transition to democracy” and concludes Putin would preserve that system, if not complete the transition. Probably the best effort to salvage, for lack of a better term, Russia’s democratic credentials against much evidence to the contrary.
Find this resource:
Ostrow, Joel M., Georgiy A. Satarov, and Irina M. Khakamada. The Consolidation of Dictatorship in Russia: An Inside View of the Demise of Democracy. Westport, CT: Praeger Security International, 2007.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Argues Russia’s attempt at democratization was halfhearted at best and from the early 1990s, included institutional elements that fundamentally undermined democratic principles—in particular, constitutional stripping of limitations on presidential authority eliminated checks and balances and protection of judicial independence, all of which left “open politics” (see Fish 2005) dependent upon the individual preferences of the president.
Find this resource:
Reddaway, Peter, and Dmitri Glinski. The Tragedy of Russia’s Reforms: Market Bolshevism against Democracy. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace, 2001.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Blistering critique of Russia’s political and economic reforms in the 1990s. Details rampant corruption at the highest levels of the political system and exposes the empty facade of democracy that Russian and foreign actors, including governments, economists, and business leaders, promoted to enable the exploitation.
Find this resource:
Satter, David. Darkness at Dawn: The Rise of the Russian Criminal State. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2003.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
More journalistic than academic in style, Satter details the connections between criminal behavior among economic and political actors, and the fundamental criminality of the regime, dating to the mid-1990s.
Find this resource:
Shleiffer, Andrei, and Daniel J. Treisman. “A Normal Country.” Foreign Affairs, March–April 2004: 20–38.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Combatively argues Russia’s status as a consolidated market capitalist, democratic state, and a “normal, middle-income country.” Primarily an argument about neoliberal economic performance, the authors encompass the political into their overall perspective.
Find this resource:
Putin’s Authoritarianism

While most scholars were late, or grudging, to recognize that Russia was not and was not soon going to be a democracy (Herspring 2005), and while some clung to hopes that liberalization would survive or return quickly (Shevtsova 2005), others were early to heed the ominous warning signs (Felshtinsky and Litvinenko 2007, Hahn 2004). Biographies and exposés of Putin are revealing of his intentions from the start (Myers 2015, Tregubova 2003), and a variety of studies point to alarming strategies (Satter 2016) and the troubling realities of the dangers of the new dictatorial aspects of the regime (Baker and Glasser 2005, Politkovskaya 2007, Ostrow 2013).

Baker, Peter, and Susan Glasser. Kremlin Rising: Vladimir Putin’s Russia and the End of Revolution. New York: Scribner, 2005.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Journalistic account of Putin’s rise and the changes at the top of Russian politics, including corruption, increasing censorship, and internal violence to silence dissent.
Find this resource:
Felshtinsky, Yuri, and Alexander Litvinenko. Blowing Up Russia: Terror from Within. New York: Encounter, 2007.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Offers evidence that raises questions about the source of terror attacks that brought the second invasion of Chechnya and the rise of Putin. Suggests Putin himself and the FSB (the successor to the KGB) had a hand in the attacks to provide cover for eroding democratic competition and liberties. On Putin’s orders, according to a British judicial inquiry, Litvinenko was eventually assassinated in the United Kingdom.
Find this resource:
Hahn, Gordon M. “Putin’s Stealth Authoritarianism.” Russia Report. Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (15–28 April 2004).
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Combative attack on any use of the word democracy to describe Putin’s rule. Methodically lays out both the aspects of the new authoritarianism in the electoral, media, social, and policy realms, and Putin’s conscious intent in implementing his plan of restoring authoritarian rule. In three parts, available online.
Find this resource:
Herspring, Dale R., ed. Putin’s Russia. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2005.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Edited volume with varying interpretations of Russia’s political system and the question of authoritarianism. Despite a waffling conclusion, it is a useful volume covering a wide range of issue areas and interpretations.
Find this resource:
Myers, Steven Lee. The New Tsar: The Rise and Reign of Vladimir Putin. New York: Knopf, 2015.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Biography of the Russian ruler by accomplished journalist. Well researched and sourced, Myers traces Putin from his early life through his consolidation of supreme power, and details his often-brutal leadership style in his determination to reestablish firm central control over the country.
Find this resource:
Ostrow, Joel M., ed. Politics in Russia: A Reader. Los Angeles: SAGE, 2013.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Textbook-style reader with contrasting perspectives on the Soviet system; its collapse; the failed attempt at democratization; and the nature of the early-21st-century political, institutional, economic, and social landscape with several selections detailing the links between the crackdown on political competition, the return of censorship, and the rise of hyper-nationalism all backed by widespread violence against opposition.
Find this resource:
Politkovskaya, Anna. Putin’s Russia: Life in a Failing Democracy. New York: Owl, 2007.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Critical look at Russia under Putin by his fiercest domestic critic, Politkovskaya, an investigative journalist renowned for fearless reporting on Chechnya, who was murdered around the time the book was published. Exposes rampant corruption throughout the regime, in all branches of government and all walks of life, and raises questions about the Kremlin’s role in terrorist attacks and the war in Chechnya as pretext for restoring authoritarian rule.
Find this resource:
Satter, David. The Less You Know, the Better You Sleep: Russia’s Road to Terror and Dictatorship under Yeltsin and Putin. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2016.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
American journalist and writer who presents an argument on deep-seated corruption in Russian politics dating to Yeltsin. Sees a consistent road to dictatorship beginning under Yeltsin, which was cemented by the Kremlin’s staging of a series of terrorist attacks in the early 2000s to propel Putin to power and justify the removal of remaining vestiges of democracy.
Find this resource:
Shevtsova, Lilia. Putin’s Russia. Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2005.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
A leading Russian scholar and consistent liberal activist, Shevtsova probes the reality of Putin’s rule and likens it to “bureaucratic authoritarianism” of the 1980s’ Latin American variety. While her conclusion, which she soon abandoned, retained hope for democracy in Russia, this book stands for its insightful and comparative context on Putin’s increasingly hardline rule, analysis that stands the test of time.
Find this resource:
Tregubova, Yelena. Bayki kremlovskogo diggera. Moscow: Ad Marginem, 2003.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
English title: Notes of a Kremlin Digger. Former Moscow Kremlin correspondent with early access to Putin penned this early warning that proved prescient in many respects. Useful for the close, personal insight she gained and presented.