Cathy Young has an interesting summary of the state of Russian politics in the wake of President Vladimir Putin's replacement by his handpicked successor Dmitry Medvedev. Although Putin's authoritarian policies have rolled back much of the liberalization that occurred in the 1990s, Russia is still a much freer society than it was under communism. Indeed, as Young shows, it has become a fairly typical Third World pseudo-democracy with partly fraudulent elections, a corrupt government dominated by cronyism, and significant, but far from totalitarian, repression of political dissent. As in many other Third World countries, the government tries to divert the people's attentions away from its own shortcomings by spouting nationalist rhetoric and blaming all problems on Western interference. At the moment, the Russian ruling elite is actually enjoying some genuine popularity - largely as a result of economic growth driven by high oil prices, as well as successful efforts to harness Russian nationalism into support for the regime.
Obviously, the big difference between Russia and the many other similar societies is that Russia just happens to have huge quantities of oil and nuclear weapons. The big question for the future is whether or not continued economic growth will lead to pressure for liberalization, or whether the Russian political elite will succeed in maintaining a semi-authoritarian system in the long run. Another key question is what will happen when oil prices fall and Russia's economy suffers a downturn. It's possible that the resulting anger at the government will redound to the benefit of supporters of liberal democracy. But I fear that it will instead lead to increased support for the Communists or for ultra-nationalists and anti-Semites, such as Vladimir Zhirinovsky. In Russia, as elsewhere, most of the public is rationally ignorant about politics, and has little incentive to evaluate what they do know in a logical way. As a result, Russia's next economic crisis could result in a much worse government taking power, not a better one.
As Young points out, Russian extremists of both the right and the left can tap into a long tradition of nationalism and belief in the notion that all problems can be solved by a leader with a "strong hand." On the other hand, Russia also has a long counter-tradition of pro-Western liberalization. Former world chess champion and political opposition leader Gary Kasparov represents that tendency today. When the current government eventually runs into trouble, much will depend on whether the ultra-nationalists or the liberal democrats are better positioned to take advantage of the situation. Unfortunately, Putin and Medvedev have targeted democrats for repression far more than the communists and nationalists. However, that very fact might give them greater credibility with the public when and if the current regime becomes unpopular.
The Communists are no threat in the foreseeable future. Zugonov is a fool who can do nothing and leads a constantly shrinking group of old people. No one is in line to take his place and there is no interest in any actually marxist ideas in society there, as opposed to a general authoritarianism. While violent nationalism is a serious threat Zhirinovsky is not likely to gain any new followers. The trouble is more likely to come from neo-brown-shirt groups like Nashi and their leaders.
Alexander II and Yeltsin were indeed part of the tradition I am thinking of, despite their flaws. Both accomplished a great deal in relatively short periods of time. So too were people like Radischev, Pushkin, Turgenev, Miliukov and his Constitutional Democratic Party (the largest political party in pre-WWI Russia), Kerensky, the Soviet-era dissidents, and others.
And in any clash between the "liberal democrats" and the "ultra-nationalists", the smart money has to be on the latter gang if history is any guide...
We'd have to leave Yeltsin out of _that_, though, since nothing he did can properly have the term "thought" applied to it. "Bumble and smash in a thoughtless way", yes, but "thought", no.
I don't agree. A lot was in fact accomplished by Alexander II (abolition of serfdom, introduction of local self-government, increased political rights, etc.), in the years immediately proceeding WW I (significant partial liberalization of both the political and econoimc systems), and more recently by Yeltsin.
I think that term is broad enough to include both advocates of liberalization (like Pushkin) and those who actually implemented it (like Alexander II).
Based on anecdotal experience, Putin is indeed genuinely popular, with at least 60% support among the society. Democrats are too disorganized and are too tainted by the 1990s to represent a serious force. Communists, too, enjoy dwindling support and have virtually no chance of coming back to power. Nationalists are a bigger problem.
It is true that Russia is now freer than at almost any point of its history. However, with all its faults, the period from 1991 to 2000, was much freer. However, for the vast majority it doesn't matter since the lives were almost unquestionably worse at that time.
It will take at least several years, and probably more, when the political situation in Russia significantly changes. Hopefully, serious political parties will develop, which in time, will replace United Russia (a pro-Putin "party").
Also, it seems hard to imagine the stars aligning for a significant downturn in oil prices; and even if prices fall 40% off current levels, Russia's still making a bundle from both oil and gas.
Russia's move toward nationalization of energy resources seems to me to be a shrewd way of ensuring tax revenues and ultimately rebuilding the country.
We love to wring our hands about the tactics of getting those assets in hand, and we love to focus on Russia's slow progress toward a "true" democracy, but I think the economic results are admirable. If I were Russian and not a journalist or an oligarch, I would be pretty happy with Putin's job as President. It's hard to blame the average Russian for supporting Putin and now Medvedev.
For those who grok Russian here is the pointer.
In what period and for how long were the Kadets "the largest political party in pre-WWI Russia"? If memory serves, the SR were larger at least in that they had much broader popular support. I will look it up right now.
The third Duma, of course, was totally a sham, the election process having been Stolypinized.
SR: 16 + 104 Trodoviki (affiliated)
SD: 37
Kadet: 98 (having fallen from 107 in the previous Duma)
So, unless you refuse to count Trudoviki, the SR were larger in the Duma then too.
Not saying the Kadets weren't important and influential, but popular support for populist socialism and for nationalism) was at least as strong.
I tend to agree with the above comment though, that if not for the Bolsheviks, Russia had a very chance of moving more and more toward liberal democracy and free market capitalism, and indeed had been moving in that direction, despite the best effort of Tsars to screw it up.
>> much will depend on whether the ultra-nationalists or the liberal democrats are better positioned to take advantage of the situation.
You might want to find a less confusing phrasing, given that the Liberal Democratic Party is Zhirinovsky's...
Kasparov is a good guy in the best tradition of the Russian intelligesia but has negligible popular support outside of Moscow and St. Petersburg. And some of the folks he is allied with are sort of . . . odd (for example, the National Bolshevik Party which used to parade around with flags that were like Nazi flags except with a hammer and sickle - you have see it to believe it!). They are not pretty seriously repressed by the authorities.
So I think that your political analysis is pretty off. Russia is a place where things are often not what they appear on the surface . . .
I semi-disagree with respect to capitalism.
There is obviously quite a bit of state control of heavy industry at the top end. But my experience there last summer (2 months studying in St. Petersburg and Veliki Novgorod) showed me that at the individual level, many Russians are every bit as entrepenurial as Americans and the local economies are thriving. There's nothing false about that capitalism at all.
Of what use are nuclear weapons to Russia? The threat of nuclear weapons is used only by rogue states -- e.g., North Korea and Iran -- for blackmail. After Ukraine became independent again, it decided to get rid of its nuclear weapons. Despite North Korea's nuclear threat, Japan understandably decided to not develop its own nuclear weapons.
As for oil, no one knows when or if there will be another big drop in the price of oil, and there is an increasing tendency for the price of oil to remain high.
I figure Putin will do just fine if he solves the demographic problem.
Better the Russian race survives in its own country than it becomes a democratic clone of America with a wonderful economy and a replacement population.
And I have the same fervent wish for Israel.