Russian President Dimitry Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin

There are at the present time two great nations in the world, which started from different points, but seem to tend towards the same end. I allude to the Russians and the Americans. Both of them have grown up unnoticed; and while the attention of mankind was directed elsewhere, they have suddenly placed themselves in the front rank among the nations, and the world learned their existence and their greatness at almost the same time.

All other nations seem to have nearly reached their natural limits, and they have only to maintain their power; but these are still in the act of growth. All the others have stopped, or continue to advance with extreme difficulty; these alone are proceeding with ease and celerity along a path to which no limit can be perceived. The American struggles against the obstacles that nature opposes to him; the adversaries of the Russian are men. The former combats the wilderness and savage life; the latter, civilization with all its arms. The conquests of the American are therefore gained by the plowshare; those of the Russian by the sword. The Anglo-American relies upon personal interest to accomplish his ends and gives free scope to the unguided strength and common sense of the people; the Russian centers all the authority of society in a single arm. The principal instrument of the former is freedom; of the latter, servitude. Their starting point is different and their courses are not the same; yet each of them seems marked out by the will of Heaven to sway the destinies of half the globe.

Alexis de Tocqueville - Democracy in America 1835, Vol. 1, p.434

PREFACE

This paper addresses and discusses current political, economic and cultural developments in Russia. There is a current misconception of the development of Russian democracy in the United States and the United States press, with many of its actions and developments interpreted as a slide back to Russian authoritarianism. This thesis examines and analyzes that misconception with the ultimate goal of creating a better understanding of the reasons for that belief and the errors that have caused that misunderstanding. Ultimately, this thesis will attempt to put the Russian advance to democracy in a better perspective and hopefully provide a basis for the improvement of relations between the two countries.

Many of the developments and their extrapolations may be considered out of date or based on incomplete information due to the fact that the true result of many of the reforms initiated take years if not decades to be fully implemented and their effects fully felt, discussed, studied, researched and understood. If we take the time to look, this is much the same as the development of democracy in the United States. Therefore it will be helpful to the reader to keep in mind that this thesis is based upon information up to April 8, 2008 and that in effect, Russian democracy is in its teenage years.

Another factor that should be considered is that when discussing politics, it quickly becomes connected to everything.

Purpose of this Thesis

This Thesis will be presented in the following fashion.

What is the problem? There is a misconception with western academics, politicians and media professionals that the Russian Nation State is forever imprisoned to authoritarian rule due to the history of Russia. A further misconception is that the reforms of President Putin are pushing Russia backwards toward Authoritarianism and not forward to Democracy. (Introduction)

Why is there a misconception? There is a misconception because there is a lack of clarity on key definitions of democracy and media bias and a lack of understanding of what is actually occurring in Russia. (Definitions and Media Bias)

How did this happen? This happened due to social construction theory. “Within constructionist thought, a social construction (social construct) is a concept or practice which may appear to be natural and obvious to those who accept it, but in reality is an invention or artifact of a particular culture or society.” For example, Russia doomed to forever be authoritarian is not reality but a creation, and this likewise is applied to Putin’s reforms. (Social Constructions)

Why is this problem important? This is important because people’s perceptions determine their reality. A belief in a false reality leads to the creation of faulty policy based on that false reality. This has an adverse impact both domestically and internationally. In the age of globalization, domestic and international affairs are being fused into one. (Effect on Foreign Affairs)

Why is this misconception wrong? It is wrong because of the fact that Russian authoritarian history does not forever imprison Russia to authoritarian rule but the opposite. Russia’s oftentimes ignored or unknown long history of democratic “echoes” in contrast with Russia’s authoritarian past. This history ensures that the evolution to democracy is inevitable. Putin’s reforms don’t force Russia backward but stabilize and solidify a solid base of democratic institutional growth. (Russian Democratic History, Putin’s Reforms, Maslow’s Hierarchy, and the Pendulum Theory).

SECTION I

INTRODUCTION

Since New Years Eve of 1999, when President Boris Yeltsin’s handed over power of the Russian Federation to Vladimir Putin, the Russian government has been constantly criticized for being or being at the risk of “sliding back” to an authoritarian regime similar to the regimes of the era of Soviet communism and the old monarchy. The history of authoritarianism in Russia is widely misunderstood or at the very least seen in the wrong context. The belief that is held my many and promoted by the influential media regimes that the Era of Putin is a throwback to the past or a return to a desirable authoritarian root are often short sighted and many times ill informed. As Natan Sharansky, a former prisoner in the Soviet Gulags writes in his book, The Case for Democracy:

“Only those who have no understanding of tyranny could take such nonsense seriously. Russians do not want to return to totalitarianism. To believe that the Russians long for a return to a totalitarian past because pf the difficulties they have encountered in the present is like believing that African-Americans who suffer from un employment and poverty long for a return to slavery. Even those Russians who claim to want to return to go back to the “Russia of old” do not want to return to a world where people are arbitrarily killed, where family members can be suddenly arrested or imprisoned, or where the government controls nearly every aspect of life.”(1)

This paper puts the current political, economic, social and cultural developments of Russia under the administration of Vladimir Putin into a more accurate context.

In order to do this, the following format is used. First, the problem will be established, the misconception, by analysis and definitions, and current media reporting. This in turn has lead to a social construction, which has affected the foreign relations between the United States, Europe (which for the purposes of this paper will be the European Union) and Russia. Social construction will here in be defined according to Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann who wrote in their book, The Social Construction of Reality:

“It is our contention, then, that the sociology of knowledge must concern itself with whatever passes for “knowledge” in a society, regardless of the ultimate validity or invalidity (by whatever criteria) of such “knowledge.” And insofar as all human “knowledge” is developed, transmitted and maintained in social situations, the sociology of knowledge must seek to understand the processes by which this is done in such a way that a taken-for-granted “reality” congeals for the man in the street. In other words, we contend that the sociology of knowledge is concerned with the analysis of the social construction of reality.”(2)

Second, once problems are addressed and proper definitions are established, there is a presentation of the foundations of democracy in Russia. Examining these crucial embryonic democratic and republican institutions which occur throughout Russia’s long history, will demonstrate an underlying proof that Russia’s current political developments are echoes of the past. This is necessary in order to put modern Russian Democracy in the proper framework and therefore lead to a better understanding.

Third, using Maslow’s Hierarchy as a guide, this work will examine the presidency of Vladimir Putin and explain why some of his policies seem to contradict the foundations of democratic principles however they are in the long run necessary for Russia to build a stable and prospering democracy.

Finally, by looking at Russian history, it will be proven that despite Russia’s seemingly backwards steps away from democratic reforms, it is impossible for this country to revert back to the authoritarian regimes of the past. This paper presents a new model, which will demonstrate that once a country is a democracy, in the current age of globalization, it will not reverse to authoritarianism. Then I revisit the definitions discussed earlier and put them in the proper context of natural historical democratic development and apply them to a new model. I look at Russia specifically and put it in the context of its history which helps explain the misconception of Russia as becoming authoritarian.

The conclusion of this paper is that the label of Russia as Authoritarian is a social constructed misconception. This misunderstanding is advanced by the influential media regime and their bias and misuse of the term authoritarianism. The reason for this is to have an effect on viewer ship, ratings, revenues and impress upon politicians, who are not only reactionary but also take the opportunity to score political points during an election cycle. The power and influence that is held by the media adds to the already delicate issues of international relations between the United States, Europe and Russia. In analyzing the history of Russian democracy and by putting forth and applying a new theory of political transition, this will provide a better context to view Russia in its current era of development. This will help to better understand the complex problems and underscore the importance of these elements in international diplomacy.

PROBLEM

The problem that is addressed is the promoted beliefs that Russia’s current developments are anti-democratic. These views are put forth by the mass media through press headlines and biased accounts in the press, advanced by political punditry and op/ed writers, publicly enforced by Politician’s public statements and cited by academics. The following is a list of three examples from each group.

Surveying mass media headlines - negative perceptions of freedoms in Russia

A New York Times headline on February 24, 2008 - "Putin’s Iron Grip on Russia Suffocates Opponents". In the article it states this:

“Over the past eight years, in the name of reviving Russia after the tumult of the 1990s, Mr. Putin has waged an unforgiving campaign to clamp down on democracy and extend control over the government and large swaths of the economy. He has suppressed the independent news media, nationalized important industries, smothered the political opposition and readily deployed the security services to carry out the Kremlin’s wishes.”(3)

On June 6, 2007 the Washington Post headline was, Message for Mr. Putin; Western leaders should tell him that a return to Soviet-style diplomacy won't help Russia.” The first paragraph of the article was the following:

“IN THE PAST few days, the anti-Western rhetoric of Russian President Vladimir Putin, which had been rising in pitch for several months, has reached Soviet levels of shrillness. He accused the United States of "imperialism" and "diktat" and threatened to target Europe with new Russian weapons. In an interview with foreign journalists, he cynically mocked Western democracy, saying that U.S. "torture, homelessness, [and] Guantanamo" and Europe's "harsh treatment of demonstrators" have left him as the only "absolute and pure democrat" in the world."(4)

The headline ran in the April 11, 2007 issue of the British newspaper, The Guardian “Russia Threatening New Cold War Over Missile Defense”. . In their editorial section the New York Times published, “Exit, Russian Democracy” on November 27, 2007 where it states:

“For a leader who has everything — control of the military, the government, the voting process and the media — President Vladimir Putin of Russia looks increasingly desperate and threatened ahead of parliamentary elections on Sunday. Polls suggest his United Russia party will win the balloting overwhelmingly, giving him leverage to continue wielding power in some form. But his greedy grab for victory while quashing credible political opposition demonstrates that this is no free and fair election and Russia is no democracy.” Further it states, “But Mr. Putin has so emasculated the democratic institutions that evolved in the 1990s that it is apparent he has little confidence in his people. The Kremlin controls the political process, deciding who can run for office and who gets access to national television coverage.”(5)

Charles Krauthammer described President Putin this way:

“He is a more modest man: a mere mafia don, seizing the economic resources and political power of a country for himself and his mostly KGB cronies. And promoting his vision of the Russian national interest — assertive and expansionist — by engaging in diplomacy that challenges the dominant power in order to boost his own.”(6)

Oliver North stated in his op-ed piece the following:

“Vladimir Putin is on a roll. Last month he made it clear he intends become prime minister — and keep the reins of power in the Kremlin —when his second presidential term ends in March 2008. Last week in the midst of a bravura "mini-summit" with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Mr. Putin wowed the fawning European press by shrugging off a carefully leaked rumor of an alleged assassination attempt and by speaking fluent German — a language he mastered as a KGB officer in Dresden during the Cold War.

All this apparently took U.S. diplomats and intelligence agencies by surprise. But wait, there's more. While in Germany, the macho Mr. Putin baldly told reporters — and therefore all those who might contemplate military action against Tehran — "threatening someone, in this case the Iranian leadership and the Iranian people, will lead nowhere. They are not afraid, believe me." And just to make sure everyone got his point, two days later he went to Tehran for a "Caspian littoral" summit and reiterated to the world that Russia would block any moves to stop Iran's nuclear program. And to ice Mr. Putin's cake, reputable polls show that more than 70 percent of Russians approve of his leadership. Officials in Washington, London and Paris don't seem to be worried — but they should be.”(7)

For a longer example of a political discussion see the appendix here.

In the realm of politicians, many prominent and international politicians have advanced this view. For example: Republican Presidential candidate Senator John McCain during a speech on March 26, 2008:

“The future of the transatlantic relationship lies in confronting the challenges of the twenty-first century worldwide: developing a common energy policy, creating a transatlantic common market tying our economies more closely together, addressing the dangers posed by a revanchist Russia, and institutionalizing our cooperation on issues such as climate change, foreign assistance, and democracy promotion. We should start by ensuring that the G-8, the group of eight highly industrialized states, becomes again a club of leading market democracies: it should include Brazil and India but exclude Russia. Rather than tolerate Russia's nuclear blackmail or cyber attacks, Western nations should make clear that the solidarity of NATO, from the Baltic to the Black Sea, is indivisible and that the organization's doors remain open to all democracies committed to the defense of freedom.”(8)

The former Czech President, Vaclav Havel has described modern Russia this way:

“Russia in the era of outgoing President Vladimir Putin is a new-style dictatorship ruled by KGB spies and mobsters, former Czech president Vaclav Havel said in a Wednesday interview with Lidove Noviny daily. "The era of president Putin brought a new type of dictatorship, dangerous in its inconspicuous fashion," said the Soviet-era dissident playwright turned Czech Republic's long-time post-communist president. The Putin rule has been a combination of "the worse from both communism and capitalism," Havel said. "A grouping, simply said, of KGBs and mafiosi has ascended to power”(9)

Bill Rammael, former Foreign Minister to Great Britain said:

“Britain's Foreign Minister Bill Rammel has shared his fears before visiting Russia. "We have certain doubts regarding the current situation with pluralism and free mass media in Russia. Both of these issues are key to democracy," stated the minister.”(10)

In the realm of Academia, as Steven Groves states in his article, Advancing Freedom in Russia, published by the Heritage Foundation:

“The current Moscow power establishment is leading Russia back in time. Instead of moving forward toward a nation that cherishes and protects freedom and democracy, the establishment is creating a state and body politic dominated by a new breed of oligarchic groups composed of security officers and their business allies. The Russian media are no longer free and unrestricted. With the exception of a few minor showcase outlets and the Internet, the media are dominated by the Kremlin and its allies. The majority of political parties are under state control, and the activities of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) with foreign ties are under severe scrutiny. Russia is no longer a free nation.”(11)

This point of view was also expressed in the Council on Foreign Affairs Task Force which was chaired by Former U.S. Senators John Edwards and Jack Kemp. It’s report stated:

“At a time when the president of the United States has made democracy a goal of American foreign policy, Russia’s political system is becoming steadily more authoritarian. Russia is a less open and less democratic society than it was just a few years ago, and the rollback of political pluralism and centralization of power there may not have run their course. Russia has used energy exports as a policy weapon—intervening in Ukraine’s politics, putting pressure on its foreign policy choices, and curtailing supplies to the rest of Europe. The reassertion of government control over the Russian energy sector increases the risk that this weapon will be used again. Russia and the United States may also be starting to diverge in their responses to the threat of terrorism. Russia has tried to curtail U.S. access to bases in Central Asia that support military operations in Afghanistan. President Putin raised further questions when, after agreeing with the United States and the European Union (EU) not to have high-level contact with Hamas, he invited its leaders to Moscow. Russia’s policies toward the states on its periphery have become a recurrent source of friction between Moscow and Washington and are increasingly entwined with other issues, including energy, counterterrorism, and support for democratic reform.”(12)

The international human rights watch group Amnesty International stated in their annual report concerning Russia:

“Human rights defenders and independent civil society came under increasing pressure. The authorities clamped down on the peaceful exercise of the rights to freedom of expression and assembly. Journalists were intimidated and attacked and one, Anna Politkovskaya, was killed. The authorities failed adequately to tackle racism and discrimination against people because of their ethnic identity or sexual orientation. Racist and homophobic attacks, some of them fatal, continued. Violence against women in the family was widespread and the state failed to provide adequate protection for women at risk. Police frequently circumvented safeguards designed to protect detainees against torture. Extrajudicial executions, enforced disappearances and abductions, torture including in unofficial detention centres, and arbitrary detentions continued in the North Caucasus region, in particular in Chechnya. In Chechnya, impunity remained the norm for those who committed human rights abuses, and people seeking justice faced intimidation and death threats. The European Court of Human Rights ruled that Russia had violated the rights to life, to liberty and security, to respect for private and family life and to an effective remedy, and to the prohibition of torture. The government failed to co-operate fully with international human rights mechanisms.”(13)

The common theme in all of these examples is to stress that Russia is not developing but regressing, not protecting human rights but violating them, not being peaceful but hostile, and is not creating a democracy but and authoritarian system. This problem is complicated by and begins with a misunderstanding of the terms used such as democracy and authoritarian.

DEFINITION OF TERMS

“The beginning of wisdom is the definition of terms” Socrates

How to define?

In order to have an understanding about why a country or group of people is labeled in a certain way one first must establish the meaning of the terms used to describe it. Political idealistic terms such as democracy have been debated since the formation of the Greek City states. Many brilliant minds for centuries, from political scientists to sociological experts, have different views on democracy which are in many cases all correct. Therefore, the Socratic Method will be used to define the terms democracy and authoritarianism.

It is necessary to begin with the definitions of the title. The first word to be defined is the key term “misconception”. A misconception or misunderstanding, fallacy, false impression or mistaken belief is the result of developing an idea or concept based on incomplete information. For the purposes of this paper the “idea” or “suggestion” is that Russia’s current political establishment is authoritarian and not democratic or at least regressing to its prior state. This is wrong due to the profound lack of information not widely discussed, presented, researched or even known by the masses. This misconception, that has unfortunately developed, is having a grotesquely negative effect on the societies and political establishment of the world’s two most powerful countries.

Defining Democracy

Even after more than 2,000 years of societal, cultural and political evolution, scholars still can not come to an agreement on the definition of the term democracy. This is because the word “democracy” is not necessarily tangible.

The word “democracy” when analyzed in its truest form is a combination of two Greek words, “demos” meaning people and “kratos” which means power. In essence it means: people power or power of the people, or power that is derived from the people. The power is run by the government. Ideally, this definition seems self-explanatory but the difficulty lies in how to develop a state and create order within that state when the guiding principle is “power of the people”. Given that man is a social animal, man comes into and creates a society in order to function effectively and attain a higher quality of life. The creation of a functioning state capable of providing amenities for the people that they can not provide for themselves, such as defense and security issues, requires the development of, and an experimentation with a structure and a rule set established in order to accomplish these goals. By necessity however, this takes power away from the people and transfers that power to the state. This naturally leads to the inquiry: what else can the “people” not do for themselves? By logical analysis, this can lead to the curbing or “roll back” of the principles of democracy. The on-going debate is when is enough, enough? When is the balance of power of the people equal to the balance of power of the state? When does the state have enough power to not only provide for the needs of its populous but also to protect their power? These questions lead scholars to attempt to find a more detailed or specific definition. Power of the state comes from the people.

When scholars use the standard “text book” definition which is taught in political science classes today, the definition of democracy is simply stated as “a form of government that is limited and puts most of the power in the hands of the people”. As Arend Lijphart writes in his book Patterns of Democracy: “The majoritarian interpretation of the basic definition of democracy is that it means “government by the majority of people.” Some definitions go further to point out certain “requirements” of a legitimate democracy, i.e.: constitution, protection of civil liberties, checks and balances, elections and an open economic system. As Andrew Heywood states in his book, Foundations Politics, concerning liberal democracy:

“Liberal democracy is a form of democratic rule that balances the principle of limited government against the ideal of popular consent. Its “liberal” features are reflected in a network of internal and external checks on government that are designed to guarantee liberty and afford citizens protection against the state. Its “democratic” character is based on a system of regular and competitive elections, conducted on the basis of universal suffrage and political equality. Although it may be used to describe a political principle, the term “liberal democracy” is more commonly used to describe a particular type of regime. The defining features of this type of regime are as follows:

• Government based on formal, usually legal, rules
• Guarantees of civil liberties and individual rights
• Institutionalized fragmentation and a system of checks and balances
• Regular election that represent the will of the people
• Party competition and political pluralism
• The independence of organized groups and interests from government
• A private-enterprise economy organized along market lines”(15)

The question after contemplating this definition is whether a country or society can provide all these things and be considered a democracy? There also needs to be a distinction between the legal, extra legal and illegal. For example, actions that are legal are permitted and defined by the constitution or founding documents. Extra legal is a function outside the realms of the constitution or founding documents, for example, in the United States the use of a super majority, 60 votes, to pass legislation in the Senate or the creation of rights which are not specifically mentioned in the constitution i.e. the right to privacy. Illegal is something that happens completely outside established law or contrary to a nation's founding documents. An example of this would be in the United States in 1986, the amnesty awarded to the 7 million illegal immigrants.

The restriction and simplification of the term democracy into a one sentence definition actually prevents the term democracy from being what it truly is: an ever-changing entity that means different things to different people and will be applied by states and people of states in different and ever-changing ways through the course of their history and culture. Democracy is a property of political ideas and historical cultural significance that has come together to form different things for different societies. It is similar to water that spreads over a wide area and adapts to its surrounding and seeps into to all fractions of society. However when one expands the definition to try to include all the aspects of democracy, one finds a contradiction. Arthur Lewis, a winner of the Nobel Prize, concluded that by majority rule you are by definition excluding a minority of people, and “to exclude the losing groups from participation in decision making clearly violates the primary meaning of democracy.”(16) Thus, the rights of the minority must be protected. The minority must have a voice. This should be stressed that just because you have a right to speak does not mean you have a right to be heard. This shows the eternal dilemma of how to guarantee the rights of the minority at the expense of the majority.

Another modern day (topic) that is being addressed is how the term democracy is being affected by globalization. Globalization is bringing people, capital, goods, and services together in a truly remarkable way. However this has a profound effect on the nation state. The democratic decisions made in one state or nation may have significant effects on the people of another sovereign state. This spill over effect can and often does complicate the foundations of the definition of democracy. As David Held presents in his book, Models of Democracy:

“The limits of a theory of politics that derives its terms of reference exclusively from the nation-state become apparent from a consideration of the scope and efficacy of the principle of majority rule; that is, the principle that decisions that accrue the largest number of votes should prevail. The application of this principle is at the center of all contemporary conceptions of democracy, and it is at the root of the claim of democratic political decisions to be regarded as worthy or legitimate. Problems arise, however, from a number of sources. In the first instance, they arise because many of the decisions of “a majority” or, more accurately, its representatives, affect (or potentially affect) not only their communities but citizens in other communities as well.”(17)

He continues by stating “The idea of a community that rightly governs itself and determines its own future – an idea at the very heart of the democratic polity – is today, accordingly problematic.”(18)

Often the term democracy is viewed as a political word and therefore should be strictly given a political definition within the context of the subject of politics. For example, Robert Dahl points this out in his book, On Democracy. He offers a definition of democracy by stating that:

“Democracy provides opportunities for: 1) Effective participation 2) Equality in voting 3) Gaining enlightened understanding 4) Exercising final control over the agenda and 5) Inclusion of adults.”(19)

Unfortunately this somewhat narrow definition provides no specific mention of a number of different “democratic ideals” such as equality for women, race or religious creed. However, it would be too simplistic to say that if you have “equality in voting,” then you meet the criterion for a democratic state. This is an inadequate definition because democracy is something that affects all aspects of society, not just the political bureaucracies in control of the nation. Democratic principles should be carried over onto the economy and culture as well, all of which will influence the “type” of democracy in any particular regime.

"Freedom is 90% Economic and 10% Political"

Dr. Thomas PM Barnett, a global strategist, said in a briefing he gave on June 6, 2005 that many people believe that freedom is 90% political and 10% economic; however in reality it isthe other way around. Freedom is better defined as 90% economic and 10% political. “Economic freedom tells me I can go where I want; buy what I want and when I want to do it. I vote; and yell at CNN once in while.”(20) Barnett’s theory, inspired by Thomas Friedman’s, The Lexis and the Olive Tree, is based on economic global connectivity. In short, as a society is more connected economically to globalization, democracy will grow over time because the freedoms people enjoy through economics will eventually raise the demand for political freedom as well. The effects of economics will pay and play an important role in the development of the New Economic Policy and Perestroika.

As the 2006 CRS defines democracy in its report, Democracy in Russia: Trends and Implications for U.S. Interest:

“Most analysts agree that modern democracy includes the peaceful change of leaders through popular participation in elections. Also, political powers are separated and exercised by institutions that check and balance each others’ powers, hence impairing a tyranny of power. Democracies generally have free market economies, which depend upon the rule of law and private property rights. The rule of law is assured through an independent judicial and legal system. The accountability of government officials to the citizenry is assured most importantly through elections that are freely competed and fairly conducted. An informed electorate is assured through the government’s obligation to publicize its activities (termed transparency) and the citizenry’s freedom of expression.”(21)

Modern Russia displays many of the key features such as peaceful transitions of power, modern election systems, equality of voting, equality of opportunity, a nationally approved constitution which puts forth the separated system of power into three branches, executive, legislative and judiciary. These elements were weakly established in the 1990’s, and only with time, reforms, and a strong leader can they become more grounded and lead to the establishment of a strong democratic nation.

In the span of modern democratic history, Russia has had little time, only 15 years, to develop it’s democratic government. One note of comparison is that 15 years after the United States Constitution was ratified, slavery was still legal, women could not vote, African Americans could not vote and most of the power on the local level was held by rich landowners, who in many cases used their influence to shape policy, local and national. Actually, it was not until 175 years after the constitution was ratified that ALL people, Whites, African Americans and women, were considered equal with the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. A certain historical irony is that Russia under the authoritarian Tsars actually freed their serfs under Tsar Alexander II two years before Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves in the United States. Even today this debate still rages and carries over in the United States into new demographic groups, most notably, concerning the rights of homosexuals and illegal residents.

In addition, one should also consider the geographic size of Russia. Russia is the biggest country in the world which adds to the significance of how long it will take for “democratic” ideas to reach and affect the whole. During a recent meeting at the American Chamber of Commerce (AmCham), a government relations spokesman from the tobacco company Phillip Morris was giving a briefing on the effects of lobbying in Russia. He said that one of the problems is that when a new law is passed from the Kremlin, most people in the regions have no idea of it because they don’t receive any information on it. This has caused Phillip Morris as well as other companies to fly to the different regions, of which there are currently 83, and inform the regional governments of the new laws that affect everything from property rights, legal processes, dues and business practices.

Understanding Russia in these contexts helps to put things in perspective and proves that Russia is not predominantly authoritarian but more over is developing democratic values, mainly through the FDI. Many democratic values are still being hotly debated and values that have already been universally agreed upon will take a long time to settle in.

American and European Democracies - A Practical Application

When one studies the development of modern day Europe or post-World War II Europe, one will find a variety of European democracies that range from the Westminster model or Consensus model such as in Great Britain, to a Federal Parliamentary Republic, such as Germany or a Direct Democracy such as in Switzerland. Each nation has created its own form of democratic government not only of strictly political improvements but also of economic and cultural advancements. Time is also an important factor to consider when discussing the maturity of democratic institutions that will continue to evolve and attempt to perfect.

Looking at modern democracies today, one discovers a plethora of different examples of how each country develops the details of its democratic system to its own history and culture. This Thesis will demonstrate examples throughout Europe which will prove that democracies are different and do not adhere to a specific format and neither does modern Russian democracy.
When discussing European democracies as a general topic, the definition employed is provided by Jurg Steiner in his book, European Democracies, where he states,

“In a broad sense, we can define democracy as a regime in which citizens elect their leaders in regular and competitive elections and in which basic civil liberties are protected. Although this definition helps to distinguish countries that are clearly democratic from countries that are clearly undemocratic, we also must distinguish between different levels of democracy: Elections may give citizens more or less say in the political process, and civil liberties may be more or less protected.”(22)

Modern Russia is an Immature Democracy

Modern Russia clearly fits this definition. This will be further examined in the section concerning the Presidency of Vladimir Putin and democracy’s truest defining characteristic of personal freedom.

The definition of democracy cannot simply be considered in the context of politics. At the same time, it cannot be expanded to include everything. For the purposes of this thesis, the working definition of democracy is as follows: Democracy is the ability of the state to provide and ensure individual freedom of choice to the people in their daily lives.

Endnotes

(1) Sharansky, Natan “The Case for Democracy” p. 29.
(2) Barger and Luckmann, “The Social Construction of Reality” p.3.
(3) New York Times February 26 2008 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/world/europe/24putin.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Russia+Putin+Democracy&st=nyt&oref=slogin
(4) Washington Post June 8, 2007 http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost/access/1283066201.html?dids=1283066201:1283066201&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=Jun+6%2C+2007&author=&pub=The+Washington+Post&edition=&startpage=A.22&desc=Message+for+Mr.+Putin%3B+Western+leaders+should+tell+him+that+a+return+to+Soviet-style+diplomacy+won%27t+help+Russia
(5) New York Times, November 27, 2007
(6) Krauthammer, Charles. “Russia Godfather” National Review February 16th 2007 http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZGUyMmEwMTY2ZTk5YmEzNDNkOGQxNjQ0YWE1MTA3NTI=\
(7) North, Oliver. The Washington Times. “Putin the Puppet Master” October 21st 2007
(8) McCain, John. – March 26th 2008 - http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/Speeches/872473dd-9ccb-4ab4-9d0d-ec54f0e7a497.htm
(9) Havel, Vaclav. Russia is Ruled by KGB Spies and Mobsters. March 23, 2008 http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=220030
(10) Rammel, Bill. “Traces of Modern Dictatorship in Russia” -http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/8153-17.cfm
(11) Groves, Steven. “Advancing Freedom in Russia” Heritage Foundation November 2007 - http://www.heritage.org/Research/WorldwideFreedom/bg2088.cfm
(12) Council On Foreign Relations Report, “Russia’s Wrong Direction and What the United States Should Do” March 2006 p.5.
(13) Amnesty International Annual Report 2007 - http://www.amnestyusa.org/annualreport.php?id=ar&yr=2007&c=RUS
(14) Lijphart, Arend 1999: “The Consensus Model of Democracy”. In: Lijphart, Arend: Patters of Democracy. Yale University Press, London, p.31.
(15) Heywood, Andrew 1997: “Governments, Systems and Regimes”. In: Heywood, Andrew: Foundations Politics. MacMillan Press, London, p.28.
(16) Lijphart, Arend 1999: “The Consensus Model of Democracy”. In: Lijphart, Arend: Patters of Democracy. Yale University Press, London, p.31.
(17) Held, David 1996: “Democracy, The Nation-State and the Global System”. In: Held, David: Models of Democracy. Stanford University Press, Stanford p.337.
(18) Ibid.
(19) Dahl, Robert A. 1998 (I): “Part II: Ideal Democracy”. In: Dahl, Robert A.: On Democracy. New Haven, London, p. 38.
(20) Barnett, Thomas PM. “Shrinking the Gap - Globalization and US National Security Video of presentation at Sandia Labs (June 2005).
(21) Nicol, Jim 2006: “Russian Democratization”. In: Nicol, Jim: Democracy in Russia: Trends and Implications for U.S. Interest. CRS Report, Library of Congress p. 7.
(22) Steiner, Jurg 1998: “Introduction”. In: Steiner, Jurg: European Democracies. Longman, New York, p.xv.