Peter the Great - autocrat, westernizer and modernizer of Russia

Russia's Growing Clout in International Affairs

As Russia’s economy grows and becomes more reliable and stable, Russia has an increasing desire to play a greater role not only in economic global affairs but political affairs as well. This is a natural progression of a Nation which has occurred numerous times in the course of world history. The policy of U.S. President Teddy Roosevelt is an example. Roosevelt's guiding principle of "walk softly but carry a big stick" in the early 20th Century is parallel to modern rising powers such as Russia, China, Brazil and India.

Tensions in the relationship between Russia and the West arise when Russia decides to meet with the Palestinian group Hamas which has been labeled an international terrorist group by the United States’ State Department. In addition, Russian dignitaries have also held meeting with the leader of Iran and signed a growing number of trade agreements, not the least of which is arms sales agreements with China and Venezuela. The result of these actions has the United States and its European allies a little nervous. This is a natural reaction given the United States policy of support for democratic regimes and the Global War on Terror, which the Russian meetings, the U.S. side claims, seek to undermine.

Russia’s growing ability to add political influence in areas dominated by the U.S. is believed to be a threat to both Washington and Brussels for two reasons.

1) It is counter productive to Western interests

2) If Russia can bring about an agreement and a possible peaceful settlement to some of these complicated issues, for example a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, there is a fear in Washington that the U.S. will have lost its influence in that region, and also that the world will start looking to Russia as the world’s chief diplomat instead of the U.S. in the future.

What Russia Owes the World

Russia’s rise economically and politically should not be viewed as a threat but as an opportunity and a natural progression of a more globalizing country. Russia was a very influential political player for most of its history from the days of the Russian Empire to the U.S.S.R and now after the traumatic decade of the 1990s, Russia has been able to rebuild internally and now desires to regain lost influence on the world stage. The fact that Russia is playing a greater role means that Russians should accept more responsibility for diplomacy and security in certain regions and the U.S. and Europe should urge this upon Russia. This is a key point that should not be overlooked. The more powerful and influential a nation becomes, the more responsibilities come with it. To be the leader means that you have a certain amount of power to set the rules, for example in the areas of trade and security policy.

However, to be the leader also means that you have heightened responsibilities. Leadership has not been Russia’s stated goal. Russia has stated repeatedly that it desires a multi-polar world. This by definition means that they acquire a share of power, but not the ability to rule or dominate in anyway. This necessarily means a relative loss of power and influence for the U.S. and this has stoked rivarly between Washington and Moscow.

Russia's Unique Geopolitical Position Astride Europe, Asia and the Islamic World

Russia has stated repeatedly that it wants to preserve the peace and the reasons for its desire should be evident. The geography of Russia itself and where it is physically placed in the world are key factors in Russia’s desire for continuing peace. Security is a primary concern for Russia. The current places of intense conflict in the world, i.e. Iraq and Afghanistan, are regions that are physically closer to Russia than the U.S. and thus pose a greater danger and threat to it.

Location is a principal factor in Russian anxiety over its vulnerability to major terrorist attacks, which the Russians discovered after the Beslan attack. Another feature is significant budget cuts and severe morale issues in Russia’s military, which can not afford a major confrontation. This was clearly demonstrated by the conflict in Chechnya. Therefore, Russia wants a share in the decision making responsibility and a right to determine issues because in fact they have a greater impact on Russia than the U.S.

The Post 9-11 Decline of U.S.-Russia Relations

The relationship between President Bush and President Putin got worse when President Bush proceeded with plans for a missile defense system that would require the installation of a radar and ballistic missile shield in close proximity to Russian territory. The relationship got worse still when President Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq. These events, that have had an impact on the relationship, were no doubt amplified by the media on both sides.

Russian-American Shared History

In conclusion it should be noted that Russian American relations have in a way come full circle from a historical perspective. The relationship started even before the formal political recognition of each other through the Russian-American Company, which was established by Tsar Paul I in 1799. This was a fur trading enterprise established by Russian traders in Alaska and eventually spread south through what is today California. Eventually the business was brought to a close due to the sale of Alaska in 1867 from Russia to the United States. By that time, the relationship had spilled over to deeper commercial, cultural and political ties.

Through the convention of 1824 and the Russian American Commercial Treaty of 1832, there developed an increase in trade, formalization of trade practices, an opening of Pacific ports, a settlement of land claims and the creation of favored nation trade status between our two nations. As technology and industry advanced, opportunities for trade agreements and commercial profit did as well.

By the 19th and 20th century, business between Russia and America grew beyond furs and agriculture. American engineers journeyed to Russia to consult on the construction of the Moscow-St. Petersburg Railroad project in 1842. Later, American investors helped finance the construction of the Trans-Siberian Railroad. In 1853 Russia and the United States established the Organization of Russian American Commercial Company. This commercialized Alaskan ice to be used in the building of ice houses in Sitka, Alaska. In 1865 Russia welcomed the American sewing company Singer to Russian territory. By 1907, Ford Motor Company had arrived in Russia.

U.S.-Russia Humanitarian and Security Cooperation

Ties were further strengthened by American humanitarian aid given to Russia during the Crimean War in the 1850’s and the Great Famines of the 1890’s and 1921. Catherine the Great of Russia denied Britain’s request for Russian Cossacks to be used against the Continental Army during the American Revolution. Russia helped the United States during the Civil War by supporting the Union and advocating reunification. Also, during World War I and the Great Patriotic War, Russia and the United States enjoyed a strong alliance. And, when tragedy struck the United States on September 11, 2001, Russian President Putin was the first foreign leader to console President Bush and offer aid and support when and where it was needed. In 2005 Russian relief aided the victims of Hurricane Katrina which destroyed much of the American Gulf Coast.

The Cold War Breach and the Restoration of Friendly Relations

However, the great progress of these two nations had been interrupted for a time due to domestic transitions and ideological differences. The atrocities and aggressive nature of the Communist regime severally damaged relations. Although Russia and the United States never completely severed ties, their relationship fell to a rocky and hostile standstill. One unfortunate consequence of this still felt today was the loss of Russia’s "most favored nation status" concerning trade.

This struggle for dominance between two diametrically opposed systems was short lived in the span of history, for which the world can thank both nations. Today Russian and American relations have moved away from the Cold War face off and are again growing in significant commercial ties. Russian markets are quickly gaining notoriety and becoming increasingly competitive in a globalizing world. American businesses are leading the way by participating in Russian progress with now more than 1,000 businesses operating in Russia and more to arrive in the near future.

These commercial ties will pave the way to stronger political and cultural ties, just like they did in the beginning of the relationship. Programs ranging from educational and medical exchanges as well as sister city programs and the contributions of major charitable foundations are already growing between Russia and America. Competitors in space over time led to an international partnership, creating the international space station as well as joint shuttle missions. This is not however to overshadow the significant agreements made already concerning nuclear proliferation and terrorism.

False Beliefs About Modern Russia Contribute to Poor Relations

The misconceptions of Russia’s current political transition effects both economic and diplomatic ties. The belief that Russia under President Putin is somehow more authoritarian while President Yeltsin’s term was more democratic is a complete myth. As Stephen Kotkin wrote in his article, Myth of the New Cold War

“Two clashing myths have opened a gulf of misunderstanding towards Russia. First is the myth in the west that the chaos and impoverishment under Yeltsin amounted to a rough democracy, which Putin went on to destroy. When something comes undone that easily, it was probably never what it was cracked up to be. Still, the myth of Russia's overturned democracy unites Cold War nostalgias, who miss the enemy, with a new generation of Russia-watchers, many of whom participated earnestly in the illusory 1990s democracy-building project in Russia and are now disillusioned (and tenured). Second is the myth, on the Russian side, that the KGB was the one Soviet-era institution that was uncorrupted, patriotic and able to restore order. This credits Putin's stooge entourage for the economic liberalization that was actually pushed through by the non-KGB personnel around him.”(42)

There is a false impression that throughout Russian’s entire history there was no attempts at democratic institutions. There in fact were many attempts.

SECTION II
RUSSIAN DEMOCRACY - A Historical Perspective

In order to understand Russian Democracy, one should first answer the question “how Authoritarian was Russian Authoritarianism?” There is no doubt that for the majority of Russian history, Russia was governed by an authoritative or totalitarian regime. Close examinations of Russian history however reveal a very small and seemingly insignificant democratic counter culture. This over time grew and slowly influenced the governing regimes which eventually led to the acceptance and granting of individual freedoms. It is often thought that the Berlin Wall, which was torn down in 1989, was significant because it ended the era of communism. This is short sighted because it brought about the end of something much bigger, the end of authoritarianism in Russia forever. After all of the attempts from Peter the Great and Catherine the Great, to open society and bring about change, Mikhail Gorbachev finally made it happen and flooded Russian society, that for centuries was trying to play catch up, with new and modern ideas, fears and opportunity. This transition was long over due, the beginnings of which are centuries old. From the times of Kiev and Rus through Tsarist Russia, the embryonic democratic institutions were unfortunately never given the ability to fully mature as they are today.

All of these democratic experiences built upon each other and over time influenced the Russian psyche to not give up the demand for freedom. Now finally, Russia has the ability to explore life’s full potential. The era of communism was a distorted socialist attempt to prevent democratic development and keep people under control.

Russian Democracy: Not Just a Western Import

There are two regions of Russia that should be specifically recognized for the democratic beginnings, Novgorod and Pskov. As Serge Zenkovsky discusses in his book, Medieval Russia’s Epics, Chronicles, and Tales:

“In southern and central Russia the princes eventually established their undisputed rule over the Russian cities and principalities, and their ancient people’s assembly, the Veche, which had played an important role in many Russian cities before the twelfth century, gradually declined in importance. But in the cities of Novgorod and Pskov, in northwestern Russia, the power of the princes was curbs by the Veche and became the principle ruling institution.”(43)

After a significant amount of time both were consolidated by the City of Moscow and eventually become part of the Russian State. This came at a great price which is described in James Billington’s work, The Icon and the Axe:

“The political subordination of Novgorod to Moscow intensified Muscovite fanaticism while crushing out three distinctive traditions which Novgorod and Pskov had shared with advanced cities of high medieval West: commercial cosmopolitanism, representative government, and philosophic rationalism.”(44)

There are certain minor but also noteworthy reforms by the Russian tsars and these initial signs actually did influence, even though on a significantly small scale, reforms of the political structure. This is mentioned in Isabel De Madariage’s thoroughly researched book, Ivan the Terrible, where she writes:

“The political nature of the “assembly” is better explained by a suggestion put forward by the historian G. Vrnadsky. He argued that the original popular gatherings of 1547 – which organized the riot after the fire in Moscow, and the murder of Iuri Glinsky – may have been derived from some latent communal memory of the past role in political life of the popular Veche, the medieval, unelected, town assemblies of all the heads of the free families, and that the gatherings which took place in 1549, 1550, 1551 etc. should rather be envisaged as tserkovno-zemskie sobory (Church and Land Assemblies).”(45)

This was not the permanent establishment of a political institution, however examples such as these in the Tsar’s Russia in addition to the failed but significantly democratically-liberal provisional government of 1917 and the contradictive NEP 1923-1929 in the era of Communism, planted the seeds to what would eventually become an institution in the later part of the 20th century.

During the reigns of Princes, Tsars and Communists, Russia was clearly, with out a doubt, very authoritarian. This is an inescapable fact but there are democratic institutional “echoes” as James Billington says, that are carried over from one age to another. As he states in, The Icon and the Axe, “Like the druzhina (or consultative war band of the prince), the Veche represented a survival from Kievan times that was alien to the traditions of Byzantine autocracy."(46)

Countries and people are a product of their experiences, and a nation like an individual can only be explained by looking at the total of all its experiences. This includes seemly insignificant attempts of creating democratic institutions that are overshadowed and forgotten throughout Russia’s long history of authoritarian. This is the missing piece in finally explaining the unexplainable.

Winston Churchill said that, “Russia is an enigma rapped in a riddle surrounded in a mystery.” While that statement may be an apt description it also is an excuse to not take the time to understand the long misconception. In order to provide a more complete context one has to examine certain events in Russian History.

The Roots of Representative Government in Russia:
The Novgorod Region in Northwest Russia

One of the oldest cities in Russia, Novgorod, was a very powerful and influential city and region in medieval Russia. Novgorod had and still today has significant ties to the west or Europe. What makes the city of Novgorod so unique was the structure of its medieval ruling body. As Thomas Riha states in his book, Readings in Russian Civilization, “Novgorod, in the days of its power, is in name an elective Principality, in fact something like a democratic Republic”. The city in the 12th century had established a popular assembly what is known as the Veche. The Veche was the highest legislature and judicial authority in the Republic of Novgorod until 1478. This development began with the Novgorod revolution of 1137 which overthrew the ruling prince, thereby making the Veche the supreme state authority. This significantly limited the ruling prince's power.

Reforms in 1410 restructured the Veche and modeled it similar to that of Venice, Italy. In the course of these reforms a bicameral legislative body, the Commons chamber or the lower house of the parliament and an upper Senate-like Council of Lords were established. This provided title membership for all former city magistrates. Members of the Veche or parliamentarian deputies were called Vechniks and membership may have been a full-time position.

The assembly of Novgorod could be summoned by anyone who rang the Veche bell. This bell was a symbol of republican sovereignty and independence and when it was rung, the entire population of the city - boyars, merchants, and common citizens - gathered at Yaroslavl’s Court. Separate assemblies could be held in the outer districts of Novgorod. The assembly was the highest authority in Novgorod and was composed of members from the urban population, as well as of the rural population. The Novgorodian city life was governed by elected mayors, who were the mediators between the public and the Novgorodian prince. The governmental body had the power to elect mayors, military leaders, and archbishops from among the boyars.
The archbishop was the head of the executive branch and the richest feudal lord of Novgorod. He owned and controlled most of the lands and sources of income, which were transferred to him from the Prince of Kiev. The archbishop was in charge of the treasury, prosecution and foreign relations.

Regular merchants and craftsmen participated in the political affairs of Novgorod. They had their own "unions" and were divided into groups which were divided according to which street one lived on. Moreover the Veche had the right to levy taxes. As the chronicle itself states:

“A.D. 1209. The men of Novgorod held a Veche over Posadnik Dmitri and his brethren, because they had ordered the levying of silver on the people of Novgorod, for collecting money throughout the district, fines from merchants, for enforcing the collection of taxes at fixed times and everything bad.”(48)

Starting in the 12th century, the heads of these unions began to exercise their right to ratify the most important government documents. To rule Novgorod, a ruler had to be invited by the Veche from other principalities, which would then sign a contract with him. This contract insured the protection of interests of the Novgorodian boyars. The rulers of Novgorod were chosen from among the princes of Vladimir since the mid-13th century. As Riha points out, “The power of these Electoral Princes rested mainly on their own personality, and their capacity of maintaining popular support. In modern language, Novgorod is largely governed by a party system.” The duties of the ruler were restricted; however, he was a military leader. The most notable ruler of Novgorod was Alexander Nevsky.

It should be noted that the city and region of Novgorod was eventually captured and annexed by the city of Moscow which eventually became the Russian state. As Billington writes in his definitive work, The Icon and the Axe:

“The final silencing of the assembly bell in Novgorod in 1478 ended the tradition of relative freedom from imperial authority and partial popular rule which until then Novgorod had shared with many commercial cities of the West.”(50)

The symbolism and the influence of the image of the bell itself is one of the many recurring themes throughout Russian History. Billington describes this in great detail and argues that true historical record, which began in the late 14th Century, should be taken into consideration. As he states in his book, The Icon and the Axe:

To determine how much of Old Russian culture may have survived, one must leave aside these recurring symbols from the remote past and turn to the historical record, which begins in the fourteenth century to provide a rich if bewildering flow of accomplishments that extends without interruption.(51)

It should be duly noted that this initial speck of democracy is still felt with great pride today. As the 2007 NIC Report, The Putin Era in a Historical Perspective, states:

“Government-business relations in the late Tsarist period, however, could serve as a positive model for today’s Russia, as high officials were prohibited from holding business positions. Novgorod, returning to its historical roots as a trade city, remains an encouraging example of what is possible in Russia. Its political and business leaders are seeking to become a model of transparency and honesty in dealings with Western investors.”(52)

This is evidence of a significant part of the great untold story of Russian democracy.

The Pskov Region in Northwest Russia

Another region that is worthy of mention in regards to the founding of democratic institutions that begin in early Russia is Pskov. Pskov organized a Veche in a very similar way to its neighboring city Novgorod. Economic development, close relationship with Novgorod, and military threats due to the frontier status led to the development of the Veche system in the Pskov Republic. The prince had a subordinate role to the Veche. The Veche elected mayors, an official who represented a hundred households and regulated the relations between feudal lords, merchants and craftsmen, elected officials and peasants. The boyar council had influence on the decisions that the Veche made. Elective office was viewed as a privilege of several noble families and not an entitlement.

Some of the most notable differences from the Republic of Novgorod were that Pskov never had large feudal landowners, the estates were smaller and even more spread out and many of the social relations which had taken shape in the Pskov were embodied in the Legal Code of Pskov.
The Legal Code addressed the issues of socio-economic and political life in Pskov. The code ensured the protection of private property, feudal landownership, regulated actions for registration of landownership, provided a court assessment of land disputes, and defined the position of feudally dependent peasants.

The Legal Code also regulated trade relations, and labor standards for example, purchasing, selling, pawning, loans, and the hiring of labor. The Legal Code of Pskov became one of the most important sources of the Ivan III Law Code in 1497.

This Veche system played a vital role in Russia’s development. As Nicolai Petro states in his book, The Rebirth of Russian Democracy:

“Unlike Western parliaments, the zemsky sobor (sometimes referred to in English as “popular councils”) emerged not from the grievances expressed by the gentry but from the tsar’s well-established custom of consulting “good and sensible persons” chosen by the people to advise him on matters of domestic and foreign policy. The first recorded popular council coincides with Ivan IV’s adoption of the new title “tsar” in 1547 and clearly reflects an attempt to re-establish for all of Muscovy the semi democratic practices customary in the Kievan Rus.”(53)

Similar to Novgorod however, Pskov was soon absorbed by the influence of Moscow and in 1510, the end of the Pskov Veche occurred.

Tsar Ivan IV (Grozny)

In addition to being one of Russia’s most notorious Tsars, Ivan IV, Grozny or Terrible mostly known for his cruelty to his own citizens, specifically the creation of the Oprichnina and its slaughter of Novgorod, was actually the first Russian ruler to organize a major democratic institution. As Billington discusses in his book, The Icon and the Axe, “Meanwhile, this defender of total autocracy had become the first ruler in Russian history to summon a representative national assembly: the zemsky sobor of 1566.”(54) The zemsky sobor is considered the first Russian parliament of the feudal estates type, in the 16th and 17th centuries. The definition of which is an assembly of the land.

This assembly could be summoned either by tsar, or patriarch, or the Boyar Duma. The assembly consisted of three portions of population all who participated in the assembly:

• Nobility and high bureaucracy, including the Boyar Duma.
• The Holy Sobor of high Orthodox clergy.
• Representatives of merchants and townspeople (third estate).

The first zemsky sobor was held by Ivan in 1549 and throughout his reign he held a number of such gatherings. They became a common tool used to enact major pieces of legislation or to decide controversial issues. Although these assemblies were primarily a tool used to rubberstamp decisions that Ivan had already made, sometimes initiative was taken by the lower nobility and townsfolk. For instance, when the Tsar was scandalized, the assembly of 1566 asked him to abolish the Oprichnina, Ivan's feared secret police.

Tsar Boris Godunov

When Ivan IV died causing the remnants of the Rurik Dynasty to die out in 1598, the sobor appointed Boris Godunov as the next tsar. As De Madariaga mentions, “The first assembly to qualify as a genuine political institution was the assembly of 1598, which elected Boris Godunov to the throne of Russia.” (55)

His election was proposed by the Patriarch Job of Moscow, who acted on the belief that Boris was the only man capable of coping with the unexpected difficulties of the transition of power. Boris accepted the throne from the assembly, who unanimously elected him.

Later still another grand council, featuring even peasants, elected Mikhail Romanov to take the throne in 1613, after Boris Godunov was forced to abdicate the throne, which began the Time of Troubles.

The “echoes” of the sobor played an important and influential part during the transition of ruling families; also know as the “Time of Troubles”. Billington states:

“Then, in 1598, when the line of succession came to an end in Russia also, they turned to the Polish procedure of electing a ruler – the ill-fated Boris Godunov – in a specially convened zemsky sobor: the first since 1566. For a quarter of a century thereafter these sobors became even more broadly representative, and were in many ways the supreme political authority in the nation. Not only in 1598 but in 1606, 1610, 1611 and 1613 roughly similar representative bodies made the crucial decisions on the choice of succession to the throne.”(56)

This is also stated in Nicolai Petro’s research:

“Having served its function in establishing the monarchy, however the popular council did not disband but continued to serve as the deliberate body of government. Subsequent sessions generally consisted of two bodies. The first, a gathering of the Duma nobles and high ranking clergy, included both hereditary and appointed members. The second, a body of elected representatives, consisted of the military, city people, representatives from the Moscow “Black Hundreds” (the term for impoverished street people), and representatives from outlying regions of the country. Although the peasantry had no distinct representation, their views were heard through all the district mires of the northern regions of Russia, which elected representatives jointly with the townspeople.”(57)

During Mikhail's reign, when the Romanov dynasty was still weak, such assemblies were summoned annually. Once the Romanov family was firmly in power, however, the sobor gradually lost its power. The major council assembled to ratify the Treaty of Pereyaslav in 1654 protecting the Ukrainian Cossacks was the last for thirty years. The last sobors were held by the noble family Galitzine in 1682, to abolish the feudal hierarchy, and in 1684, to ratify the "Eternal Peace" with Poland.

Tsar Peter I (Great)

The reign of one of Russia’s most honored Tsars brought about tremendous change for Russia. Peter dragged Russia toward western modernization. His most notable reforms were the creation of the Governing Senate, the establishment of the Holy Synod, the Table of Ranks, and the Collegium. The Governing Senate was chaired by the head of the Holy Synod. This was a legislative, judicial and executive body of Russian Monarchs. The Senate replaced the ineffective Boyar Duma. This proved to be a very successful reform due to the fact that it lasted until the very end of the Russian Empire.

The Holy Synod was a restructuring of the Russian Orthodox Church. In 1700 the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church who was originally the head of the church died. Peter refused to appoint another patriarch and decided to create a council of 10 clergymen to administer and make church decisions. He thus took away the power of the one and spread it over to a small body.

Peter also reformed the system of class hierarchy with the creation of the Table of Ranks. The Table of Ranks essential took power away from the privileged and based a person’s class or rank on his or her accomplishments. It was possible to be promoted from one rank to another which was based on merit. This forced equality of the masses meant hard work, deeds and opportunity replaced inherited privileged hierarchy.

In order to more effectively and efficiently rule Russia, Peter created the Collegium. The Collegium was a collection of ministries and departments that divided the duties of the government. It functioned very similar to the way a presidential cabinet functions today. However it should also be said that Peter’s forceful reforms were met with opposition. As Nicolai Petro states in his book, The Rebirth of Russian Democracy:

“In response to Peter’s efforts to force a more rapid pace of westernization, civic associations spontaneously formed in the larger urban centers and among the northern peasantry (former Novgorod lands) to defend their traditional customs, way of life, and self government against state intrusion.”(58)

Petro argues that this desire to hold on to these traditional values is what led to an unstable monarchy in years to come.

Tsarinas Catherine I, Anna and Elizabeth

Catherine I was the second wife of Peter the Great and eventually ruled Russia for 2 years after Peter’s death. Catherine was the first of a dynasty of women to rule the Russian Empire for almost a century. However despite a short reign, Catherine did make reforms and created the Supreme Privy Council. This council was set up as an advisory board to the tsarina. The empress authorized the council to exercise power similar to the tsar with the exception of succession. The power of the council grew to the point where soon the Governing Senate which Peter created, was subordinate to it. When the time came when Catherine’s successor Peter II died without an heir, the Privy Council made the decision to pass the thrown to Anna. To keep Anna under control of the council and to limit her power, the council mandated that she sign a decree which kept the powers of taxation and declarations of war in the hands of the council. This was inspired by similar developments in England at the time and could have eventually evolved Russia to a constitutional monarchy if Anna had not destroyed the decree, disbanded and exiled the council.

Despite the reversals of Tsarina Anna’s more authoritarian tactics, most notable was the creation of the secret police whom she used to suppress political dissident, the Empress Elizabeth restored the senate that was initiated by Peter the Great.

Tsarina Catherine II (The Great)

After the short 6 month reign of Peter II, Catherine the Great became a profound Russian monarch. Not only due to her ability to gain respect from a country that she was not even born into, but also because of her constant engagement of the west. Her correspondence with radical western writers and scholars, such as Voltaire, Montesquieu and even Thomas Jefferson, is well documented. It is through these connections that Catherine was able to govern effectively by adding a democratic institution. As Nicolai Petro states in The Rebirth of Russian Democracy:

“In 1766, therefore, Catherine created an elected legislative commission to help her rule the country, restoring to the gentry, townspeople and peasants living on the state lands some sense of involvement in politics. Of the 565 elected commissioners, only 28 represented state institutions. The rest were elected representatives from various groups of the population. The gentry elected one deputy from each uyezd, or district, city dwellers one from each city, state peasants one from each province. In addition there where special provisions for the representation of ethnic minorities, Cossacks’ and lower level public servants. In all, 30 percent were representatives of the gentry, 39 percent urban dwellers, 14 percent state peasants, 5 percent government institutions, and 12 percent others.”(59)

Like Peter before her, Catherine the Great became an aggressive and progressive reformer who knew that western ideas would inevitably modernize Russia. Unfortunately her heir, Paul I, was eccentric and worked vehemently to undo Catherine’s policies before he was assassinated.

Endnotes

(42) Kotkin, Stephen. “Myth of the New Cold War” March 27, 2008 http://www.ocnus.net/artman2/publish/Analyses_12/Myth_of_the_New_Cold_War.shtml
(43) Zenkovsky, Serge A.: “Tales from the Novgorodian Chronicle”, In: Medieval Russia’s Epics Chronicles and Tales”, Vanderbuilt University Middlesex England 1963 p.77
(44) Billington, James H.: “The Forest” In: “The Icon and the Axe” Vintage Books, New York: 1966 p.82
(45) De Madariaga, Isabel.: “The Government of Compromise”, In: Ivan the Terrible”, Yale University Press, London 2005 p.77
(46) Billington. p.83
(47) Riha, Thomas: “Chronicle of Novgorod” In: Readings in Russian Civilization”, University of Chicago Press, London 1964. p.30
(48) Ibid. P. 39
(49) Ibid.
(50) Billington, James H.: “The Forest” In: “The Icon and the Axe” Vintage Books, New York: 1966 p.41
(51) Ibid. p. 43
(52) NIC Report 2007 - http://www.dni.gov/nic/PDF_GIF_confreports/putin_era.pdf
(53) Petro, Nicolai N, “The Rebirth of Democracy in Russia” p.32
(54) Billington p.99
(55) De Madariaga. P.78
(56) Billington, p.100
(57) Petro, p.33
(58) Petro p.35-36
(59) Petro p. 36

Kevin Cyron is a native of Burke, Virginia, USA and a graduate of Marymount University. Mr. Cyron has worked on the staff of Congressmen Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Steny Hoyer (D-MD) and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) in Washington D.C., and for an MP in the European Parliament in Brussels. In 2005, Mr. Cyron moved to St. Petersburg, Russia to begin his Masters degree in European Studies the following year. While completing his Masters, Mr. Cyron worked for the American Chamber of Commerce in Russia. Mr. Cyron graduated from St. Petersburg State University with an M.A. in Sociology in June 2008.