In an interview last year with Germany's Der Spiegel magazine, the elderly former Soviet dissident and writer Alexander Solzhenitsyn said, "Putin inherited a ransacked and bewildered country, with a poor and demoralized people. And he started to do what was possible -- a slow and gradual restoration."

SECTION V
CONCLUSIONS

“With in every democracy contains the seeds of its own destruction” - Alexis de Tocqueville

Democracy is a Process, Not a Destination

Democracy is a never-ending process. Like life it is a journey not a destination. Democratic countries are always adjusting and fine tuning as history progresses and technology advances. Democracy is not just about elections, political parties, constitutions and transparency. These are the things a Democracy needs.

What Democracy is, is freedom. Russia is a free nation. Russians for the first time in their history, since 1991, can go where they want, when they want and have the ability to buy what they want all unimpeded by the government. They now have a freedom of choice. If they want to travel, they now can, unhindered by their government. In an ironic twist, it is the Western nations that are preventing thousands of Russian tourists from traveling due to severe visa restrictions. Often times family members wishing to attend celebrations such as graduations from school are prevented from doing so because the United States denies them a visa.

Today Russians are not constrained from reading any type of Western media. The fact that the Internet is completely unrestricted and is being used by the next generation as the main source of information is substantial proof. More and more people are making more and more money and a middle class is growing. Now they have the option to buy whatever they want, now that the shelves are full with not only Russian products but global products, many of them Western. Russians now have the ability to listen to western music and watch Western movies and often spend their free time doing so. One only has to walk down the street and listen to hip hop blasting out the windows of young Russians driving past a cinema house showing the latest Harry Potter movie. Russians are free.

Putting Russian History into Perspective

People who watch Russia need to remember to keep things in the proper context. Many times it is easier to think of Russia’s history and development of democracy in terms of numbers. For example:

Years of Russian Statehood – 114 (860 (Russian Chronicle Rurik Elected)-Present) Years of Communism – 74 (1917 – 1991) Years of Russian Statehood without Communism – 1073 (860-1917, 1991-Present) Years of Russian Authoritarian Rule – 1131 (860-1991) Years of Russian Democracy – 16 (1991-Present) Percentage of Years Under Communism 0.93%

Less than 1% of Russia’s total existence as a state was a time that was ruled under communism. More than 99% of Russia’s total existence as a state was during a time of true authoritarian rule. The remaining percentage of time is the time Russia has had the opportunity to develop democratic ideals. This is totally opposite for countries like the United States where 100% of its existence (1776-2008) has been in a Democratic form of government. As Arthur Bullard says:

“Above all the task of constructing the New Russia – the fit partner for a League of Honor – will require patience. It demands a broad spirit of tolerance. Any one who loses faith when progress seems too slow, any one who is cocksure and irascible when things do not “go right,” will be a poor friend of Russia. History is not rich in the biographies of men who could have solved such problems overnight. There will be much hesitating and uncertainty, much staggering and stuttering – occasional fainting fits – before Russia gets her stride.”(189)

The Global War on Terrorism and American Democracy

What many often forget is that even with the long history of democracy in the United States, the United States has recently taken, backward steps, from democratic principles. In response to the terror attacks on 9-11, the United States Congress passed the Patriot Act. This act enhanced the surveillance capability of the government. Whether these actions are believed to be necessary or not, the fact remains that these new provisions are being heavily debated due to the potential for abuse of civil liberties. Some acts or provisions of the bills have been ruled unconstitutional by a federal court.

In addition, the United States, in the context of the War on Terror, has deemed hundreds of people captured on the fields of battle in Afghanistan as illegal enemy combatants and thus not entitled to the provisions of the Geneva Convention. They are thus taken to the American military Base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and are held there in many cases for years with out trial. It has also been discovered that the U.S. has sanctioned the use of secret detention facilities outside the U.S. territory where combatants were also confined and subjected to aggressive interrogation techniques.

My point is not that all or even most of the individuals that have been detained in these facilities are innocent - in many cases, judging by the rate of recidivism, many confirmed their status as active members of terrorist groups at war with the U.S. However, Benjamin Franklin once said that, “Whoever would trade a little liberty for the sake of security would deserve neither and lose both.” The creation of such situations opens a very dangerous door and in doing so may contradict the same principles they we are claiming to defend.

Defending Private Property Rights in the U.S.

Similarly the Supreme Court ruled that it is okay for the state government of Connecticut to confiscate private land to be sold and used for the commercial benefit of the public good, an extension of the sovereign’s right of eminent domain - not to use the land for a direct public benefit but for an indirect one. This not only represents a step back from democratic principles but from the foundational principles of a free society. The right to private property is one of the most basic freedoms Americans are entitled to. In yet another example, there is currently a discussion underway in the Democrat-led Congress to enact a piece of legislation called the “Fairness Doctrine” which, in essence, would mandate that the public airways be shared by both points of view concerning any controversial topic, despite the fact that there may be no market for the opposite point of view.

One of the basic economic ideas of a free market is that the market determines what the demand is, not the government. Government dictating what is available on the market and what is not is again more socialistic in nature than democratic.

Defending Free Trade in the U.S.

Early in the Presidency of George W. Bush, despite campaigning on the principles of free trade and market principles, he enacted steel tariffs to help the U.S. steel companies. This was brought before the European Court and found in violation of the trade agreement between the U.S. and the E.U. Again this may or may not have been good for America, but when it becomes U.S. policy to criticize other nations for being undemocratic and the U.S. does not practice what it preaches, it become very hard for the nation criticized to take seriously what the U.S. says. This shows that the pendulum swings even in a 200 year old democracy but the press is not going to say that the U.S. is sliding to become authoritaritarian.

Russia's Turnaround Under Putin

It is also important to again reiterate how bad the economic condition of Russia was when President Putin was appointed to lead the country. The Russian economy and infrastructure were still in shambles after the transition in 1991. Unemployment was high, birth rates were down, taxes were high, and foreign debt was close to 90% of Russia's GDP. Russia needed a strong leader to get it out of national crisis. Yeltsin choose Vladimir Putin an ex-security service officer, who had one job which was to bring the country back from the brink of chaos. One should not be so quick to judge and thereby misunderstand this Russian President.

First and foremost he has been a strong leader. He set out a vision and a plan to achieve it. He remains mysterious mainly because of his KGB background but also on his non disclosure of details. However, the main goals of Putin and his presidency was to bring security, which would bring longer term stability to the Russian economy, which would create the opportunity to establish rule of law which would in turn help the Russians understand their identity and thereby head down the long road towards democracy. He accomplished these goals. As the Russian Economy becomes more stable, growing and strong, he can institute further reforms and modernize Russia. It is important to remember what Arthur Bullard stated:

“Just as the Russians have shown marked ability in handling their local affairs on a democratic basis, they have so far failed to meet the problems of a Central Government. But failure in this matter is, of course, only a relative term. No country can claim to have solved the problem satisfactorily. There is constant discussion in France and the British Empire on “Reconstruction.” New experiments in constitution organization are to be expected in both cases. And in America the old controversy between “State Rights” and “Federal Authority” is unsettled. There are many reasons why it is especially hard for the Russians to create a satisfactory Central Government.”(190)

Solzhenitsyn Defends Putin's Approach

In an interview with the former Soviet dissident Alexander Solzhenitsyn had with Der Spiegel on July 23, 2007, he described the differences between Gorbachev, Yeltsin and Putin this way:

DER SPIEGEL: How do you assess the period of Putin's governance in comparison with his predecessors Yeltsin and Gorbachev?

Solzhenitsyn: "Gorbachev's administration was amazingly politically naïve, inexperienced and irresponsible towards the country. It was not governance but a thoughtless renunciation of power. The admiration of the West in return only strengthened his conviction that his approach was right. But let us be clear that it was Gorbachev, and not Yeltsin, as is now widely being claimed, who first gave freedom of speech and movement to the citizens of our country."

"Yeltsin's period was characterized by a no less irresponsible attitude to people's lives, but in other ways. In his haste to have private rather than state ownership as quickly as possible, Yeltsin started a mass, multi-billion-dollar fire sale of the national patrimony. Wanting to gain the support of regional leaders, Yeltsin called directly for separatism and passed laws that encouraged and empowered the collapse of the Russian state. This, of course, deprived Russia of its historical role for which it had worked so hard, and lowered its standing in the international community. All this met with even more hearty Western applause.

"Putin inherited a ransacked and bewildered country, with a poor and demoralized people. And he started to do what was possible -- a slow and gradual restoration. These efforts were not noticed, nor appreciated, immediately. In any case, one is hard pressed to find examples in history when steps by one country to restore its strength were met favorably by other governments.”(191)

Russia Will Continue to Participate in Globalization

The main conclusion is that there is progress in Russia. There is more progress than regression. In the realms of security, economy, the growing demand for rule of law, and public confidence in the Russian state all of which are developing positively. As advocated by Dr. Thomas P.M. Barnett, globalization brings peace and economic connectivity brings globalization. Once a country is connected to Globalization there is really no reason for these countries to go to war. A good example is the relationship between Russia and the US.

Economic connectivity also brings democracy. Why? It’s the trickle down effect. Corruption is decreasing in Russia for two reasons. One is government policies and two is FDI. FDI companies play by the rules and if Russia wants this FDI money, and it does, then it will be forced to play by the rules. Major international companies that have millions of dollars like Microsoft, Ford, McDonalds are not going to bribe officials. It’s not apart of the legitimate business culture. These companies demonstrated a respect for law and OVER TIME this decreases corruption.

Solzhenitysn On the Weakness of the Russian Opposition Parties

A big criticism of current Russian development is the lack of opposition. I would again like to refer to Solzhenitsyn interview where he said, in response to this question:

DER SPIEGEL: It has gradually become clear to everyone that the stability of Russia is of benefit to the West. But there is one thing that surprises us in particular: When speaking about the right form of statehood for Russia, you were always in favor of civil self- government, and you contrasted this model with Western democracy. After seven years of Putin's governance we can observe totally the opposite phenomenon: Power is concentrated in the hands of the president, everything is oriented toward him.

Solzhenitsyn: Yes, I have always insisted on the need for local self-government for Russia, but I never opposed this model to Western democracy. On the contrary, I have tried to convince my fellow citizens by citing the examples of highly effective local self-government systems in Switzerland and New England, both of which I saw first-hand.

In your question you confuse local self-government, which is possible on the most grassroots level only, when people know their elected officials personally, with the dominance of a few dozen regional governors, who during Yeltsin's period were only too happy to join the federal government in suppressing any local self-government initiatives.

Today I continue to be extremely worried by the slow and inefficient development of local self-government. But it has finally started to take place. In Yeltsin's time, local self-government was actually barred on the regulatory level, whereas the state's "vertical of power" (i.e. Putin's centralized and top-down administration) is delegating more and more decisions to the local population. Unfortunately, this process is still not systematic in character.

SPIEGEL: But there is hardy any opposition.

Solzhenitsyn: Of course, an opposition is necessary and desirable for the healthy development of any country. You can scarcely find anyone in opposition, except for the communists, just like in Yeltsin's times. However, when you say "there is nearly no opposition," you probably mean the democratic parties of the 1990s. But if you take an unbiased look at the situation: there was a rapid decline of living standards in the 1990s, which affected three quarters of Russian families, and all under the "democratic banner." Small wonder, then, that the population does not rally to this banner anymore. And now the leaders of these parties cannot even agree on how to share portfolios in an illusory shadow government. It is regrettable that there is still no constructive, clear and large-scale opposition in Russia. The growth and development of an opposition, as well as the maturing of other democratic institutions, will take more time and experience.(192)

Is Russia perfect? Far from it, but this paper demonstrates that there is not much to worry about concerning the development of democracy in Russia over time. Bullard writes:

“A serious handicap which will weigh down heavily on any attempt to establish “good government” in Russia is the fact that very few of the people have any idea what the phrase means. The more fortunate classes have traveled widely and so have come in indirect contact with the idea. But the mass of the people have experienced only two forms of government, that of the Tsar and that of Lenin – both tyrannical and inefficient.”(193)

Russia's International Partnerships

Having Russia connected to more international agreements and standards will demonstrate “good government”. WTO, OSCE, UN, Shanghais Cooperation agreement, Nunn Lugar, NATO Partnership, EU Partnership, G8 and so on. All of these are good things. The more Russia is connected, the more it will adapt to the international standards. However, it is important to stress again that this will not happen over night. This will take a generation or so.

One problem is that ratification and implementation of these agreements is being slowed by careless rhetoric from both sides. A good example would be the prolonged and overdue acceptance of Russia to the WTO. Another example of progress in Russia is more and more ctive protests in Russia. This is because people are becoming more comfortable economically and they desire more political freedom. Freedom is 90% economic and 10% political.

Russian Orthodoxy: Bringing God Back into the Public Square

The importance of reasserting Russia's Christian identity and the role the Orthodox Church is currently playing in Russian society should also be reiterated. I draw attention again to the interview with Solzhenitsyn:

DER SPIEGEL: The idea of the influence of Orthodox Christianity on the Russian world can be traced throughout your works. What is the moral qualification of the Russian church? We think it is turning into a state church today, just like it was centuries ago -- an institution that in practice legitimizes the head of Kremlin as the representative of God.

Solzhenitsyn: On the contrary, we should be surprised that our church has gained a somewhat independent position during the very few years since it was freed from total subjugation to the communist government. Do not forget what a horrible human toll the Russian Orthodox Church suffered throughout almost the entire 20th century. The Church is just rising from its knees. Our young post-Soviet state is just learning to respect the Church as an independent institution.

The "Social Doctrine" of the Russian Orthodox Church, for example, goes much further than do government programs. Recently Metropolitan Kirill, a prominent expounder of the Church's position, has made repeated calls for reforming the taxation system. His views are quite different from those of government, yet he airs them in public, on national television.”(194)

Conclusion: Hope for the Future

Should the Western developed world continue to monitor the events in Russia? Yes and these Western nations should continue to be tough on the charges of backsliding on democracy in Russia. This however does not mean that Western politicians, academics and media professionals should be careless and not take the time to study and understand the context of Russia’s development. As Arthur Bullard states:

“Any one who professes to know all about Russia, who is sure of just what we ought to do, is absurd. The situation develops so rapidly, continually bringing to the surface new and hitherto ignored problems, revealing unexpected complications, uncovering latent aspirations, engendering new forces, hat any set program, hard and fast in its details, is ridiculous. There is nothing static about Russia; it is all tremendously dynamic.”(195)

Doing so will only create more of a misconception. Russia in turn should also watch the developments in the western world and offer objective criticism when necessary, for neither is perfect and both can agree to have a civil discussion and work together to set a true example for the world to follow. Finally, consider the following:

“Almost all who have been in Russia return with a very real friendship for the people. From my own observations, I would say that Americans, more than other foreigners, are quickly captivated by the peculiar charm of Russian life. There is a lovable and very appealing character not only among the more fortunate class, but especially among the simple folk. There is a rectitude of heart about most Russians which more than compensates for certain peculiarities of intellect, which seem faults us. And anyone who has been brought up to that love of freedom, that faith in brave chances of to-morrow, which is our American heritage, can not fail to be moved by the tremendous aspirations of the Russia for a freer and better future. So many things which we take easily for granted these people are fighting and dying for. We come home valuing more than we did the things we have inherited and for which they, with a self-abnegation never demanded of us – are striving." "I do not think that the Russians are in any wise less honest than we, less capable of frank and friendly relations. Their experiences have been very different. And it is just in these matters of commerce and politics, where their experience – the background on which they see the problems – differs most profoundly from our own."

"When we try to do business or to enter into political relations with them we strike these differences with brutal force. And this has been as large an element as any other – perhaps biggest of all – in our failures to help them.”

-Arthur Bullard, The Russian Pendulum, 1919(196)

Endnotes

(187) Putin, Vladimir. Address to the Federal Assembly, April 25, 2005 www.kremlin.ru
(188) Bullard, Arthur. p. 210
(189) Bullard, Arthur. p 211
(190) Bullard, Arthur. p. 220
(191) Solzhenitsyn, Alexander. I am not afraid of death. Spiegel Online. July 23, 2007 http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,druck-496003,00.html
(192) http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,druck-496003,00.html
(193) Bullard, Arthur. p 226
(194) http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,druck-496003,00.html
(195) Bullard, Arthur. p 211, 212
(196) Bullard, Arthurp.199

For a more extended bibliography and list of acronyms used in this essay, click here to read the full appendix from this extended essay in MS-Word format.

Bibliography

Angel, Norman. The Great Illusion – A Study of the Relation of Military Power To National Advantage.
London: William Heinemann, 1912
Barker, Peter and Glasser, Susan. Kremlin Rising. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2005
Barnett, Thomas. The Pentagon’s New Map. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 2004
Barnett, Thomas. Blueprint for Action. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 2005
Beatty, Jack. Age of Betrayal. New York: Random House, 2007
Bennett, William J. America The Last Best Hope Volume 1: From the Age of Discovery
to World at War. Nashville: Nelson Current, 2006
Berger, Peter L. and Luckmann, Thomas. The Social Construction of Reality. New York: Ancor Books, 1966
Billington, James H. The Icon and the Axe. New York: Vintage Books, 1966
Brudny, Yitzhak, Frankel Jonathan, and Hoffman Stefani, eds. Restructuring Post-
Communist Russia. New York: Cambridge, 2004
Brzezinski, Zbigniew. The Grand Failure. New York: MacMillian Company, 1989
Bullard, Arthur. The Russian Pendulum. New York: The MacMillan Company, 1919
Cohen, Stephen F. Failed Crusade. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2000
De Madariaga, Isabel. Ivan the Terrible. New Havan: Yale University Press, 2005
Davidson, James West. and Lytle, Mark H. The United States, A History of the Republic.
New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1981
Fleischer, Ari. Taking Heat. New York: Harper Collins, 2005
Fortescue, Stephen. Russia’s Oil Barons and Metal Magnates. New York: Palgrave McMillan, 2006
Friedman, Thomas L. The Lexis and the Olive Tree. New York: Ancor Books, 1999
Gallagher, Michael. and Laver, Michael. and Mair, Peter. Representative Government in
Modern Europe. Boston: McGraw Hill, 1992
Gay, Peter. Weimar Culture. New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1968
Goerner, E. A. The Constitutions of Europe. Chicago: Henry Regnery Company, 1967
Gorbachev, Mikhail. Perestroika. New York: Harper & Row, 1987
Hitchcock, William I. The Struggle for Europe. New York: Doubleday, 2002
Hoffman, David E. The Oligarchs. New York. Public Affirs, 2002
Huntington, Samuel P. The Clash of Civilizations. London: Simon and Schuster, 1996
Jack, Andrew. Inside Putin’s Russia. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004
Jelavich, Barbara. A Century of Russian Foreign Policy 1814-1914. New York: J.B. Lippincott Company, 1964
Klebnikov, Paul. Godfather of the Kremlin. New York: Harcourt Inc., 2000
Lederer, Ivo J. Russian Foreign Policy. London: Yale University Press, 1962
McCauley, Martin. Gorbachev. New York: Longman, 1998
McFaul, Michael. Russia’s Unfinished Revolution. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2001
Moss, Walter G. History of Russia Volunme1 to 1917. Boston: McGraw Hill, 1997
Moss, Walter G. History of Russia Volume 2 since 1855. Boston: McGraw Hill, 1997
Medvedev, Roy. Post Soviet Russia. New York: Columbia University Press, 2000
Melvin, Neil. Russia Beyond Russia. London: Royal Institute of International Affairs,
1995
Morris, Edmund. The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt. New York: The Modern Library, 1979
Morris, Edmund. Theodore Rex. New York: The Modern Library, 2001
Pember, Don R. Mass Media Law. New York: McGraw Hill, 2001
Petro, Nicolai N. The Rebirth of Russian Democracy. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 1995
Poltikovskaya, Anna. A Russian Diary. New York: Random House, 2007
Politkovskaya, Anna. Putin’s Russia. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 2004
Putin, Vladimir. First Person. New York: Public Affairs, 2000
Reshetar, Jr John S. The Soviet Policy. New York: Dodd, Mead & Company, 1971
Riha, Thomas eds. Readings in Russian Civilization Volume 1 Russia Before Peter the
Great, 900-1700. Chicago: The University Of Chicago Press, 1964
Rosser, Richard F. An Introduction To Soviet Foreign Policy. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1969
Sakwa, Richard. Putin Russia’s Choice. New York: Routledge, 2004
Satter, David. Darkness at Dawn. Yale University Press, 2003
Sharansky, Natan. The Case for Democracy. New York: Public Affairs, 2004
Service, Robert. The History of Modern Russia From Nicholas II to Putin. New York:
Penguin Books, 1997
Shevtsova, Lilia. Putin’s Russia. Washington D.C.: Carnegie Endowments For
International Peace, 2003
Smith, Hedrick. The New Russians. New York: Avon Books, 1990
Steiner, Jürg. European Democracy. New York: Longman, 1998
Suny, Ronald Grigor. The Soviet Experiment. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998
Ulam, Adam B. The Bolsheviks. Toronto: Collier Books, 1965
Ware, Timothy. The Orthodox Church. London: Penguin Books, 1963
Yergin, Daniel and Gustafson, Thane. Russia 2010. New York: Vintage Books, 1993
Zenkovsky, Sergie A. eds. Medieval Russia Epics, Chronicles and Tales. New York:
Meridian, 1963

Kevin Cyron is a native of Burke, Virginia, USA and a graduate of Marymount University in Maryland. 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.