President Putin and his designated successor, Dimitri Medvedev, at a campaign rally in 2008

Section III - Modern Russian Democracy - 2000-2008 The Reforms of Vladimir Putin

"In framing a government, which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed, and in the next place, oblige it to control itself." - James Madison, The Federalist Papers; Feb.8, 1788

Maslow's Heirarchy of Needs in Russia

Every country, country in transition, or country trying to establish a secure democratic structure of government and society must pass through several steps. The creation of a secure democratic state does not happen over night. It is a constant evolution which constantly changes over time in order to adapt to new generations of issues. If the long term goal of that country or nation state is to achieve a functioning, legitimate, and internationally recognized democracy there are several levels the state must pass through. (Not to be confused with Lenin’s ideal of the end goal being a socialist utopia.) Democracy is the ends and the means to achieve that goal should be seen with the end objective in mind. All the impetus of the developing nation state in question, in this case Russia, should be seen in this light. Abraham Maslow used this technique in order to understand the motivations of the human being. In doing so he created a hierarchy that attempts to explain the actions of the human being. As Maslow states in his work, A Theory of Human Motivation:

“There are at least five sets of goals, which we may call basic needs. These are briefly physiological, safety, love, 'esteem, and self-actualization. In addition, we are motivated by the desire to achieve or maintain the various conditions upon which these basic satisfactions rest and by certain more intellectual desires.” (86)

The details of Maslow’s hierarchy are further broken down to the following: Physiological – breathing, food, water, sex, sleep, homeostasis, and excretion; Safety – security of body, employment, resources, morality, family and property; Love and Belonging – family, friendship, and sexual intimacy; Esteem – self esteem, confidence, achievement, respect of others, and respect by others; Self Actualization – morality, creativity, spontaneity, problem solving, lack of prejudice and the acceptance of facts.

Maslow's Views of Liberal Democracy

Maslow was not only concerned about the psychology of the individual but also how that psychology affected or influenced politics and the political process. He believed that there was a relationship between psychology and politics and considered writing a book concerning “B-Politics”, the B standing for “Being”. This is described in Ellen Hurmans work “The Romance of American Psychology” :

“During the 1950s, Maslow attempted to make liberal democratic values integral to a definition of mental health and psychological maturity. This was part of the general humanistic project to test the feasibility of democracy by wiring individual dignity, tolerance, freedom of choice, and similar virtues into the unfolding process of normal human development. In his explorations of self-actualizing people and their "peak experiences" during the late 1950s and 1960s, Maslow refined his understanding of the political arrangements most appropriate to normal, even exemplary, psychological functioning.”(87)

Maslow believed that individuals were biologically connected to society. The collective mental health of individuals affected how that society functions. As Ellen Hurman writes:

“Because individual health and sickness were inseparable from societal health and sickness, self-actualization was a relative, dependent, and occasional goal, rather than something either present or lacking at all times in particular individuals. Maslow's vision of a good society was consequently one where social and economic arrangements expedited upward movement through the motivational hierarchy, facilitating both personal growth and the production of good citizenship. "It is quite true," he noted, "that man lives by bread alone—when there is no bread." "Democracy of Western sort is OK for rich & well-organized, educated society, & capitalism then can work fairly well. For people with lower basic needs satisfied, higher needs emerge & we can talk about freedom for self-fulfillment, autonomy, encouragement of growth, humanitarianism, justice, democracy, etc. . . . There is now a hierarchy of societies paralleling the hierarchy of basic needs."(88)

This parallel of a hierarchy of societies discusses societies in general or how one society functions or is more efficient than another. As Ellen Hurman writes:

“Maslow's "hierarchy of societies" placed authoritarianism on the bottom rung with laissez-faire capitalism higher and New Deal welfare statism highest of all. Although Maslow felt that self-actualizing people would thrive in almost any political environment, he tended to think that an antisystem of anarchic individualism made the most sense for them. His portrait of Eupsychia—a utopia inhabited by psychologically healthy people—was of a society committed to democracy but opposed to laws or constitutions, united in community but devoid of any traces of nationalist passion, abounding with permissiveness but lacking such problems as crime and unemployment.”(89)

Despite his analysis of societies, he does not discuss the development of democratic institutions which are the key element to achieving a democratic actualization. In addition, he does not discuss the process by which a state moves from authoritarian to democratic or how a democracy is strengthened through a similar process of hierarchy.

From Maslow's Take on Individuals to Nations

Since the state is merely a consolidation of individual human beings it is logical to transfer the hierarchical ladder, created by Maslow, from an individual to societies to the nation state which governs the society and the individual. Using Maslow’s Hierarchy as a base for analysis presents an interesting perspective into the transition of states, specifically modern Russia. The state version of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs for an individual would be as follows: Physiological (Security); Safety (Economic); Love and Belonging (Rule of Law); Esteem (Identity), and Self Actualization (Democracy).

The progression to a democratic state follows a logical sequence. Once a state declares, usually by the language in a constitution which may be adopted by public referendum that it is a democracy, the state needs Security, Economic stability, a respect for Rule of Law, an understanding of national Identity and together thereby creating a Democracy. As the Russian Constitution states:

“We, the multinational people of the Russian Federation, united by a common fate on our land, establishing human rights and freedoms, civil peace and accord, preserving the historically established State unity, proceeding from universally acknowledged principles of equality and self-determination of peoples, revering the memory of ancestors who have passed on to us their love for the Fatherland and faith in good and justice, reviving the sovereign statehood of Russia and asserting the firmness of its democratic basis, striving to ensure the well-being and prosperity of Russia, proceeding from the responsibility for our Fatherland before present and future generations, recognizing ourselves to be a part of the world community, do hereby adopt THE CONSTITUTION OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION.”(90)

The following phrases of the Russian Constitution correlate with levels of Maslow’s hierarchy. Security is shown in the “preserving the historically established State unity”;, Economic is shown in the “striving to ensure the well-being and prosperity of Russia”; Rule of Law in the “establishing human rights, freedoms, civil peace and accord”; and, their Identity is the “proceeding from the responsibility for our Fatherland before present and future generations, recognizing ourselves to be a part of the world community”.

Contrast Between State and Self-Actualization

The details of the state version differ from the individual in the following manner: Security – geography, military modernization, enhanced foreign presents and political stability; Economic –stimulation, modernization, research and development, labor, social welfare and demographics; Rule of Law – open and fair judicial system, decrease in corruption, and civil society; Identity – understanding of place in the worlds, acceptance of place in the world, accepting of others place in the world; Democracy – a system of government that consolidates of all these things working together simultaneously, developing and becoming interconnected at a controllable level. In addition, the realm of a nation’s identity is also very closely linked with security concerns.

The Wheel of Democracy

For example, if a national identity is the belief in itself as a great power, then in terms of security and international relations it will project that identity. Also it should be noted that a developed infrastructure is vital to national security, as seen with the power of ancient Rome. Economically it is also vital, as reflected in the old saying “time is money”. If there is inadequate transportation infrastructure, goods, services, security forces can not get where they are need quickly and that could be dire in times of national crisis. Demographics are a security issue as well as an economic issue, because people are a country’s most valuable asset. A dying population can lead to a significant problem in security due to the fact that a new military generation is not prepared due to lack of personal. Also economically, the demographic problem leads to problems in human resources but also research and future scientific research. Therefore it is better to look not at a pyramid structure, such as Maslow’s, but a circle or A Wheel of Democracy. Russia has all these problems and Putin has put forth reforms to address them which are discussed in the following sections.

All of these levels or stages of development, once securely established, create a modern transparent democratic system. However it should be noted that just because a country is able to shift focus from the security section to the economic section, does not mean that further security issues will not arise. What the graduation to each level does is signify a stable and workable area of control in that echelon.

The End of Existential Threats

Modern democracies will continuously have security issues to deal with however these problems become more controllable and the solutions become more efficient. For example in Russia, security threats from Chechnya, apartment bombing in Moscow, the theatre siege in Moscow, the sinking of the Kursk and the Beslan school attack did not collapse the Russian government or doom the Russian state. These events happened and Russia was able to stabilize these crises without the threat of the nation dissolving into chaos. This is a workable area of control. This is contrary to the Yeltsin years. Furthermore, the length of time it takes to accomplish a controllable area, expands exponentially as a nation moves from one level to another.

Yeltsin and Russia's Hierarchy of Needs

The Presidency of Boris Yeltsin created the framework or structure that would be filled in by his successors. President Yeltsin drafted and created the Constitution albeit by getting rid of the first. This created a working Duma, power structure and kept the country together. However during this time period, Russia had serious Security, Economic, Rule of Law, and Identity issues.

In the area of security, Russia’s geographical integrity was in question due to the problems in Chechnya, too much autonomy given to the regions, and under funding of the military, which eventually through corruption and severe troop hazing led to low moral. The level of economics was in disarray due to high foreign debt, lack of income to the federal treasury, high unemployment, out-flow of R&D personal, high inflation and the devaluation of the ruble in 1998.
The level of Rule of Law was also wanting. Consider the lack of civil society, badly need judicial reform, high levels of corruption, no legal standards in place, no legal infrastructure and a general mistrust of government officials on all levels. This led to a profound problem in the level of identity, wherewith Russians, specifically the political elite class, feeling humiliated with the transition, questioning of whether Russia is European, Asian, or other, the role of the Orthodox Church and a general feeling of a lost generation. In this context Russian Democracy was clearly not established by the end of the Yeltsin era.

Summarizing the Last Eight Years of Putin's Administration

During the past eight years of President Putin, the situation in Chechnya has been stabilized and this region is now growing. He has consolidated power by reigning in the regional governors and combining some regions. This was done legally following the Constitution and working with the Duma, thereby having significantly limited the fear of geographic instability. Russia is now playing a greater role in international affairs which has added to their international recognition and respect. These are also keys to stability. On economic issues, President Putin has created an environment that is positive for foreign direct investment (FDI) into the country; he has reduced foreign debits by paying them off early and has provided an opportunity for Russian people to better themselves by reducing unemployment to 5.9% (2007) and raising living wages. The Health and Social Development Minister states that the number of Russians with incomes under the minimum subsistence level has been reduced by 23% (about 6 million) over the last two years and that real, inflation-adjusted income has grown by 25% over the same period.

However there is much work to be done, specifically in the level of rule of law. Despite attempts at judicial reforms, corruption is still rampant in Russia. This has caused people to have little or no confidence in the government structure as a whole. Strengthening the rule of law and constant public demonstration by leaders following the laws written, will result, after a generation, in a more steady and happy civil society. Economic growth is already beginning to create a civil society because people are demanding more transparency and better services for their money. The economic rebound in Russia has led to the increase of political and economic stability. This was not only driven by oil revenues but also by the large amounts of FDI, who also set an example of having respect for the Rule of Law.

According to the model, modern Russia’s current state of development is in the realm or level of trying to establish a stable Rule of law. What this means is that Russia’s present state has a secure security level and a secure level of economics. The economy of Russia is currently stable and growing, despite the recent rise of inflation, which does not pose a serious threat that could cripple the Russian economy.

The following is a more detailed look at the years of President Putin put in the paradigm of the states version of Maslow’s Hierarchy or The Wheel of Democracy.

The Presidency of Vladimir Putin
“Anyone who doesn't regret the passing of the Soviet Union has no heart. Anyone who wants it restored has no brains” - comment attributed to Vladimir Putin

The Security Level – Geography, Military, Enhanced Foreign Presents, Internal Political Stability

When people understand the difficult security situation that Russia faces, they can understand how effective reforms are difficult to create. The Russian nation that President Putin received on December 31, 1999 is not the Russia he left behind in May of 2008. Many of the major problems from the transition from Communism to Democracy still affected the Russian state to this day. Despite the “democratic success” of creating a constitution during the 1990’s, and the ability to kept geographical integrity of Russia together, there were still very serious problems facing President Putin. It was President Putin’s job to continue the next phase of Russian Reconstruction. As the 2007 NIC Report says:

“Putin inherited a state shaped by five centuries of predatory, militarized, centralized statism and government for the elite by the elite; a large, untrustworthy, ineffectual bureaucracy; amorphous, atomized, dispirited society; a poorly-structured economy; and a fractured empire with large fissures, much of which is beyond Moscow’s ability to control. Putin understands that the tools he has at his disposal have failed every time a Russian leader has tried to effect change deliberately.”(91)

Faced with this daunting challenge, President Putin decided to focus his primary efforts on the stability of Russia’s territorial integrity and strengthening the political apparatus. There were numerous areas in the realm of security that posed a serious threat to the integrity of Russia by the end of the 1990’s. For example the war in Chechnya, geographical secession issues, problems with the political elite and the influence of those who were still loyal to Yeltsin.

Geography - Chechnya, and the Theat of International Terrorism

A stable security environment is needed in order to create a functioning economy, which is truly what drives the country, not only in terms of money but also in terms of freedom and opportunity. Without a stable and reliable economic framework it makes other reforms impossible because improvements cost money. President Putin had to prioritize his goals where security is at the top closely linked with economic steadiness.

Russia’s biggest security threat came from two points. One was the region of Chechnya and the other was extensive regional autonomy that was granted under the Yeltsin administration. There was also a geographical concern with the Kuril Islands dispute between Japan and Russia. This specific case is being handled through diplomatic channels, unlike the war in Chechnya. In addition ethnic problems were still a major factor, as Emil Pain points out in the 2001 NIC Report:

“The problem of ethnic separatism is undoubtedly of primary significance among the ethnic problems that directly influence Russia's political stability. The main reason for this is the interrelation between federal authorities and the non-Russian-majority republics. If there is a probability of the dissolution of Russia, it is related to these republics.”(92)

Chechnya - An Improving Profile

Russia can today feel pretty secure about its geographic integrity. The successful conclusion to the war in the Chechnya Region has now provided an opportunity for investment to rebuild the province. The media’s coverage of this progress has been similar to the reporting of the news of America’s involvement in Iraq. This means to say the major media networks fail to report the progress of rebuilding and peaceful co-existence but instead focus on isolated incidents of acts of terrorism. The Western media continues to focus on the negative news and continues to exploit this for political influence and proof of a lack of democratic political development. There are constant reports of soldiers’ abusing locals in Chechnya, constant problems with corruption, and violations of human rights. For example a Freedom House Report states in 2005, “Putin has no plan to end his use of violence in Chechnya and refuses even to acknowledge that his policies there are feeding the terrorist response.” However the mainstream media ignores the facts which are provided by Mr. Petro in his article, Speaking Freely, in 2007:

“This remains the primary focus today, even though more than 7,500 rebels have laid down their arms, terrorist attacks have fallen to almost nil, Russian military casualties went from 1,400 in 2000 to 28 in 2005 and, last August, Russia disbanded the operational headquarters of its military counter-terrorism operations in the North Caucasus and transferred security functions to the local Chechen militia. Since welcoming back most of what were once nearly a million refugees, more than 30,000 new businesses have sprung up. Today there are regions of Grozny where real-estate prices are higher than in Moscow. New political and financial institutions are functioning routinely throughout the republic.”(94)

Rebuilding Chechnya

Despite the constant reports of violence that happen in the region there is a tremendous amount of positive developments that are happening but are again not reported. For example, consider the recent developments in Chechnya’s health sector, as Russia Today broadcast on February 25th 2008:

“Rebuilding Chechnya’s hospitals was a priority and it had to be done from scratch, according to Rukman Bartiyev, Deputy Health Minister of the Chechen Republic. “We should be grateful to the medical staff - doctors and nurses, who with some risk to their health kept working, cleaning hospitals and rebuilding them. That's how the reconstruction started,” Bartiyev recalls. Healthcare in Chechnya is improving with every passing year. Both staff and patients feel the benefit of the changes and welcome them. Each hospital is now equipped with modern facilities and people can see the difference. So they don't need to go outside Chechnya anymore if they need qualified medical help.”(95)

Reports such as these rarely make it into the mainstream press of the Western nations.

Military Modernization

A big challenge facing Russia coming out of the 1990’s was the military institution. This degradation began immediately after the fall of the Soviet Union. Military reform was badly needed, as the NIC Report states, “Militarily, Russia will also remain weak. Its nuclear arsenal is of little utility, and Moscow has neither the will nor the means to reform and strengthen its conventional forces.” Furthermore as Roy Medvedev states in his book, Post-Soviet Russia:

“Many plants in the military industrial complex stopped working. Because of the dissolution of the USSR, the army and navy began to fall apart, as did the transport, electrical, and airline systems. The former union-wide security and legal systems also disintegrated.”(97)

The Russian Army was also in disarray. There are huge moral problems significant reports of violent hazing and a breakdown in subordination. As Lilia Shevtsova writes in, Putin’s Russia:

“A severe breakdown in civilian control over the military had taken place during the Yeltsin period. During the summer of 2000, the system of subordination was openly violated in the army. The unheard-of happened: The chief of the General Staff, Anatoly Kvashnin, bypassed his boss, minister of defense Marchal Igor Sergeyev, and sent the president his plan for army reform. Kvashnin behaved as if the defense minister did not exist. It was a scandal, a violation of the chain of command; suddenly, what had been under the surface become public knowledge.” She continues, “The problem with the chain of command was not the only problem. Russia could no longer keep 3 million people in the armed services; that was an unbearable burden for the country.” Further still she states, “Not only the size but also the organization of the army were completely out of sync with the economic resources of the new Russia.”(98)

This was the environment when President Putin decided to push through a series of reforms. Through these reforms Russia’s military has been able to modernize and become more effective and efficient. Russian spending on military has grown from $7.3 billion in 2001 to $35 billion in 2007. As a story broadcasted on Russia Today states on March 28th 2008 concerning Russia’s internal security forces:

“The internal forces chief believes his men are better prepared than ever. “These days we receive sufficient funding. We spend the money prudently, and this enables us to maintain a force that can satisfy all the requirements,” Nicolay Rogozhkin, Russia’s Internal Forces commander-in-Chief, said. Although these exercises demonstrate brute strength, fighting terrorism in the future will increasingly require precision, guile and a thoroughly modern tactical approach.”(100)

Shifting Towards a More Professional Russian Military

The goal of modernizing Russia military was for it to be more professional or volunteer. Over the Putin years the military has been able to push through a variety of reforms’ reducing the required mandatory service time from 2 years to 1 year. As the CIA World Factbook states:

“Russia has adopted a mixed conscript-contract force; 30% of Russian army personnel were contract servicemen at the end of 2005; planning calls for volunteer servicemen to compose 70% of armed forces by 2010 with the remaining servicemen consisting of conscripts; as of November 2006, the Armed Forces had more than 60 units manned with contract personnel totaling over 78,000 contract privates and sergeants; 88 Ministry of Defense units have been designated as permanent readiness units and are expected to become all-volunteer by the end of 2007; these include most air force, naval, and nuclear arms units, as well as all airborne and naval infantry units, most motorized rifle brigades, and all special forces detachments; all personnel on ships and submarines will be contract servicemen beginning in 2009; more than 92,000 females serve on active duty with the Russian Armed Forces (2007)”(101)

Russia Remains No Military Rival to the U.S.

Even small and seemingly insignificant things like the uniform are being updated. It was recently announced that the Russian Army has decided after three centuries to get rid of the portyanki or the foot wrap and replace it with socks and lace up boots.

Although there has been a significant increase in military spending it is still significantly less than the U.S. by comparison. Russia’s military spending is roughly 1/10th of U.S. military spending. Again it is important to reiterate that the transformation of the Russian Armed services to a professional modern entity will take time.

Russia and the Changing Nature of Warfare

One of the primary concerns of any nation is its place in the world and the neighborhood of nations around them. Who can Russia trust and who are Russia’s enemies? One of the more firm and secure parts of Russia’s level of security is international security. Dr. Thomas P.M. Barnett is correct when he says that great power war, war between nation states, is over. The concept of World War III, in terms of Russia and U.S. having a nuclear exchange, will never be fought. This is counter to what Samuel Huntington states about the inevitable “clash of civilizations”.

In the times of the Roman Empire, war was about “civil” societies or “civilization”. Rome felt the need to “civilize” the world (Roman Empire, Persian Empire, Germanic tribes, Mongol invasions, Slavic civilization). By the 13th to 20th Century warfare was decreased to wars between Nation States and Groups of Nation States (Napoleonic Wars, Allies, Axis, and Cold War). By the 21st Century this has been reduced again to warfare between groups, namely international terrorism (Al Qaeda, Hamas, Islamic Jihad).

Soon warfare will be reduced again, mainly due to the advancement in technology, simply to war against individuals (Osama bin Laden, Slobodan Milosevic) or a better way to put it, criminalizing warfare. This concept is discussed thoroughly in Thomas Barnett’s books, The Pentagon's New Map and A Blueprint for Action. To follow this logic to conclusion leads one to find comfort in the fact that Russia will not be invaded or attacked by a nation state and for the most part does not feel threatened by nation states. The primary reason for this is that the attacker will win nothing but defeat, by history’s judge of Napoleon and Hitler.
Secondarily, any invasion would activate an unprecedented global response in the favor of Russia. This is because of Russia’s inseparable connection to the world via treaties, partnerships and global cooperation agreements.

Multilateral Russia

President Putin has tried to develop Russia’s standing in the world by becoming more active in it. Russia now belongs to more the 25 world organizations. Russia is a member of numerous international organizations, including the following:

Arctic Council, Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation [sic], Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN, as a dialog partner and member of the ASEAN Regional Forum), Bank for International Settlements, Black Sea Economic Cooperation Pact, Central Asian Cooperation Organization (since 2004), Commonwealth of Independent States, Council of Baltic States, Council of Europe, Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Group of Eight, International Atomic Energy Agency, International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, International Civil Aviation Organization, International Criminal Police Organization, International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, International Labor Organization, International Maritime Organization, International Monetary Fund, International Organization for Migration (as an observer), International Telecommunication Union, North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Partnership for Peace, Nuclear Suppliers Group, Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, Paris Club, Shanghai Cooperation Organization, United Nations Committee on Trade and Development, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, United Nations Industrial Development Organization, United Nations Institute for Training and Research, United Nations Security Council, Universal Postal Union, World Health Organization, and World Trade Organization (currently as an observer)

The Partnership with NATO

This is a significant point especially in the degree of global security. President Putin has created a Joint Partnership with NATO. What is truly significant about this is that NATO was created as a direct result of the threat posed by the Soviet Union. As the NATO website states:

“But the danger to the Western democracies was not only economic. Russia had paralyzed the work of the United Nations Security Council by the abuse of her power of veto. She had armed forces amounting to some 4 ½ million men on a war footing and equipped, for the most part, with the latest weapons. In addition, she was engaged on organizing the armies of her satellites on Soviet lines, despite the fact that to rearm. Rumania, Bulgaria and Hungary were a direct violation of the Peace Treaties signed with those three countries in 1947. Finally, the Soviet armament industries were working at high pressure. In the face of this threat, the armed forces of the West were weak, uncoordinated, and drastically short of modem equipment. There was, in fact, nothing - except America's possession of the atomic bomb - to deter the Soviet from overrunning Western Europe. The only hope of even beginning to restore the balance of power lay in the free European countries combining together, not only for the sake of economic recovery, but also for the defense of their hearths and homes.”(102)

Why Does NATO Need to Expand to Ukraine and Georgia?

What is more is that Putin actually alluded to this possibility in the early part of his administration pre 9-11. In a March 2000 interview with the BBC, President Putin stated that Russia joining NATO was not out of the realm of possibilities as long as they were treated as an equal partner. This is not the first time either. In 1954 according to CBC News, the “Soviet Union suggests it should join NATO to preserve peace in Europe. U.S. and U.K. reject this, seeing it as an attempt to curtail the buildup of NATO forces in Europe.” However with the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, the main threat to Europe disappeared. This begs the question of why then does NATO continue to exist or at the very least why does NATO continue to expand?

Despite the level of concern that Russia feels with the expansion of NATO, it continues to work with the organization and address these issues. As stated on the Forbes website on March 28, 2008, “Russia is 'considering the possibility of deepening' cooperation with NATO over Afghanistan, but this will not happen 'if each other's lawful security interests are not taken into account', Grushko said.”

These are significant steps of Russia reaching out to the West. These events should be highlighted in the Western media to a more significant degree than the failures, but they are ignored.

Russian Membership in Numerous Treaties and Regional Pacts

In addition, Russia has also signed onto a number of international treaties. Russia is a signatory to numerous multilateral treaties, including the following:

Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal; Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution; Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna; Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping Wastes and Other Matter (London Convention); Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction; Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling, and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction; Geneva Convention (1949); International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling; International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; International Tropical Timber Agreement; Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer; Ramsar Convention; Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapons Tests in the Atmosphere, in Outer Space, and Under Water; Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons; United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea; and United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and its Kyoto protocol.

Arms Control - Back on the Agenda?

Russia also has signed a number of bilateral arms control treaties with the United States on the limitation of strategic arms, antiballistic missile systems, underground nuclear weapons tests and on the elimination of intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles. By doing these things Russia has done two key things. First Russia has added to their degree of security which brings more permanence to Russia and the world as a whole. This also adds to the legitimacy of Russia. Second these agreements truly provide is an opportunity to further tie Russia into the global system. This has brought about a duel dependency between the world and Russia.

Russia Contributing Foreign Aid

The global environment is starting to depend more on Russia and Russia is starting to depend on the global environment. Due to Russia’s growing stature in the world, the question is quickly becoming what can Russia do for the world? There is no better example of this than the amount of international aid Russia is contributing to the world. In 2003 Russia gave $50 million in international aid. In June of 2007 Russia is now expected to give more than $500 million. That equate to an increase of more than 330%. Russia has gone from aid recipient to donor and creditor.

President Putin has also now become Russia’s most traveled leader including being the first Russian leader to go to Israel. All of these things add to great security both in Russia and the world and demonstrate the Russian desire to be a peaceful and influential global participant.

Strengthening Russia's Internal Stability

Political stability is a major factor of the security level. Without control of the political elites or at least their support, a country could be headed toward continual elections, referendums, revolutions and counter revolutions. This pattern of behavior is seen most notably in the former Soviet Republic of Ukraine. When Putin took over as President, Russia was in a state of fragile political steadiness. Towards the end President Yeltsin was deemed totally ineffective, tired and worn out. As Lilia Shevtsova discusses in her book, Putin’s Russia:

“His [Yeltsin's] physical decline was tortured. It was not only his heart condition--- though he later admitted he had five severe heart attacks. He seemed to have problems with everything, including walking, holding himself erect, concentrating, and even comprehending what was being ask about.”(107)

Yeltsin's Gambit

President Yeltsin appointed Vladimir Putin on New Years Eve and did not wait for the election which was not until March of the following year. This was a very risky but successful peaceful transfer of power. People at the time where convinced and scared that Yeltsin might die at any moment and their confidence in Russia had diminished significantly over the past few years. This transfer of the reigns of power was the 2nd peaceful transition of Russian leadership in a time when Russia, which has the second largest nuclear stockpile, had unstable geographic and economic spheres.

Contrast in Successions - 1999 and 2008

An important distinction between President Vladimir Putin and President Boris Yeltsin is that when President Yeltsin gave up power it was a total surprise which for a short while shook the constancy of Russia. What he did by appointing Vladimir Putin, while a good step in giving up power, did create a lot of infighting among the Kremlin elite. On the contrary what President Putin has done when he endorsed Dmitry Medvedev is give the country time to get to know the candidate. He endorsed his candidacy but he did not appoint his successor like Yeltsin did to him. In essence, there was no guarantee that Medvedev would win the election.

Quintessentially this is a small step towards a more transparent democracy. Of course it is not the step that most western nations would like to see however the credit should be noted and encouraged.

Sweeping the Communists Out of the Duma

In 2000 when President Putin was elected there was no real democratic successor that anybody knew of or less cared about from the major democratic or liberal Parties. The democratic and liberal parties were fractured as they remain today. This left Russians with only one other choice, i.e. a leader of the Communist Party which held at that time somewhere between 30-40% of the Duma. The Communists were very competitive in the election of 1996 and were only defeated with significant financial and public support from western nations. Despite the communist defeat they still had a significant following of public support.

Restoring the Confidence of Russian Political Elites

With the dismemberment of the U.S.S.R. in 1991 the Russian politically privileged felt humiliated. President Putin has tried to regain the prestige of Russia by being a state builder. As the NIC Report points out:

“Putin is a state-builder, not a nation-builder, who has restored order, maintained Russia’s territorial integrity, aspired to regain great power status, but has decided to work within the existing international system because he recognizes Russia’s weakness. He is a patriot, not a nationalist, craves order for the public good, and tries to avoid foreign policy defeats because he recognizes they weaken foreign policy in general.”(108)

This is an important factor when dealing with the political elite. The elites have to not only believe in the reforms but also have to be proud of them. It was this superior mentality that proved to be difficult to over come. As Lilia Shevtsova states in her book:

“It is the political class in Russia, obsessed with self-preservation that tries to reanimate the archaic elements of the public subconscious and heighten suspicion of the West, fear of openness, and nostalgia for lost empire.”(109)

Dealing with Yeltsin's "Family"

President Putin had to be careful in settling the political upper class and persuading them to accept his point of view. Many of the citizens in Russia as well as the rest of the world did not know who Vladimir Putin was when he was appointed. There was a big influence of the Yeltsin family that took years to minimize. As Lilia Shevtsova points out in her book:

“Yeltsin’s political family (known in Russia as “the family”) was a mixed group that included the president’s younger daughter Tatyana (Tanya) Dyachenko; her closest pal and, it appeared much later, boyfriend, Valentin Yumashev (they married after Yeltsin resigned); Yeltsin’s chief of staff, Alexander Voloshin; and oligarch Roman Abramovich. The infamous oligarch Boris Berezovsky, the master of intrigue, was their leader and the brains of the bunch. These were the people who ruled the Kremlin in the late 1990s and they continue to exert their influence on Russian politics.”(110)

Establishing control over the political personnel in Moscow came as a big step to overall political constancy for him. But even then, President Putin still had massive challenges when dealing with the regions.

Taming the Regions

With the dissolving of the Soviet Union in 1991, Russia went from one extreme of authoritarianism to the other which was total freedom, bordering on anarchy. The further away you get from Moscow the more Russia looked like the American Wild West of the late 19th Century. The local cities and towns in the regions of Russia, which have an extreme amount of wealth due to natural resources, were being run by corrupt oligarchs and gangsters. The situation in these regions and towns was not improving with the local elections. This had to be brought under control like the Wild West. In Moscow he had also significantly reduced the bureaucracy by streamlining his cabinet by cutting it in half for efficiency reasons.

One of the most criticized and mis-reported political changes made by President Putin was the removal of the direct elections of the regional governors. The Freedom House Report of 2005, which currently labels Russia as not free, used this incident to support its conclusion by stating, “Following the terrorist attack on Beslan in September, Putin quickly put in place a new system in which he appoints regional executives, with the approval of the regional legislatures, rather than allowing the population to elect governors directly.” This quote is factually wrong. This process was suggested and discussed long before it was implemented. In the 1999 report from the NIC, it states:

“Russia today meets the classical definition of a federation by its inscription of that principle in the Constitution (as opposed to a decentralized system such as China where the center can unilaterally and legally take back powers it had once given away). But if the Constitution is amended to make governors appointed by the center rather than elected, as is being proposed by some, Russia would revert to being a unitary state.”(112)

Appointing Regional Governors is Not Authoritarian, But Common in Europe

The report fails to mention that this process was done with in the context of the Constitution and that the Council of Europe has stated that this is consistent with European norms. In addition it is commonly ignored by the mainstream media that this same process of appointment of local governors is also done in India which coincidently Freedom House labels as Free. When one takes a look at how the process of conducting a governor is done as former President George H.W. Bush advisor Nicolai Petro stated in his article, Speaking Freely, one gets a different picture. He states:

“Surely one of the most disingenuous claims about Putin is that he has undermined democracy by abolishing gubernatorial elections. Here is how the process actually works. Parties that have won seats in a regional legislature may submit names for governor to a presidential commission, which reviews them and makes its recommendations to the president. The president then forwards his nomination to the local parliament for ratification. Unless there is a serious objection, the candidate proposed by the head of the party that was victorious in the previous elections is typically nominated, a practice that is expected to become legally binding on the president this year. Critics say this violates the separation of powers enshrined in the Russian constitution. The Constitutional Court, however, reviewed this argument at the end of 2005 and disagreed because "the final decision on appointment ... is taken specifically by the legislative body". The Venice Commission, the Council of Europe's advisory body on legal matters, and the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe subsequently conducted their own reviews and found that the new system conforms with European norms.”(113)

The Showcase Region: Abramovich's Chuhotka

If the president does not see positive results in these regions he can hold these people accountable. What is often not reported is the large success of this policy. For example, Russia’s Far Eastern region of Chukotka has been significantly affected by positive developments. As Russia Today stated on March 16, 2008:

“Roman Abramovich became Chukotka's governor after the region went bankrupt. With eight years at the helm he did what seemed impossible. “We've transformed the region into a place that could rely on its own resources, a region where lives would no longer depend on the whims of nature or politicians, where we would not all die of hunger and cold,” local resident Vasily Maksimov says. Ten years ago people of Anadyr, the capital of the Chukotka area sold their apartments for the price of ticket to the mainland. Nowadays one-room apartments cost about $US 60 thousands. And people are no longer in a hurry to pack their bags. Some of those who left Chukotka are coming back - and its not difficult - planes fly in four times a day bringing many new faces.”

Again here is the failure of Western media to include stories like these. Should people gain access to positive and factual reporting, over time people will get a more complete and accurate picture of the developments in Russia.

Russia and the Singapore Model

Many experts believe that the key to building a democracy is the development of political parties. However like in most developing countries, there is a significant time of a single party rule. This is specifically demonstrated in the political developments of Mexico, South Korea, and Singapore. All of these have had for a time and in some cases still do a political system that was based on one party. However, one should note that with the stabilization of the economy and the development of a middle class the public demand for a multi-party system grows.

There have been numerous complaints that President Putin’s reform of the ability of registering political parties has hindered democratic growth. However Nicolai Petro states in his article, Russian Elections – Affirming Democracy or Confirming Autocracy:

“In any event, a direct comparison of the requirements for registering a political party quickly reveals that the current Russian laws in this area are among the most liberal in the Western world. Experimentally in this electoral cycle, the barrier for entry into the national parliament was set at 7 percent. While this is relatively high by European standards, it had no impact on the outcome, since the parties that did not make it into parliament all received far less than 7 percent of the vote.”(115)

Are Political Parties Necessary for an Immature Democracy?

Even in the United States there was a debate on whether political parties should even be formed. President Washington was adamantly against political parties, despite the fact that his two closest advisors formed them. In his farewell address in 1796 President George Washington stated the following:

"All obstructions to the execution of the Laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They [political parties] serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels, and modified by mutual interests.”

"However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government; destroying afterwards the very engines, which have lifted them to unjust dominion."(116)

Counseling Patience Over the Course of Russia's Development

The Western media and academics would be good to remember that political pluralism develops over time. The fact that Russia is in the genesis stage of developing a multi-party system should not be undercut by the constant badgering of not being done fast enough.
During the Putin Administration, Russia has achieved a functioning, legitimate and workable level of security. Russia’s geographic integrity is no longer in question. The war in the break away region of Chechnya is over and the region is now rebuilding with significant results. Military reforms have been initiated and implemented bringing Russia’s armed services closer to a modern professional force.

Putin's Contribution to Global Stability

President Putin has put Russia back on the stage as a noteworthy colleague in dealing with international relations. Russia has taken initiatives and has been actively pursuing peaceful resolutions to a number of problem areas, most notably the Israeli Palestinian conflict, Iran’s violations of the United Nations Security Council resolutions on its nuclear enrichment, and has been instrumental in disarming North Korea. It’s enhanced presence has led to more stability in the world around them. Russia’s internal political stability has also become more transparent and efficient. President’s Putin’s ability to keep and fulfill the promises he has made through out his term, most notably his promise to give up the presidency, speaks volumes not only due to the volunteer nature, but also because he leaves office at the height of his political popularity.

Endnotes

(86) Maslow, Abraham, “A Theory of Human Motivation” Psychological Review, 50, 370-396, 1943.
(87) Herman, Ellen. The Romance of American Psychology: Political Culture in the Age of Experts. Berkeley: University of California Press, c1995 1995. http://ark.cdlib.org/ark:/13030/ft696nb3n8/
(88) Ibid.
(89) Ibid.
(90) www.kremlin.ru
(91) NIC Report 2007 - http://www.dni.gov/nic/PDF_GIF_confreports/putin_era.pdf
(92) Pain, Emil. NIC Report 2001 p.11.
(93) Idbid. Freedom House Report 2005
(94) Ibid Petro, Nicolai 2007
(95) Russia Today - http://russiatoday.ru/news/news/21323
(96) NIC Report 2001 p.3.
(97) Medvedev, Roy. “Post Soviet Russia” p.23.
(98) Shevtsova, Lilia “Putin’s Russia” p. 130-131.
(99) Global Security Organization http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/mo-budget.htm
(100) Russia Today - http://russiatoday.ru/news/news/22742
(101) CIA The World Factbook - https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/rs.html
(102) http://www.nato.int/
(103) BBC.com http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/666768.stm
(104) CBC News Fast Facts November 17th 2004 http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/nato/
(105) Thomson. Russia Offers Help on Afghanistan If NATO Curbs Eastward Expantion March 28th 2008 Forbes.com http://www.forbes.com/markets/feeds/afx/2008/03/28/afx4826771.html
(106) Russian News and Information Agentcy. Russia Intedns to Double Annual International Aid to $500 Million. February 7th 2007 http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070702/68199234.html
(107) Shevtsova, Lilia. “The Kremlin’s Power Play” In: Putin’s Russia.2003 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Washington D.C. p. 9.
(108) NIC Report 2007
(109) Ibid. Shevtsova p.265.
(110) Ibid. Shevtsova, Lilia p. 17.
(111) Freedom House Report 2005. - http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=47&nit=366&year=2005
(112) Federalism in Russia: How its working? National Intelligence Council Conference Report 1999, p2.
(113) Petro, Nicolai, “Speaking Freely” In: Asian Times Online. February 17, 2007.
(114) Russia Today, March 16th 2008 - http://russiatoday.ru/features/news/22170
(115) Petro, Nicolia, “Russian Election – Affirming Democracy or Confirming Autocracy” - http://www.russiablog.org/2008/03/russian_elections_affirming_de.php#more
(116) Washington, George, “Farewell Address 1796” - http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/farewell/sd106-21.pdf

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.