Yeltsin defeated his Communist opponents in the critical election of 1996, but at the cost of indebting himself to the oligarchs through cash and favorable media coverage

Putin's Speech and the Human Toll from the Collapse of an Empire

One of the most important things to remember regarding the transition on the 1990s is how unprepared Russia and the world were for it. As President Putin stated in his widely quoted 2005 presidential address:

"Above all, we should acknowledge that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a major geopolitical disaster of the century. As for the Russian nation, it became a genuine drama. Tens of millions of our co-citizens and compatriots found themselves outside Russian territory."

"Moreover, the epidemic of disintegration infected Russia itself. Individual savings were depreciated, and old ideals destroyed. Many institutions were disbanded or reformed carelessly. Terrorist intervention and the Khasavyurt capitulation that followed damaged the country's integrity. Oligarchic groups -- possessing absolute control over information channels -- served exclusively their own corporate interests. Mass poverty began to be seen as the norm. And all this was happening against the backdrop of a dramatic economic downturn, unstable finances, and the paralysis of the social sphere. Many thought or seemed to think at the time that our young democracy was not a continuation of Russian statehood, but its ultimate collapse, the prolonged agony of the Soviet system."

Trying Democracy and Free Markets Prior to Establishing the Rule of Law

This quote although discussed earlier in the context of media bias is worth revisiting because in essence, President Putin was correct. It was a major geopolitical disaster. In addition to what President Putin described, one should also note that there were a number of other problems as well. For example there was were no securities laws in place; there were no protections for minority shareholders; there were inadequate banking laws; and, there was a massive privatization pushed through. Infrastructure was not in place and many able-bodied businessmen took advantage of the chaos by stealing a significant portion of Russia's wealth and then moving it out of the country.

Comparing Russian and American History

If one takes a look at the major crises that took place in American history one could find similar events to Russia during the 1990s, such as, transitioning from a monarchy to a democracy while simultaneously building a free market and all the while ensuring individual rights and freedoms. Unlike the United States which had centuries to find solutions to these problems and learn from them, Russia had the significant challenge of trying to find solutions to these problems all at once. Many of these challenges where still present at the end of the Yeltsin term. When people look at Russia's development in this context there is a striking reality of how impossible it is to accomplish a stable and transparent democratic system in such a short period of time. The following chart shows a comparison of problems Russia faced in the 1990's with similar problems America faced over two centuries.

Russian Problems in the 1990's -- Present American Problems Over Two Centuries

Major Governmental Transition - Communism to Federalism / Monarchy to Republic 1770s-1780s
Creating a Constitution in the 1990s / Constitutional Convention 1787-1789
Strengthening Federal Authority / Marbury v. Madison 1803
Chechnya, Ingushetia, Abkhazia / Mexican American War of 1840s
Seccession issues / Seccession in 1850-60s USA vs. Confederate States
The Wild East: Russian Governors and Regional Corruption / Taming the Wild West - 1860s-1880s
Infrastructure/Demographics / U.S. Reconstruction 1860s-1880s
Big Business Monopolies: Gazprom, Rosneft / Robber Barons, Standard Oil Trusts, 1890s-1910s
Economic Collapse, 1993-1998 / Panics of the 1800s, Great Depression 1930s
Rising International Influence for Russia / T.R.'s Great White Fleet 1901-1910
Elections Dominated by United Russia / 1930s-1990s Democrats Control Congress
Illegal Immigration from Soviet republics / Illegal immigration from Latin America 1980s-2000s
International Terrorism - Chechnya / War on Terror - 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq
Transition from Agriculture & Manufacturing to Services / U.S. Economy 1960s to 2000s

The change from one form of government to another is not an effortless transition for any country. The actual creation of a new political order takes years and decades to be built and to be accepted domestically and also internationally recognized. Skepticism among the domestic population is always high. When the American Colonies declared independence only about 40% of the population actually supported it.(80) Most "Americans" considered themselves British Subjects. The same can be said for the Russian transition in 1991. When the Soviet Union dissolved many people still were communist and supported the Communist regime.

The Russian Federation Constitution is Modelled After the French Fifth Republic

When the time came to establish a democratic state, the Russian government turned to model the future Russian constitution on the French. France is a country whose constitution also provides for a significantly powerful presidential executive. In addition it should be noted that France over its democratic history has been through several tests and transitions and is currently on its Fifth Republic. The First French Republic went through seven constitutions. Therefore a "change" to a nation's constitution is a normal function of a developing democracy. The fact that Russia, in the western media, has been harshly criticized for the "potential" change to it's constitution which would be evidence of a backward step away from building a democratic nation is not professional nor accurate. Most articles written about the process of the Russian political development state that President Putin "could" change the constitution, however these writers completely forget the historical aspect of the process and do not mention the development of the French Constitution.

The Crisis of Secession from Moscow

During the 1990s Russia security issues, most notably the regions of Chechnya, Dagestan and Russia's Far East threatened the geographical integrity of Russia. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, this created the environment for the possibility of other nations to be created. Chechnya and Dagestan, both oil and gas-rich regions of Russia, announced their intention to secede. This is a parallel to America's Mexican American War in the context that it was a major territorial dispute that led to the questions of secession and ended rather quickly with the devastation of the attacking country or region, Mexico and Chechnya. In the United States, the Thornton affair (where Mexican troops engaged U.S. troops on the U.S. side of the border) that led to the declaration of war from the United States is parallel to the uncertain events (apartment bombing) which led to the Chechnya incursion in the 1990s. Both events were surrounded by mystery and used for political gain in order to establish a strong leader and have yet to have a proper public explanation for the chain of events.

The transition from the U.S.S.R. to the Russian Federation was quite a geographic shock. By ending this agreement, fifteen new countries were created that were formerly apart of Russia. This is parallel to the secession of the American States that led to the American Civil War. The American Civil War was about two main things. First the question over the justification of slavery, and second, the debate which the issue of slavery brought into account which was limitations on states rights. The creation of the Confederate States of America geographically and also in terms of valuable resources is parallel to Russia losing the Soviet Republics. The American South, like Ukraine and Belarus, provided the majority of food supplies to the rest of the country. However unlike in the U.S., where the Civil War was fought and devastated the land for five years and long after the war ended, Russia came to a peaceful solution with the creation of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). [Editors - nonetheless, the question of ethnic groups that unwittingly found themselves outside of Russia's borders in the former Soviet republics, as in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, continues to haunt Russia and the West]

The Ruinuous Soviet Legacy - Poor Health, Infrastructure and Technology

It should be noted that there was no need for a war to destroy the infrastructure in Russia during the 1990s because it was quickly realized that the internal failures of Communism did an equal amount of damage. Roads and lines of communication were in desperate need of repair; factories had closed down and most of the equipment was left to rust; water pipes and energy supply lines were in many cases not working; and, a considerable part of the labor force found itself behind the border of new countries and were seeking to return to Moscow's sovereignty. This is comparable to the U.S. trying to rebuild after the Civil War in the late 1860s to 1880s. In the case of Russia, there was no full-scale Civil War in the 90s, but the damage was comparable and unlike the U.S., it was greater in magnitude, since Russia geographically is significantly larger than America.

Bribes and Corruption - Russia and America's Oligarchs

Russia is the largest nation in the world geographically. Amazingly this fact is often overlooked, especially in the context of stability and the ability of any government in Moscow to manage this vast space. Due to the collapse of the Soviet Union and severe infrastructure problems, controlling the regions became a significant problem that Moscow had to contend with in the 90s-2000s. Again, look at American history during the times of the late 1800s. Due to the distance from the East Coast, the western frontier for a time became increasingly becoming corrupt and unmanageable. As Davidson and Lytle write in their book, The United States a History of a Republic:

"In the late 1800s, government in the growing cities continued as it had for over a century. Most cities required authority from state legislatures before they could pass major laws. Worse yet, corruption was widespread. Andrew White, president of Cornell University wrote, "With few exceptions, the city governments are the worst in Christendom- the most expensive, the most ineffective, and the most corrupt. City governments were often run by "machines" or "clubs" controlled by political bosses. The machine offered city jobs and contracts to those who had the right connections. A well-placed bribe could win a company a contract to pave streets, build schools, or operate trolley lines. "Boodle" payoffs to bosses in return for contracts or official favors were a way of life in many cities."(81)

Many American towns created their own laws for their own purposes, and were often run by the top local businessman. Many who had money and contributed to politicians in Washington, and those local politicians, were left free to choose how to run their town. Mostly, these boomtowns grew up around the mining of precious metals, such as gold or silver. The same can be said concerning the crime-plagued metal industry in the Ural Mountains in Russia during the 1990s.

Robber Barons and A Replay of the Great Depression in Russia

When there are no laws and infrastructure, a "get rich quick" mentality often prevails among the people. It is not that shocking to see people profiting from a transitional government or lack of legal infrastructure. The Russian "oligarchs" conveniently took advantage of this opportunity in the chaotic 1990s. Similarly the American "robber barons" took advantage of the lack of legal infrastructure in America in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Instead of Rockefeller's Standard Oil, or Vanderbilt's railroad network, Russia had Yukos and Sibneft. Today it has Gazprom and Rosneft.

The economic and environmental turmoil that Russians experienced during this time period, is comparable not just to the American Great Depression, but a combination of depressions, bank failures and panics in the U.S. during the 19th century. As a CRS Report to Congress stated in May of 2007:

"After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia experienced widespread economic dislocation and a drop of close to 50% in GDP. Conditions worse than the Great Depression of the 1930s in the United States impoverished much of the population, some 15% of which is still living below the government's official (very low) poverty level. Russia is also plagued by environmental degradation and ecological catastrophes of staggering proportions; the near-collapse of the health system; sharp declines in life expectancy and the birth rate; and widespread organized crime and corruption. The population has fallen by about 6 million since 1991, despite net in-migration of 5 million mostly ethnic Russians from other former Soviet republics."(82)

The fall of the Soviet Union was a shock to the international community, but also a surprise to the internal development of Russia. Russia had "lost" the Cold War in the eyes of the West, and this was a tremendous blow to the confidence of political elites in Russia. This "fall" however, was not the end of the Russian state. It should be no surprise that today as Russia becomes more stable in terms of security and economics, it is forcefully asserting more influence in global affairs. Perhaps not in the same role that the Soviet Union played, however due to the geographic position of Russia, sitting in-between Europe and Asia, Russia is a vital player in the international political and economic arena.

The Big Stick - Russia's Desire to Restore its Status on the World Stage

This rise and desire to play a more important role in international affairs again hearkens back to U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt policy in the early 20th century. As Davidson and Lytle state:

"Unlike McKinley, President Theodore Roosevelt had a truly global strategy. He believed his country had a "superior" civilization that obligated it to take the lead in world affairs. Indeed, Roosevelt believed that "superior" nations like the United States had the "most regrettable but necessary international police duty which must be preformed for the sake of the welfare of mankind." This belief was embodied in Roosevelt's foreign policy, which came to be called the "big stick" policy. "I have always been fond of the West African proverb, 'Speak softly and carry a big stick, you will go far," he declared"(83)

New York Times bestselling author Thomas P.M. Barnett has also made this analogy in comparison to the modern day rise of China. The effect of globalization on a country is that it develops a desire to take part in the world it lives in, and have a greater say in its events. As Dr. Barnett points out, the country's perspective of self changes from inward to outward thinking. Therefore the question for Russia is not what the world can give Russia, but what can Russia give the world? Russia's rise in this area should be acknowledged and embraced, not feared. The policy of "big stick" should also be seen as a policy "peacemaker" as well. William Bennett, in his book, America the Last Best Hope, describes Roosevelt's policy this way:

"Roosevelt's reputation for wielding the big stick strengthens his hand as a peacemaker. When Japan smashed the Russian fleet in a sudden, overwhelming attack in 1904, major war broke out. TR called both parties together to New Hampshire in 1905 and hammered out the Treaty of Portsmouth to end the Russo-Japanese War."(84)

Free and Fair Elections in Russia?

Elections in Russia today are constantly criticized for being non transparent, corrupt and rigged with fraud and voter intimidation in favor of one party. Election irregularities happen in all modern day emerging democracies [Editors - including in Georgia and Ukraine]. No one election has ever been flawless. The goal of course is to hold an election as close to flawless as possible. The press however seems to overlook these issues when criticizing Russian elections.

Flaws in the American Electoral System

The U.S. Presidential election in 2000 was one of the most poorly conducted in American history. This image combined with the perception that President Bush won the election due to 5 justices on a party line vote in The United States Supreme Count adds a significant argument to the lack of perfection that democracy can bring. Another example is how the American Democratic Party controlled the halls of Congress for close to 40 years and in 1960 elected a Democratic President, John F. Kennedy. The pall of mafia support in West Virginia and significant election abnormalities, specifically in Chicago, was clearly not democracy's finest hour. This election not only put one party in control of all branches of the U.S. government, it also arguably contributed to America's entry into the Cuban Missile Crisis following the botched Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba.

The fact of the matter is that even after more than 230 years of elections, the U.S. has not achieved perfection. Yet we are outraged and alarmist about similar events in Russia. How can the world expect perfection from a 16 year-old teenage Russian democracy? Perhaps the only difference is that in the United States these irregularities are publicly displayed, investigated and criticized, showing significant transparency. This has yet to be the case in Russia, due to a weak civil society and lack of rule of law.

Common Challenges for the U.S. and Russia

In addition to Russia's internal challenges, there are currently three major international issues that affect both the United States and the Russian Federation: international terrorism, illegal immigration and continuous economic transitions due to globalization. Both nations are dealing with the challenges of the 21st Century, however, Russia has to deal with these problems in addition to all the domestic problems described above.

Yeltsin Strengthened the Russian Presidency Versus Parliament

In dealing with the many problems that faced Russia in the 1990s and that continue to plague Russia today, there are two very different leadership methods employed in an effort to solve them. During the 1990s, President Boris Yeltsin was praised time and time again for his democratic personality and anti-communist ideals. However Yeltsin believed that the political power structure in Russia at the time stifled much needed reforms, and that the constitution needed to be changed. In most democratic societies faced with this dilemma, the leadership would work within the constitutional framework and political structure to bring about the desired changes. This was not the path that Yeltsin chose. For example, early in his presidency, Yeltsin initiated a number of reforms on his own accord acting as his own Prime Minister, due to the fact there wasn't a PM at times, and at other times simply ignoring or firing his Prime Ministers. In the spring of 1993, he assumed a number of "special powers" which he felt were necessary in order to implement his reforms.

In response to these "un-democratic" moves, the parliament "democratically" decided to hold hearings and discuss the possible impeachment of President Yeltsin. President Yeltsin then "un-democratically" dismissed the parliament, followed by the Supreme Soviet and People's Deputies, calling for new elections and a new constitution. These events later escalated with the parliament invalidating Presidents Yeltsin's tenure, citing violations to the constitution and the "un-democratic" actions of Yeltsin, including his ordering Russian tanks to fire on the Russian White House. The result? Elite spetsnaz Alfa Group teams loyal to Yeltsin stormed the parliament building, and an untold number of the rebels, some of whom may have been armed and many others who were not, wound up in the Moscow morgue. Yeltsin took it upon himself to change the system and consolidate more power. When one compares the actions of President Yeltsin to that of President Putin, the later acted more "democratically" than the former.

President Putin More Democratic in Comparison to his Predecessor

President Putin never changed the constitution or dismissed the parliament, which is now legal under the approved Yeltsin Constitution of 1993. This was not possible under the first constitution agreed upon in 1991. It was President Yeltsin who gave more powers to the executive and the office of the President, not President Putin. President Putin used the powers already given to him and worked within these to implement his polices. Yet it is Putin who is criticized by the Western media, at least in part due to the fact that the media doesn't know the recent political history of Russia.

The reason why the era of Yeltsin Democracy is so important is because it gave President Yeltsin the ability to stabilize Russia through the peaceful transfer of power by elections. As Mr. Petro states in his article

"Since March 1989, when relatively free and fair elections to the Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR took place, Russian citizens have been coming to the polling stations at least once a year. There have been five national parliamentary elections (1989, 1990, 1993, 1995, 1999), three presidential elections (1991, 1996, 2000), four national referenda (two in 1991, two in 1993); four rounds of elections for regional legislature (1990, 1993-94, 1996-97, 2000-01); and two rounds of gubernatorial elections (1996-7, 2000-1)"(85)

Yeltsin's Gift - A Peaceful Transfer of Power

Boris Yeltsin's action on New Years Eve of 1999 was the first time in Russian history where a sitting leader voluntarily gave up power. Centuries of Princes, Tsars, and Premiers usually stayed in office until they died or were thrown out of office by a coup de etat. (The exceptions are Khrushchev and Nicholas II who were forced to abdicate). President Yeltsin started a number of reforms in Russia and his pronouncement to give up power is often overlooked in the media, if ever mentioned at all. This is a powerful signal and first step, which is currently being followed by his successor, Dimitri Medvedev, who in eight years will again give up power to another. What is more, is that President Putin is not only giving up the power of the presidency but also doing it at the time of significant economic growth and at the height of his popularity. Why is this factor seemingly ignored by the Western media?

Endnotes

(80) Carp, Wayne E. "If Pollsters Had Been Around During the American Revolution" New York Times July 17th 1993.
(81)David/Lytle, "The United States A History of the Republic": Prentice Hall, New Jersey 1990 p.482.
(82) CRS Report to Congress. Russian Political, Economic, and Security Issues and U.S. Interest. May 31st 2007 http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33407.pdf
(83) Ibid, Davidson/Lytle p. 534.
(84) Bennett, William J. "America The Last Best Hope" Nelson Current, Nashville 2006, p.507
(85) Ibid. Petro, Nikolai V. p. 226.

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.