Political Culture of Russia Essay

The nature of Russian governmental culture and by extension its politics has been shaped and molded over the previous centuries. mend we seat by no means attri savee its entire political culture to a single event or time period, we alike cant point to a time period, say the Soviet time, and draw our perception of Russias political culture from that alone.That being said, the totalistic nature of the Soviet State is by partial means ascribable to Marxist-Leninist philosophies. The nature of Russian political culture was (and unchanging is in more regards) authoritarian. Throughout Russias history in that respect has been an authoritarian military strength in how the acres should be ruled. The state was always thither, the state was bottom of the inning forced advance(a)ization policies from Peter the Great through Joseph Stalin, and today Vladimir Putin. Russia for the wide part of its history been just now as vast as it is today. The trend size of it requires a central ized business office to detention regional shore leave down. Every country that followed or still follows Marxist doctrine did (does) so with different flavors of Marxism, none of which are exactly and entirely what Karl envisioned. China and Russia were rivals in several policy areas throughout the 20th century. The same dichotomy can be seen between China and its fineer (communist) Southeastern Asian neighbors such as Cambodia and Vietnam. Communist countries were partially authoritarian because of Marxism.The nature of establishing and perpetuating a restraint economy demanded authoritarianism. age China has wiggled out of many of the responsibilities and pitfalls of running a command economy by establishing market-driven sparing reform, it remains authoritarian. This illustrates that while the happen upon components of Marxism are abandoned, the system and its actors continue to grasp to power as it seeks to alter and integrate itself into the world system. This is cou nter to previous attempts to establish a analog world system behind Soviet ideology. Bottom line the further way a Communist system can take act hold and root itself into the political system is through authoritarianism. Not to describe the guise under which many of the Soviet Republics were brought into the fold and behind the branding iron Curtain. These werent spontaneous Communist Revolutions toppling several governments around the world it was the Russians moving in after having kicked the Germans out and acting tool to their refreshful puppets. If it were populist support that kept Communist governments in power around the world one would not see states efforts to cripple freedoms of the press, of assembly, and of religion. up-to-date Communist governments fear a slippery slope, and perhaps justly so, where an march on of social freedom given would mimic Mikhail Gorbachevs reforms in the upstart 1980s and lead to an eventual collapse. Russias Political culture is to a greater extent authoritarian than a lot of countries around the world, just now today it is a functioning quasi-democracy with authoritarian overtones. This goes to show that in the right circumstances, Russians can and will subject themselves to semi-authoritarian rule. Under other circumstances, such as the situation in the 1990s that followed the collapse of the Soviet system, its a wonder that authoritarianism didnt come back in force. Putin still governs with legitimacy at the front of his mind, and hasnt suspended the constitution or ruled by decree. True democracy can and will lastly be concreteized, entirely certainistically this is only possible through generational replacement and hard, dumb change. The privatization process can be viewed with much rightful criticism, it didnt take into account Russians lack of understanding of the Wests definition of rational economic behavior, nor did it find a beaming middle ground between the dickens natives of command economy and wild-west capitalism.What it did do was change the rules of the game being played. We can fault the broad disaster therapy method for any number of shortcomings in the economic policy in the Russian arsenal, but it accomplished one incredibly more central goal. It changed the rules of the game. quite a little who knew the rules (or knew which new rules were coming), tintinnabulationsters, party officials, and Western interests, leapt upon the opportunity to make property hand over fist. This is still a vastly improved scenario as opposed to gradual economic reform, with the state greedily holding onto the command heights of the economy, and departure the unprofitable sectors open for private investment and development. The sizable majority of the Russian people didnt stick out got a warm grasp on private property, or selling one of two cows to buy a bull, or how to invest with these vouchers. The sharks ate them up in the incredibly free market. This is a point that was necessary for the facilitation of real capitalism and eventually democracy in Russia.How does one instill in its tribe the concepts that go hand in hand with capitalism? My serve well would be to force them to adapt to a changed environment. Gradual change wouldve perpetuated for a longer time the stagnation and poor cost-management of the Soviet period. An aggressive and present(prenominal) changing of the environment began the painful instilling of capitalist values into the world and government. After the spread cleared and a new millennia unveiled, Vladimir Putin inherited a new Russia, with new puzzles, and an semi-regulated albeit capitalist system. I also reject the legal opinion that a military post in a company translates to a trusted level of commitment and productivity associated with it. I can think of just in my own history a number of bosses with a small level of commitment to the company, they werent there to operate or manage, they were there to own. Tha t being said Ive also experienced several hands-on owners, who corrected the techniques of several employees to their liking. My other inference comes from day-traders on the Stock Market.People with no vested interest in a company putting their currency up because they think the stock will go up, not needs because they believe in the product. One doesnt need a stake in a company to incentivize success within it, it sure helps, but it is not required and wouldnt get to make the Russian transformation any less painful. The decades of propaganda had really affected some 10% of the population and they were the ones who fell off the cliff when the system changed. Russia in the 1990s was bad, but it was nothing compared to the massive famines that led to the deaths of millions of Russians, or the Great Depression. Many Russians who bought into the Soviet ideology were left out in the cold, in time others found jobs, and others made easy money. 1991 was a turbulent time in Russia, th e collapse of the system left countless questions unanswered about what the Russian state and its business sector would look like after the dust settled. I see absolutely no way, no system, no row that couldve mediated such a drastic change with minimal economic displacement and suffering. We couldve lessened the blow with a Russian version of the marshal object, but frankly that was much too much to expect from America.We were in a position of triumph after decades of struggle, and the prospect of the massive new markets had American businesspeople salivating. The Marshall plan also wouldnt have piddleed as well as it did in Western Europe because the political and economic culture of Russia was very different from Western Europe. Saturating a country with cash and loans to build (or rebuild in the case of Western Europe) modern infrastructure was out of the question. Half the reasoning behind the Marshall Plan in the first place was to cultivate capitalism, and combat the sprea d of communism. What is to be gained from a US policy of propping up our old foe? This is particularly nonviable on target when there was so much money to be made via exploitation. Russia in the 1990s was exactly was America desired it to be, complacent. The Russian mob played a major role in blocking true market reforms they reveled in the post-collapse chaos and orchestrated the major piece of the Russian economy that is still today conducted underground, and more importantly, free of tax revenue. While this percentage has decreased considerably, it still accounts for nearly a double number hole in economic exchanges. Along with the mob, the Communist Party knew what was sacking to happen and planned accordingly.They snapped up the profitable sectors of the economy for pennies on the horse and became fabulously wealthy. Both groups served as major obstacles in the path of real reform, and real democracy for Russia. The fact is that the reforms proposed were free-market in pr inciple and not free-market in practice. Favors, subsidies, inside information, and possessing capital (not to mention the knowledge of how to use it) made for a grossly tilted economic playing field in Russia. barely like water, the money flowed down the tilt and into the hands of elites and future oligarchs, leaving real policy and progress for later leaders and generations to wrestle with. To recite Winston Churchill, Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time. Western style democracy is by no means the pinnacle of human achievement, it is however a necessary discipline to providing the basis for equality of opportunity, rule of law, and political representation. That is not to say that there is no value in the Russian path, or that it is inherently wrong. rove just isnt as valuable (according to the West) when one holds the aforementioned societal values. assure whole works for Russia, much better than it ever couldve worked in the Go west, young man America that encompassed so much of the formation of our identity. Order keeps the barbarians out, order keeps the serfs from rebelling, order centralizes power in an Empire. Russia, without the concept of order reinforced in like ours of liberty, wouldve faltered and fell from the world stage many times, of this I have no doubt.. The two biggest examples of Order trumping Liberty (in Russia) I can hypothesize are the invasions of Napoleon and Hitler. In the former and the latter, slash and burn tactics were employed. Hell, Moscow was a husk in the dead of winter when Napoleon got there, and I have no doubt that in addition drastic measures wouldve been taken to preserve the Soviet state. People throughout the outperform land in Russia, burned their property, poisoned their livestock, poisoned their water, destroyed everything of use, and fled. The enormous sense of communal responsibility and togetherness that these behaviors exh ibit illustrate that Order worked and may continue to work for Russians, in the same manner that Liberty worked for Americans. I could never imagine Americans destroying everything in the face of invasion and retreating.Thats unsanctified in this country luckily we didnt have quite as aggressive neighbors as Russia had. The Russian political system must date several criteria I believe before it is widely accepted as completely legitimate. First off, centrist parties crafted by United Russia have to dissipate. Theyre there to fracture opposition support, and nullify the voices of the overriding political currents that have a bun in the oven governments to control of one party or another. Representative politics works best when it represents the electorate, if there are pressures to decrease opposition support via backhanded ways, then that is where one sees wide-spread dissent. United Russia may have the backing of a majority of the Russian citizenry, for now, but by treating the opposition as the problem rather than part of the solution, Putin and by extension United Russia is alienating many mainstream voters on the left and right. Their reaction is to then become more extreme and problematic because theyre being talked down to.When legitimate political parties and beliefs arent represented, parties and organizations that hold them have nothing to lose by taking up much more extremist views. If they felt that United Russia would play ball, they wouldnt be taking the positions that they have taken. They would come to the table with more of a pragmatist view and plan of compromise. The militarys role in the democratization of Russia needs to be minimal. I am of the belief that a Roman-style coup detat utilizing the military is a very real albeit remote possibility. Civilians need to be the head of their equivalent to the Department of Defense, and ending discrimination in the gird services is a must for minorities in Russia to truly feel that they have a say and a stake in the country as it pretends forwards.Divided government demands compromise, and it is yet to be seen whether Russia is ready to grapple with and enshroud with people who dont agree with you. As of this point, the answer has been to tranquility them, or to shuffle them into a centrist party like sheep, or to run up the tally of people who think like you. For Russia to move past the post-Soviet period it must start engaging opposition, utilize fencesitter parties, and stop fighting the opposition. This is very possible, just not at a breakneck pace. Russias value of Liberty will inevitably keep the country moving towards a more representative and legitimate democracy, but its value of Order will make sure that it is a slow and deliberate process.