According to statistics, one third of Russians believe that there is democracy in the country, while the other third does not believe. The remaining third hold more neutral views. Why do we have such uncertainty? Is democracy in Russia really such a problematic topic? Let's try to figure this out?
What is democracy?
Democracy is the personification of freedom. A democratic system implies election and freedom to elect and be elected. Democracy as a political system has 3 elements:
- State leaders are appointed by citizens through fair and competitive elections.
- the people are the only legitimate source of power. Power acquired except through elections is not recognized.
- the people exercise self-government, striving for the common good.
From here we can identify the characteristic features of democracy. Firstly, this is the election of the main government bodies, or rather the persons who are appointed to these bodies. Election can be carried out both directly (presidential elections) and through representatives (first you choose representatives, and they choose others).
Secondly, democracy implies a change of power. The president and the main authorities must change every few years. This principle makes it possible to prevent the authorities from “staying too long” in place.
Thirdly, democracy most often involves decentralization. Those. regions should not be dependent on the center. Naturally, regions must cooperate and strive for the common good, but at the same time the regions are free in most political and internal economic issues.
Democracy is not respected in Russia
If you look at our political system, you can see that democracy is poorly developed in Russia. Our head of state practically does not change. We don’t know many deputies, although we elect them ourselves. There is a lot of information that the elections are being rigged. There is poverty, corruption, and so on in Russia. In addition, basic freedoms are missing. Freedom of speech is often limited by censorship. You are free to talk about anything except politics.
If you watch TV, you get the impression that people are being oppressed. Rich officials fatten on the bones of poor workers. The media tells us that there is almost totalitarianism in Russia. This is indeed true. Many good jobs and educational positions are occupied by relatives of high-ranking officials. You can get a job in government agencies only through relatives or only for money.
As a result, it turns out that Russia has a kind of monarchy. Where deputies are an aristocracy (in the bad sense of the word). All elections are rigged. After all, it doesn’t matter how they vote, it’s important how these votes are counted. The length of the president’s “reign” has increased and will increase again. And Putin, sitting at the “throne” for his third term, looks more like a monarch than a president.
Does Russia need democracy?
Now forget about the previous section. Everything described above is just stereotypes that the media likes to push. The topic that there is no democracy in Russia is very popular not only in Russia, but throughout the world. Just give Western countries a reason to accuse Russia of violating human rights.
Russia is no better than other countries, but not worse either. Russia doesn't need democracy. Democracy has too many disadvantages.
Firstly, democracy is only possible in small towns and areas where everyone knows each other. After all, in order to choose someone, you must know everything about him. There's no point in choosing from 4 presidential candidates if you don't know anything about anyone. In Russia, elections are just like Russian roulette. In a small town where everyone knows each other, democracy makes sense. After all, you know everything about your neighbors. You know that Ivan is an alcoholic and you don’t need to choose him. But Peter is a hard-working family man, and therefore is well suited for the role of leader.
This is why people choose not those they know, but those they are used to seeing. United Russia and Putin are elected not because the elections are rigged, but because only their people know. If we don’t choose Putin, then who should we choose? Even though not everything is all right with Putin, there is simply no real alternative. It's like in a canteen where they serve nothing but pasta. Although you don’t like pasta, you will eat it because you have no choice.
Secondly, Russia has always been a centralized country. If you give a lot of power to the regions, they will begin to separate. Russia cannot afford to be divided. Territorial unity is our main weapon. That is why we are so actively fighting for the small Kuril Islands. You ask: “Why did Russia give Alaska to the Americans?” Many believe that Alexander II then made a big mistake by selling Alaska. Russia sold Alaska because there were no planes, no phones, no Internet back then. Therefore, it is very, very difficult to control a territory that is located thousands of kilometers away. If real democracy had existed then, we would not have sold Alaska, but it would have been taken away or recaptured anyway (remember what happened to distant colonies, such as America?).
Thirdly, democracy carries the seeds of moral decay. Democracy tells us about freedom. Most people believe that democracy is the only regime that gives freedom. Britain has a monarchy, but their democracy works more effectively.
Democracy tells us that we are free and can do whatever we want. Freedom is generally a fiction. A person a priori cannot be free. After all, in addition to the laws of the state, there will always be moral laws, the laws of the crowd, the laws of physics. The fact that you have the opportunity to study exactly where you want, work where you want, do what you want - this is freedom. Freedom should not limit the freedoms of other people. But freedom gives rise to pedophilia and homosexuality. After all, if you are free, you can do what you like. As a result, propaganda begins. The state is trying to prohibit such antics by blocking the legislative ban on gay pride parades and other things.
And democracy also produces unemployed and stupid people. After all, no one is obliged to work or study. That’s why you can increasingly hear that modern children are sitting on the necks of their parents.
Fourth (or fifth), democracy affects the penetration of the Market into the country’s infrastructure. The market is the new God. Nobody controls the market anymore - it controls everyone. If a country has democracy, then it must introduce market relations. As a result, instead of schools and hospitals, we are building supermarkets. As a result, in democracy a person becomes free. But in reality - dependent on money. All our lives we strive to earn more money - this is what democracy dictates.
Sixth, democracy implies the rule of the people. In reality, this is the power of the crowd. The people do not understand anything about politics, but they vote for certain candidates. And those 5% who are well versed in politics and know how to make the state prosper are lost among the 95% of idiots (sorry: not idiots, but ordinary citizens).
Seventh, the frequent change of president and people in the state apparatus is a guarantee of destruction. The President does not manage to do anything in 6 years. On a national scale, this is simply impossible. Imagine the case that the owner of the restaurant changes every 6 weeks. Naturally, the restaurant will most likely collapse in six months. Because the new owner will not have time to do everything he planned.
In addition, a person who realizes the temporary nature of his tenure begins to steal. If you are put in a barn for life, you will not steal grain. Otherwise you won't last your whole life. But if a person is placed in a barn for a couple of days, he will decide that he needs to take away more in such a short period of time. Corruption thrives precisely because people think of life as something temporary. If an official or president knew that he would remain in his post all his life, then he would not become a corrupt official. After all, he would understand that if he did not follow moral rules, his people would simply kill or overthrow.
Yes, life is a temporary phenomenon. There is most likely no God, which means you will die and rot in the ground. But that doesn't mean you have to do whatever you want. After all, true democracy does not imply chaotic freedom, but a common desire for well-being.
What's the end result?
There is no democracy in Russia, but there is no totalitarianism or monarchy either. Russian democracy may be crooked, but it works. We have our own unique system. And even if we don’t live as we would like, it’s good that we don’t live worse. And all sorts of words about the fact that it is impossible to live in Russia are just made up. So many people live in Russia, and judging by the statistics, most of them are happy with life. Hence the question: Why is there so much noise around the fact that there is no democracy in Russia?
The answer is simple. Stupid people who blame the authorities for their lack of freedom are more active. Normal people don't need to write angry messages on the Internet. Those 20 - 30% who are confident in the totalitarianism of Russia shout more than others. Hence the impression that this topic is popular.
People! In Russia so far everything is at the very least, but it works. At the same time, one cannot fail to notice positive changes. And it is not the state that is to blame for the rise in prices for food and gasoline, but the Market. And there is no need to blame the Market for this, people invented it.
P.S. Many will think that this article was written at the request of the intelligence services. Naturally, this is not so. I'm not praising the president. To be honest, I see myself as president, not anyone else. But no one cares about this, because democracy implies loneliness in freedom. I don’t criticize democracy, but there’s nothing to praise it for either. And if you want to live better, then you need to strive not for democracy, but for something else.
Thank you for your attention!
Latest tips from the Society section:
Did this advice help you? You can help the project by donating any amount at your discretion for its development. For example, 20 rubles. Or more:)
What is democracy?
Democracy is the personification of freedom. A democratic system implies election and freedom to elect and be elected. Democracy as a political system has 3 elements:
- State leaders are appointed by citizens through fair and competitive elections.
- the people are the only legitimate source of power. Power acquired except through elections is not recognized.
- the people exercise self-government, striving for the common good.
From here we can identify the characteristic features of democracy. Firstly, this is the election of the main government bodies, or rather the persons who are appointed to these bodies. Election can be carried out both directly (presidential elections) and through representatives (first you choose representatives, and they choose others).
Secondly, democracy implies a change of power. The president and the main authorities must change every few years. This principle makes it possible to prevent the authorities from “staying too long” in place.
Thirdly, democracy most often involves decentralization. Those. regions should not be dependent on the center. Naturally, regions must cooperate and strive for the common good, but at the same time the regions are free in most political and internal economic issues.
Democracy is not respected in Russia
If you look at our political system, you can see that democracy is poorly developed in Russia. Our head of state practically does not change. We don’t know many deputies, although we elect them ourselves. There is a lot of information that the elections are being rigged. There is poverty, corruption, and so on in Russia. In addition, basic freedoms are missing. Freedom of speech is often limited by censorship. You are free to talk about anything except politics.
If you watch TV, you get the impression that people are being oppressed. Rich officials fatten on the bones of poor workers. The media tells us that there is almost totalitarianism in Russia. This is indeed true. Many good jobs and educational positions are occupied by relatives of high-ranking officials. You can get a job in government agencies only through relatives or only for money.
As a result, it turns out that Russia has a kind of monarchy. Where deputies are an aristocracy (in the bad sense of the word). All elections are rigged. After all, it doesn’t matter how they vote, it’s important how these votes are counted. The length of the president’s “reign” has increased and will increase again. And Putin, sitting at the “throne” for his third term, looks more like a monarch than a president.
Does Russia need democracy?
Now forget about the previous section. Everything described above is just stereotypes that the media likes to push. The topic that there is no democracy in Russia is very popular not only in Russia, but throughout the world. Just give Western countries a reason to accuse Russia of violating human rights.
Russia is no better than other countries, but not worse either. Russia doesn't need democracy. Democracy has too many disadvantages.
Firstly, democracy is only possible in small towns and areas where everyone knows each other. After all, in order to choose someone, you must know everything about him. There's no point in choosing from 4 presidential candidates if you don't know anything about anyone. In Russia, elections are just like Russian roulette. In a small town where everyone knows each other, democracy makes sense. After all, you know everything about your neighbors. You know that Ivan is an alcoholic and you don’t need to choose him. But Peter is a hard-working family man, and therefore is well suited for the role of leader.
This is why people choose not those they know, but those they are used to seeing. United Russia and Putin are elected not because the elections are rigged, but because only their people know. If we don’t choose Putin, then who should we choose? Even though not everything is all right with Putin, there is simply no real alternative. It's like in a canteen where they serve nothing but pasta. Although you don’t like pasta, you will eat it because you have no choice.
Secondly, Russia has always been a centralized country. If you give a lot of power to the regions, they will begin to separate. Russia cannot afford to be divided. Territorial unity is our main weapon. That is why we are so actively fighting for the small Kuril Islands. You ask: “Why did Russia give Alaska to the Americans?” Many believe that Alexander II then made a big mistake by selling Alaska. Russia sold Alaska because there were no planes, no phones, no Internet back then. Therefore, it is very, very difficult to control a territory that is located thousands of kilometers away. If real democracy had existed then, we would not have sold Alaska, but it would have been taken away or recaptured anyway (remember what happened to distant colonies, such as America?).
Thirdly, democracy carries the seeds of moral decay. Democracy tells us about freedom. Most people believe that democracy is the only regime that gives freedom. Britain has a monarchy, but their democracy works more effectively.
Democracy tells us that we are free and can do whatever we want. Freedom is generally a fiction. A person a priori cannot be free. After all, in addition to the laws of the state, there will always be moral laws, the laws of the crowd, the laws of physics. The fact that you have the opportunity to study exactly where you want, work where you want, do what you want - this is freedom. Freedom should not limit the freedoms of other people. But freedom gives rise to pedophilia and homosexuality. After all, if you are free, you can do what you like. As a result, propaganda begins. The state is trying to prohibit such antics by blocking the legislative ban on gay pride parades and other things.
And democracy also produces unemployed and stupid people. After all, no one is obliged to work or study. That’s why you can increasingly hear that modern children are sitting on the necks of their parents.
Fourth (or fifth), democracy affects the penetration of the Market into the country’s infrastructure. The market is the new God. Nobody controls the market anymore; it controls everyone. If a country has democracy, then it must introduce market relations. As a result, instead of schools and hospitals, we are building supermarkets. As a result, in democracy a person becomes free. But in reality - addicted to money. All our lives we strive to earn more money - this is what democracy dictates.
Sixth, democracy implies the rule of the people. In reality, this is the power of the crowd. The people do not understand anything about politics, but they vote for certain candidates. And those 5% who are well versed in politics and know how to make the state prosper are lost among the 95% of idiots (sorry: not idiots, but ordinary citizens).
Seventh, the frequent change of president and people in the state apparatus is a guarantee of destruction. The President does not manage to do anything in 6 years. On a national scale, this is simply impossible. Imagine the case that the owner of the restaurant changes every 6 weeks. Naturally, the restaurant will most likely collapse in six months. Because the new owner will not have time to do everything he planned.
In addition, a person who realizes the temporary nature of his tenure begins to steal. If you are put in a barn for life, you will not steal grain. Otherwise you won't last your whole life. But if a person is placed in a barn for a couple of days, he will decide that he needs to take away more in such a short period of time. Corruption thrives precisely because people think of life as something temporary. If an official or president knew that he would remain in his post all his life, then he would not become a corrupt official. After all, he would understand that if he did not follow moral rules, his people would simply kill or overthrow.
Yes, life is a temporary phenomenon. There is most likely no God, which means you will die and rot in the ground. But that doesn't mean you have to do whatever you want. After all, true democracy does not imply chaotic freedom, but a common desire for well-being.
What's the end result?
There is no democracy in Russia, but there is no totalitarianism or monarchy either. Russian democracy may be crooked, but it works. We have our own unique system. And even if we don’t live as we would like, it’s good that we don’t live worse. And all sorts of words about the fact that it is impossible to live in Russia are just made up. So many people live in Russia, and judging by the statistics, most of them are happy with life. Hence the question: Why is there so much noise around the fact that there is no democracy in Russia?
The answer is simple. Stupid people who blame the authorities for their lack of freedom are more active. Normal people don't need to write angry messages on the Internet. Those 20–30% who are confident in Russia’s totalitarianism shout more than others. Hence the impression that this topic is popular.
People! In Russia so far everything is at the very least, but it works. At the same time, one cannot fail to notice positive changes. And it is not the state that is to blame for the rise in prices for food and gasoline, but the Market. And there is no need to blame the Market for this, people invented it.
P.S. Many will think that this article was written at the request of the intelligence services. Naturally, this is not so. I'm not praising the president. To be honest, I see myself as president, not anyone else. But no one cares about this, because democracy implies loneliness in freedom. I don’t criticize democracy, but there’s nothing to praise it for either. And if you want to live better, then you need to strive not for democracy, but for something else.
Thank you for your attention!
Does Russia need democracy? This is not an idle question, but one that directly affects the future of Russia.
We live in a world where democracy is a “sacred cow” and a certain “political vegetarianism” is required from everyone, leaving it beyond any criticism. Democracy is good because there is nothing better than it. The message is the same as it was in Soviet times regarding the teachings of Marx and Lenin. It was considered correct because it was positioned by the communists as correct.
But the real existence of democracy raised big questions even among such ideologists of “democracy” as Jean-Jacques Rousseau.
About democracy he wrote that " If we take this term in its exact meaning, then true democracy has never existed, and there never will be one... It is impossible to imagine that the people spent all their time in meetings, engaged in public affairs.".
The impossibility of pure democracy was clear even to the “apostles” of democracy themselves. J.-J. himself For the emergence of democracy, Rousseau considered it necessary to have several components: firstly, such a small state that “every citizen ... could know everyone else”; secondly, “the absence of a cluster of cases and the emergence of intractable disputes”; and thirdly, “great equality in social and property status,” so as to maintain an equal possession of power.
It is not difficult to see that such a social basis for the emergence of real democracy does not exist and never has existed in developed human societies.
Real, historical democracy appeared in the city-policies of slave-owning Ancient Greece, where for every citizen who spent a lot of time in public meetings, there were at least two or three slaves who dealt with his everyday issues.
It is characteristic that in modern times democracy was also revived in the slaveholding environment of the United States of America.
Democracy in the form in which it is practiced in modern times, with its party elections and numerous bureaucratic apparatus, is a very ponderous system, and is absolutely not similar to the original ideas of its ideologists.
Democratic practice shows that it is almost never possible to identify the people's will, since the overwhelming majority of ordinary people do not understand anything about government. What matters here is the will of only those rich and cunning who specialize in matters of government.
Usually, democrats themselves are not satisfied with either the will of the country's citizens or the representative institutions themselves, and they do not hesitate to lead, direct and even create the will of their own " autocratic" in the theory of the people-sovereign. And in cases of fear for their power, democrats are ready to shoot even their parliaments with tanks. Let's remember the ninety-third year of the last century.
Nikolai Danilevsky argued that the form of government is chosen by history. The Russian person needs personalized personal power, which can be humanly understood and loved. The psychology of the Russian people, shaped by Russian history, is thoroughly saturated with monarchical feelings, and it can no longer be converted into democracy. Yes, democracy would not have been able to contribute to the survival of the Russian people and their state in the difficult and constantly connected with armed struggle of Russian history.
The history of democracy is more like the struggle of the rich and cunning for power over the people than the history of people's power.
The truly popular, paternal power was the power of the Russian Sovereigns. And the monarchical “Monomakh hat” was not at all as light as it seemed to our liberal wearers of scientific skull caps. The monarchy was based not on arbitrariness of power, but on zealous service to the deepest religious tradition that had gone through a difficult thousand-year history.
Autocracy was the personification of that common sense that shaped Russian folk life, which grew from the moral sources of Orthodoxy and was guaranteed by the political power of the Russian Monarchy.
Think about it.
For some reason, it is believed that there is and cannot be anything better than democracy. Although in fact there are continuous problems with this democracy: it is not clear who actually chooses power, who is behind the ruling party and the president, in whose interests they act and who is held responsible for the results.
And it is impossible to change anything essentially.
And there is no one to blame for failures.
They will probably object to me that it was the same under the monarchy and Soviet power. But then it was at least clear who formed the government and, accordingly, who was to blame for the state’s troubles.
Under the monarchy, power was given to the sovereign by God and he was responsible for the state before God, and since in ancient times people, including the sovereign, were believers, this was not an empty phrase. And the sovereign defended his people as his property. And he took care of him so that he would have something to pass on to inheritance. In general, it was not the worst form of power.
True, the monarchy had an eternal problem of degeneration. The fact is that not a single great sovereign was immune from the fact that his children would turn out to be... not so great, let's say. There is a saying “nature rests on the children of geniuses” - and this applies to the monarchy too. Therefore, the power of the ruling house was maintained only until the next heir turned out to be a degenerate who plunged the state into the abyss, lost some war and lost power.
However, the degradation of power is also observed today, under democracy. And not only in Russia. Americans also note that the last four presidents are “one worse than the other.” Therefore, it is still unknown which is degenerating faster, monarchy or democracy. It’s just that the reasons for degeneration are slightly different - under a monarchy it is biological, and under a democracy it is organizational and social. The impunity of democrats leads to irresponsibility, negative selection and degeneration as a class.
What other forms of power do we know?
The power of the councils?
In fact, there was no full-fledged power of the councils in the USSR; there were only elements of it, and rather decorative ones at that. The real form of power in the USSR was partocracy, which again degenerated and led to the destruction of the Union.
Therefore, the power of the councils is actually a little-studied thing, but in my opinion the most promising.
If you imagine the power of the soviets without the partyocracy that destroyed the USSR, then you can get a completely reliable structure.
By the way, the shooting of the Supreme Council in 1993 itself hints that the Council was a fairly promising and influential body of power, otherwise Yeltsin would not have taken such harsh measures against it.
From a certain point of view, the council is the same parliament, which fully fits into the democratic model. But this may not be entirely true.
Firstly, the power of the councils is not one Supreme Council, but a whole system of councils. The result is a multi-level system in which councils can be territorial (city council, regional council), professional (under ministries) and by social groups (youth council, veterans council, pensioners council, etc.).
Secondly, councils can be formed not according to party principles and not by general voting, but in a more specific way, so that professionals are included in the council, and not loudmouths who promise a lot to voters, and then try to ask them.
And most importantly, a delegate selected to participate in the council can be recalled, which practically does not happen in a democracy and certainly not in Russia.
Thus, the system of councils and the procedure for their formation can be built in such a way that the following set of conditions is met:
1. The voter chooses a delegate whom he knows personally and can choose based on his professional qualities, and not on slogans or some extraneous merits such as a judo black belt obtained under unclear circumstances.
2. Not everyone is endowed with voting rights, but only those who, due to their professional qualities and social activities, are capable of making a choice.
3. A delegate can be recalled and for this there is no need for the whole country to gather, which is not feasible - it is enough for the team (council) that elected him to gather.
Election campaigning and propaganda, especially through the central media, are practically excluded in such a system, because the voter personally knows the candidates and makes a choice at his own level. No one will campaign through the central media for candidates for district and city councils. Campaigning for the president or general secretary, who is elected by the Supreme Council, too.
Since the media and propaganda are excluded, voter deception is minimized, and the role of media owners in the formation of power tends to zero.
Of course, under capitalism this system will not avoid corruption and will not work perfectly, but in comparison with current democracy, progress would still be significant.
And if capitalism is also abolished...
But I was daydreaming, wasn’t I?
You can come down a little from heaven to our reality and imagine the formation of power by those enterprises that make the largest contribution to the budget. Whoever pays 1% of taxes to the city budget has 1% of seats in the city council and so on. If you want to get more seats on the city council, pay more taxes. If there is a city-forming enterprise in a city, it will practically form the city government.
In principle, this will be similar to the current system of power formation, when the winners of elections are determined by big capital. But now it is unclear who exactly is sponsoring whom and to what extent. And it will be clear. Everything will be very specific and you can save money in the elections.
Here are ten seats for one plant in the city council, here are ten seats for another, here is a bank, here is a bottle, here is a piece of garbage.
Here are the State Duma deputies of Gazprom, here are the deputies of Rosneft, here are the deputies of Sberbank. Here is Lukoil, here is Norilsk Nickel, here is Rostec.
There will be specifics!
And most importantly, the mechanism for forming power will be entirely consistent with the economic model that is being implemented in the country. We are building raw materials capitalism - here is the power of raw materials corporations, everything is fair. We build something else - that’s the power of something else.
Is it unpleasant to see Gazprom deputies in the State Duma?
Is it nice to see United Russia deputies?
If we still cannot change anything in power in essence, then let those who elect them choose the president and the ruling party, only in an explicit form. To make it clear who chose them - Gazprom, Rosneft, Lake Cooperative or the British Queen.
And so that they do not then declare their decisions the will of the people.
So that it would be clear who made the decision and who should be cursed. So as not to blame ourselves for once again failing to change the president, but to swear at very specific individuals involved in this matter.
A sort of virtualization of democracy.
However, they, of course, will not agree to this either.
Because democracy was invented precisely so that those who make decisions could hide behind a screen, and the president and deputies would refer to the choice of the people and say that the people trust them, no one works better than them, and so on and so forth.
Even if the turnout drops five times, we will still be told that the elections are recognized as valid and the people trust the authorities. They'll tighten it up a little, tighten it up a little, tweak the results a little - and they'll sit down for another term.
And so on until the resource runs out, which allows the authorities to maintain control over the situation and provide the people with sausage, which allows them to pump oil and gas out of the country.
After all, the democrats came to power and retain it on the basis of a social contract with the people, that they provide sausage (in a broad sense), and for this the people allow the democrats to take everything else for themselves. And he forgives them yachts, palaces, fur warehouses, Peskov’s watches, and so on and so forth as long as there is sausage.
And as long as there is sausage, people will go to the polls and extend the powers of the Democrats.
But as soon as the sausage runs out or ceases to be sausage enough, and this will inevitably happen due to the degradation of power, the decline in economic efficiency and the continuous growth of the appetites of the elite, then the social contract will cease to operate.
And the power will change.
And the military will most likely come to power, because there is no one else.
Lenin and the Bolsheviks are gone, Zyuganov is old and frail, and has been frail since 1996, the nationalists cannot offer anything other than their nationalism, and this is not enough to lead the country out of the crisis... the liberals will have nothing to offer... here and the military remain.
There will be a normal military dictatorship lasting several years, and then either some kind of monarchy or the power of the councils.
Because at the origins of all monarchies were the military - squads with governors who protected the people for a reward (in modern terms - protection).
And Soviet power at the beginning of the 20th century was also established after the revolution and civil war with the direct participation of the military. Only then there was Lenin and the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks), which subsequently led to the emergence of a partyocracy, but now nothing like that will happen - because Lenin and the Bolsheviks no longer exist.
So it turns out that after democracy we will have a military dictatorship, and then either a monarchy or the power of the councils, but without a partyocracy.
Although, again, these are just my assumptions.
We'll see how it really turns out.
There is not long to wait, Putin’s next term will definitely be his last and Russian democracy will not survive it.
Therefore, soon you will find out the answer to the question, if not democracy, then what...
Vladislav Inozemtsev
The historical trials that befell our country and its people have always required unity and disregard for individual values
There are many definitions of democracy in political theory, and each of them points to a number of its characteristic features. Without striving for originality, let's take L. Diamond's definition from his well-known lecture “What is Democracy?”; The first and most important feature of democracy is the ability of the people “to choose and change the government through free and fair elections.” Today, as most political scientists, and not necessarily pro-Kremlin ones, believe, there is an imperfect democracy in Russia; it is called “illiberal”, “sovereign”, “managed” or something else, but few deny the fact of its existence. And even those who are ready to say that we live under a new authoritarianism do not remember with a tear in their eye the coveted “democracy that we lost” in the late 1980s or even in the 1990s.
I am afraid to seem like a cynic and a pessimist, but I am convinced that my colleagues are wrong. Have voters in democratic Russia of the 21st century succeeded in removing Vladimir Putin from his post as leader at least once? Or, perhaps, such an opportunity presented itself to them in 1996 in relation to the most democratic Boris Yeltsin? Or was the father of perestroika, Mikhail Gorbachev, deprived of confidence in some elections? Has it ever happened that the General Secretary was replaced in free debates at CPSU congresses? Did someone choose the Provisional Government? Or maybe the Constituent Assembly managed to change power in the country? There is no need to continue further.
What conclusion follows from this? To be completely honest, there is only one thing: democracy has not existed in Russia over the last thousand years and does not exist today. There were periods when the opinion of the population meant something, but that was all. Moreover, to change power, even at the will of significant masses of the people, as was the case in February 1917 or in 1991, it was necessary... to destroy the state itself, since there was simply no other way to get rid of its leader (and, probably, there is no to this day, which is why illegal agitation is equated in our country with an encroachment on the state system).
Why was Russia not, is not and probably will not be or, at best, will not soon become a democracy? In my opinion, there are at least five important reasons for this.
1. History
The first is largely related to the specifics of Russian history. In Russia, the role of the individual is historically great - and, I would say, overestimated. For centuries, the country has been associated with the state, and the state with the figure of the ruler. With very few exceptions, the power of the sovereign was not challenged, and almost never was it challenged by appeal to relatively broad political forces. Yes, coups and assassinations of kings and emperors happened, but even in such cases (as, for example, in 1741), new figures turned out to be bearers of purely personal qualities. Power in the country for a long time remained not political, but symbolic; collective associations did not play any role in it. There were no groups competing for decades, no pressure on the ruler from the nobility, no confrontation between secular and spiritual authorities. The consequence was an incredible personalization of power, the analogues of which were found only in the history of eastern despotism. Even when ideologies became “material forces,” little changed in Russia. Can the same Communist Party be called a party if it pursued such different policies in its name as under Stalin and Gorbachev? Whatever outwardly civilized forms Russian politics may take, it has always been built around individuals.
The closer we move to modern times, the more noticeable this fact becomes, the more it contrasts with the dominant trends of the era. Democracy is an extremely rational form of power, based on the possibility of an alternative. When in the first “democratic” elections the main slogan became “Vote with your heart!” (it’s clear that no intelligence is required here), and the main refrain is “we have no alternative,” only an idiot can assume a normal future for this country. Why did Poland become a democratic country? Because here the law was above “interests” - and in 1995, the former editor of the local Komsomolskaya Pravda received more votes than Lech Walesa and became president. Why did Russia remain an Asian dictatorship? Because in 1996, the “greater good” did not allow a democratic change of power to take place. In any democratic country, political beliefs and ideology are fundamental, hence the development of the party system, which is necessary for any democracy. The current Russian president was a member of three political parties (each time ruling) - and even headed the fourth without being a member: could anything more clearly prove that ideologies, beliefs and programs mean absolutely nothing in a culture where the object of veneration and respect are only bureaucratic position, authority and - to a relatively subordinate, secondary extent - personal charisma?
In modern conditions, such a situation has a catastrophic effect on the development of the country. There is no democracy in Russia today; there is only boundless populism in it. Power captures the mood of the masses, at the same time shaping them; it is ready to modify its policies to one degree or another and even revise individual decisions, but it in no way assumes that the population has the sovereign right to terminate its powers. A populist system is built not on the choice of programs, but on the preference of individuals, which is why Putin is equally popular both at the beginning of his first term, when he was pro-European and a supporter of a market economy, and now, when he opposes the West, seeks an alliance with China and destroys remnants of Russian entrepreneurship. Thus, the personalization of Russian politics and the almost complete disregard for the country’s ideologies, programs and methods of development is the first reason why democracy is not taking root in Russia.
2. Cult of personality
The second reason is even more important, in my opinion. Democracy is a system where society is divided into mobile groups called minorities and majorities. Now I won’t even talk about the fact that the rights of the minority should be protected from the encroachments of the majority - this seems to be an axiom (although not in Russia). Something else is more important. To establish democracy, the minority and the majority must be mobile, and membership in them must be determined by convictions or political positions. Both these positions themselves and the attitude of citizens towards them can change, and this process sets a democratic change of power. The possibility of such a change forces each group to respect the other. In Great Britain, as you know, there are Her Majesty's Government and Her Majesty's Opposition. This happens, I repeat once again, precisely because politics in a democratic country is largely depersonalized.
In Russia, with its constant cult of personality (in the broad sense of the word) and the dramatization of contradictions, the perception of disagreement as a crime has been formed for centuries. In the country at all times there were a mass of those who were ready to oppose this or that regime and fight it with conviction, but any encroachment on the regime was perceived as an encroachment on the country. In principle, this attitude is understandable and explainable: if you criticize a party, you may well be an oppositionist, but if you criticize a person, then only his opponent or, more precisely, his enemy. If this person identifies himself with the state, his opponent becomes an enemy of the people, as happened in the long centuries of Russian history, and more recently, during the period of the Stalinist dictatorship. The opposition turns - and this is clearly visible in the history of the 1920s - first into a “deviation”, and then into “renegades”. Even in much calmer times, its very right to exist is not obvious.
The current attitude towards dissent in Russia was formed during the previous “thaw”, in the 1960s, when the corresponding concept arose: dissidents. Dissidents are perceived by society as those who do not accept the regime, that is, as people who do not so much offer the best course as simply disregard the opinion of the majority. Agree, this is a very specific connotation: such people are not expected to have a positive program or “constructive criticism.” You can put up with them, but you shouldn’t take them into account. They can contribute to a political crisis and even overthrow power, as in the USSR, but they cannot become it, as it immediately became clear in Russia. Actually, even now there is no opposition in Russia - there are only dissidents, in the opinion of the authorities, who are preventing their country from “rising from its knees.” It is logical to suspect them of connections with external forces (which has always been accused of by enemies), and their only way is to reunite with their “masters” outside the Russian borders (which was practiced under the Soviet regime, and today is happening on a much more massive scale). This is how Russians form an irresistible attitude towards the potential opposition as a group of dissatisfied people, most likely sent from abroad and therefore not worthy of dialogue. And one can only be surprised at how quickly this culture of nihilistic rejection of dissent was restored in society as soon as personalist power returned to Russia in its obvious form.
The attitude towards the opposition as a handful of traitors and the deep-rooted denial of its positive meaning can be called the second reason why many decades will pass before the establishment of democracy in the country.
3. Resource economy
The third reason is of a different nature, but also extremely significant. Russia throughout its history (with the exception of the short period of the 1950–1970s) has been and remains a resource economy. The resource on which the treasury and the country depend may change: it could be furs or gold, now oil and gas, for many decades - bread, but the fact remains that in order to maintain the central government it is necessary either to develop new territories and reserves (as is the case with energy resources), or force part of the population to exhausting labor (as in the situation with agriculture). In both cases, the state plays a mainly redistributive role, concentrating on how to extract wealth and to whom to allocate this or that part of it in priority order. Up to the present day, the main part of budget revenues is generated by revenues from resource rents, with the second most important item remaining revenues from customs duties and duties (they now bring the same share of budget revenues as they provided in the United States in the first years after the Civil War of 1861 -1865). Entrepreneurship in Russia is traditionally viewed not as a means of improving the well-being of society, but as speculation or an activity motivated solely by profit. In the minds of the population, the tasks of redistributing wealth clearly dominate over the tasks of multiplying them.
This circumstance is a powerful blocker of democracy. In many ways, democracy arose as a system of control over the state by citizens who ensure the development of society and make a significant contribution to its well-being. Active citizenship is highly unlikely without economic participation in society. In Russia, there is a situation in which about 1% of the population provides up to 70% of exports and 55% of budget revenues generated by the oil and gas sector. The federal government is demonstratively disdainful of income tax, allowing it to be managed by regional authorities (although in the United States it makes up the majority of budget revenues). From an economic point of view, in such conditions the demand for democracy is a demand to establish the power of “freeloaders” over the “breadwinners”, make sure that people who already receive everything from the state also determine its policy. In this regard, the system of property qualifications that existed in early European democracies comes to mind, and it turns out that the very demand for democratic participation in governing the entire country in Russia looks recklessly irrational. "Cattle" can claim to participate in the elections of local councils, mayors and even - sometimes - governors, that is, in fact, those whom they finance with their taxes, but why should they have the right to change the president and government?
A country in which the overwhelming majority of the population does not create wealth, but consumes it, cannot be democratic - it is no coincidence that the transition from a “participatory economy” to the demands of “bread and circuses” coincided with the transition from a republic to an empire in Ancient Rome. The peculiarity of Russia in this case is also that dependence on natural resource rent is not decreasing, but growing: the share of raw materials in exports has increased from 38% in the late Soviet period to almost 73% now, and there are no prerequisites for a change in the trend. This means, in my opinion, that democratization looks not only unrealistic, but also partly unfair. The problem cannot be solved either by the development of education, or by nurturing entrepreneurial skills, or by promoting civic values: those who acquire them quickly leave the country, only increasing the proportion of people among those who remain who expect handouts from the state. Those asking for alms do not and cannot have any reason to demand for themselves the right to determine by voting the behavior of those who distribute it - this is, in extremely clear form, the third obstacle to the development of democracy in Russia.
4. Imperial mentality
The fourth reason is determined by the specific nature of the attitude of Russians to the viability of power. Having formed as a country with a defensive consciousness and as a “frontline” civilization, Russia has absorbed the awareness of the primacy of the community and the secondary nature of the individual. As one famous song says: “If my native country lived, I would have no other worries!” - this message is extremely strong in the worldview of the population. This gives rise to a derogatory attitude towards oneself and a willingness, if not to make sacrifices on the basis of personal initiative, then to justify similar sacrifices made by others, if, of course, they contribute to the real or imagined “greatness” of the state. The most obvious manifestation of this greatness is the territory that is not growing at a known rate to pacifist-minded countries. If we take into account both the scale of the lands controlled and the duration of control over them, Russia should be recognized as the largest empire in the history of mankind. As a matter of fact, this line need not be continued, since it looks quite clear.
Aggressive democracy is a rather rare phenomenon, especially during the period of dominance of universal suffrage. As a rule, as democratic norms develop, states become less prone to war and violence (the exception is operations driven by ideological or humanitarian considerations, as well as defensive wars). This is where another Russian trap arises. History shows that in an inherently colonial country, increasing pressure on power from below is largely an unbalancing element. In the twentieth century, the collapse of Russia was triggered twice after the most liberal and democratic reforms in its history - after 1917 and 1985. Therefore, if the goal is to “save the country” (and this slogan was and remains the most popular), then democracy seems more than a natural price that can be paid for such an achievement. Moreover, the loss of territory is the absolute criterion of a ruler's failure, while the expansion of it, or the "sphere of influence", atones for all his mistakes. The reign of Peter I or Catherine II is perceived as great epochs of Russian history not because of the transformation of Russia into a Europeanized country or the granting of freedom to the nobility, but primarily because of military successes and territorial increments. Accordingly, the freedom and openness brought by Gorbachev were forgotten amid the loss of a significant part of the territory of the former superpower. Conversely, Putin's successes in pointlessly holding on to Russia's useless Chechnya in 2000 and annexing the even less valued Crimea in 2014 have turned him into the country's most revered leader. Naturally, an apology for violence and aggression cannot be combined with democracy, because the concept of freedom presupposes greater mobility and greater opportunities. If the population of the same Crimea voted for joining Russia in order to be deprived of the right to express a different opinion in the future, it is clear why this is happening: democracy looks unacceptably risky in a system where the main value is the expansion of state borders. In other words, the main obstacle to the development of democracy in Russia is the specifically Russian understanding of the state and state interests.
5. Corruption
The fifth reason is one of the most original. Russia is a country in which corruption and abuse of power are a characteristic feature of state institutions. This is partly due to history, when the positions of officials served as a way to “feed” them, and partly due to the current state of affairs, when an unprecedented merger of public service and business activity has occurred. However, the fact remains: To maintain the level of corruption desired by the authorities, it is necessary to destructure society and devalue almost any form of collective action.
This is precisely what has been ideally achieved in modern Russia. The country is a community of personally free people who have the rights to acquire and alienate property, conduct business, leave the country and return to it, receive information, and so on. In private life, restrictions have long been reduced to zero. Moreover, most laws and regulations are easily circumvented, although they cannot be legally revised. The latter is especially important for the preservation of a system that derives its strength from the constant creation of exceptional situations. Meanwhile, this requires an important factor: the state must be opposed by an individual, not society. Corruption, unlike lobbying, is an individual, almost intimate process. Corrupt power is stronger the more individual petitioners come to it and the fewer there are those who are ready to exert collective pressure on it.
Therefore, Russia in its current form is an extremely individualized society: in it it is much easier to individually agree on an exception than to collectively change the norm. I think it is unnecessary to say that democracy is the process of a formalized change in norms with the participation of the broad masses of the public: thus, it turns out that the entire system of organizing Russian power is directly focused on preventing the creation of conditions for the formation of democratic institutions. It is also worth noting that this situation is not imposed on society: being rational people, Russians for the most part understand that the existing organization does not necessarily complicate life, but often even simplifies it, because the same bribe often solves problems that cannot be overcome by any means. in a different way. Democratizing society means not just getting rid of thieving officials, but also putting oneself in conditions of observing rules that the vast majority of Russians, alas, do not intend to observe.
The latter means that the increase in the degree of personal freedom in an authoritarian society in the most unexpected way leads to the formation of an “anti-democratic consensus”, which acts as the fifth obstacle to democratic change.
What conclusion follows from all of the above? In my opinion this is conclusion about the fundamental lack of demand for democracy in Russian society. The desire for freedom and autonomy; a sense of superiority of individual goals over state goals; treating the government as an institution for providing public goods, and not as a sacred symbol; readiness for collective action, rather than individual resolution of systemic contradictions - all these prerequisites for a democratic society are largely absent from the Russian consciousness. Any historical trials that befell our country and its people required their unity and disregard for individual values, and not vice versa. And therefore, I don’t see any chance that a free and democratic society will suddenly turn out to be an ideal for a significant part of Russians.
The only way out, in my opinion, may be external influence. The undemocratic Russian system of statehood is ineffective - and at one point or another historical horizon it will require such sacrifices from the population that it will not be ready to accept. The country's foreign policy and foreign economic orientation will also require important decisions in the future regarding the choice between the West and the East, between the democratic and authoritarian path of development. As a result, sooner or later the country will have no acceptable alternative to greater rapprochement with Europe, of which Russia has been a historical part for many centuries (and to which it has constantly been drawn economically, culturally and socially). The European state structure will inevitably require fundamental changes in the organization of the country's political life and, speaking directly and clearly, the establishment of a democratic regime.
Democracy is in many ways a process of desovereignization of the ruler, transferring part of his powers to the people and agreement with external, that is, not “sacred,” legitimization. Considering that in Russia there has historically developed and now exists a system based on the principle “the state is me,” the desovereignization of the ruler can only be realized through the desovereignization of the state itself. And if we don’t talk about occupation (impossible in the Russian case), then there is only one simple and clear path left: joining the country to a supranational association with a single center of power and rule-making. No matter how bitter this thesis may sound, I see no reason to believe that Russia can become a democracy before the main legislative, judicial and executive decisions cease to be made in Moscow. “Real sovereignty” and real democracy in Russia are incompatible - so far everything suggests that when choosing between the first and second, democratic rules will not be preferable. As a matter of fact, it is precisely this circumstance that most clearly answers the question posed in the title of the article.
Loading...
