Russian president Dmitry Medvedev, seen by the U.S. as a potential reformer, has recently asked Prime Minister Vladmir Putin to run for president again (Englund). Putin is widely considered the most powerful man in Russia despite his current rank, which is subordinate to the president. Scholars and the media seem to concur that Medvedev is nothing more than Putin’s puppet, and they are often referred to as a pair, almost interchangeable. This March, Russia’s largest party, which Putin heads, was once again accused of fixing the elections as they have consistently been accused for the past decade (“Ruling Party”). This August, I read an editorial by Kathy Lally and Will Englund about how democracy in Russia has failed, and indeed it looks as though the trends support this. Putin has essentially run the country for over a decade, and his party seems inescapably corrupt. The United States, as a liberal nation, feels a responsibility to promote liberal ideals in other nations, so if Putin comes back in power we may see a stronger push for liberalism in Russia. However, if we examine the case of Russia, we can see that liberalism may not be the best solution for every country.
Despite his grip on the presidency, Putin’s watchword is stability (Ioffe), and for now, Russia remains internally stable. Russians are relatively content, able to talk freely (albeit privately) about the government, and do not seem very interested in either participating in politics or rebelling (Laquer). Support for United Russia, Putin’s party, remains high (Lally). Lally and Englund also point out that, “Instead of blaming the legacy of the unsustainable Soviet economy for their suffering, Russians blamed the reformers. Democracy began to acquire a dubious reputation”. By the late 1990s, Russian democracy had been corrupted into an oligarchy (Lacquer). Russia tried to create liberalism without security, but ended up with security rather than liberalism. Moreover, as Walter Lacquer argues in his essay, “Moscow’s Modernization Dilemma,” that, “As they [Russians] see it, Russia's traditions are not those of the West, and in the country's present labile state, more democracy would be harmful, possibly fatal.” It seems Russians do indeed “prefer stability to democracy” (Lacquer).
The idea that security is better than freedom is a concept that Americans, as members of an extremely liberal state, may have trouble grasping. If we subscribe to the liberal world order, what is our responsibility in cases like Russia? Partly free states like Russia pose a conundrum for the spread of the liberal world order. Should the United States pressure Russia to stop corruption and upset stability, causing conflict that may leak into the international realm? Or should the United States allow a powerful state to exist with a façade of democracy, a moral problem for liberals? The United States has supported autocracies before, but always with the argument of fending off a greater political evil – support of dictators in Latin America during the Cold War, for example. In contrast, the current conflict in the Middle East is an indicator of what happens when the United States tries to implant democracy where democracy doesn’t already have a foothold.
Interestingly, Russia’s system seems to be working. Within Russia, Medvedev is considered a reformer, even if he is tied to the conservative Putin. After all, in 2009 he frankly told United Russia it must stop fixing elections, clearly an attempt to bring democracy back to Russia’s political system (“Backwardness”). In May 2010, Russian Newsweek leaked a new foreign policy outline pushing for a better relationship with Western Europe (Mankoff). While scholars generally acknowledge Putin as “the power behind the throne” during Medvedev’s presidency, Medvedev is generally seen as a reformer, more eager to bring Russia into the global community than his predecessor. His goal is to improve Russia’s struggling economy – a goal Putin shares (Shleifer) - and modernize through closer ties with the West (Mankoff).
One possibility is that the combination of Medvedev and Putin will create a stable country working toward modernization. Russians’ qualms about reform may be tempered by Putin’s conservatism, while Putin’s reluctance to work with the West may be undermined by the relationship built between Medvedev and Obama. The West could be reassured of Russia’s good intentions through Russia’s willingness to work with the West even if Russia doesn’t subscribe to democracy. Internal stability and working within the international system may be better than a lack of corruption.
So is Russian autocracy necessarily a bad thing? Liberalism does argue that democracy is the key to peace. Russia inarguably still has economic problems and massive amounts of corruption. However, Russia and the United States’ relations have been improving despite Russia’s questionable democracy. Laqueur suggests that “perhaps the West should not even press for [democratization], given that the majority of the Russian leadership and the Russian people seem not to favor it.” The “tandemocracy” of Putin and Medvedev may be the best solution for Russia and the world right now.
In a broader context, should we force liberalism on nations that don’t want it? To do so seems counterintuitive to liberalism’s claim to create peace. The peaceful liberal world can only exist when all nations are liberal, but given the United States’ recent track record in bringing democracy to the Middle East, liberal republicanism does not seem very effective. Liberal revolutions from within the nation when the people are ready – such as the Arab Spring or the United States’ own revolution – may be the only true way for liberalism to spread. True liberalism encourages peace, but peaceful liberalism can only come into a nation with the right mindset.
Works Cited
Barry, Ellen. “Medvedev Says ‘Backwardness’ Undermines Party.” New York Times 21 Nov. 2009. Web. 27 Sept. 2011. <http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/22/world/europe/22russia.html >
---. “Ruling Party is Accused of Fraud in Russian Vote.” New York Times 13 March 2011. Web. 27 Sept. 2011 <http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/14/world/europe/14russia.html>
Englund Will and Kathy Lally. “Medvedev confirms he will step aside for Putin to return to Russia’s presidency.” Washington Post 24 Sept. 2011. Web. 24 Sept. 2011. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/dmitry-medvedev-asks-putin-to-run-for-president-of-russia/2011/09/24/gIQAXGwpsK_story.html >
Ioffe, Julia. “The Return of the King.” Foreign Policy 24 Sept 2011. Web. 29 Sept. 2011. <http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/09/24/the_return_of_the_king?page=0,0>
Lally, Kathy and Will Englund. “Russia, once almost a democracy.” Washington Post 18 Aug. 2011. Web. 24 Sept. 2011. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/russia-once-almost-a-democracy/2011/08/12/gIQAMriNOJ_story.html >
Laqueur, Walter. “Moscow’s Modernization Dilemma: Is Russia Charting a New Foreign Policy?” Foreign Affairs November/December 2010. Web. 27 Sept. 2011. <http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/66860/walter-laqueur/moscows-modernization-dilemma?page=show>
Mankoff, Jeffrey. “Changing Course in Moscow.” Foreign Affairs 7 Sept 2010. Web. 25 Sept. 2011. <http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/66743/jeffrey-mankoff/changing-course-in-moscow>
Shleifer, Andrei and Daniel Treisman. “Why Moscow Says No: A Question of Russian Interests, not Psychology.” Foreign Affairs January/February 2011. Web. 25 Sept. 2011. <http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/67044/andrei-shleifer-and-daniel-treisman/why-moscow-says-no>
I really enjoyed reading this paper because you bring up such an interesting dilemma. I think that the U.S. would do well not to push liberalism on a country where it probably wouldn't do any good. Since Russia's system may not be perfect, but is working for them, it seems like it is probably best to leave it alone. You're completely right when you point out that forcing democracy is hypocritical! In response to your question of whether the U.S. should tolerate Russia's government and its corruption, I think that it becomes the responsibility of the U.S. to help out if people are suffering from the corruption. But if Russia's citizens have basic human rights and are not too negatively affected by the corruption, and it doesn't pose an international security threat, then I don't think the U.S. needs to step in.
ReplyDeleteI found this article highly interesting as well. I came from the US-centric perspective in which corruption in absolutely bad for a state. However, you present the idea that the current government in Russia is actually working. When most people think of the US forcing democracy onto a sovereign state, they look to the Middle East. However, the case in Russia is just as interesting.
ReplyDeleteDo you think it would be possible to conclude that this case study asserts that democracy is not explicitly necessary for liberalism? You present Russia, which is rife with corruption,as a state that provides basic human rights,functions effectively in the United Nations and does not oppress its own people. The basis of liberalism is that these things only happen because the government is tied to the opinion of its people. However, this is not necessarily true in Russia's case. What can this say broadly about liberalism as a whole?
Actually that's a really interesting point, Sagatom! Liberalism (and the idea of working within the international system for reciprocity) is equated with democracy, but perhaps our international system has gotten strong enough that norms can work without democracy. The international institutions function well enough that even a non-democratic state must provide support for its people if it wants to have a good relationship with other states.
ReplyDeleteOf course, this doesn't work perfectly, as we can see from states that do oppress their people. But maybe increasing globalization and a strong international system will bring out traditions that work other than Western liberalism. Reinterpreted liberalism, if you will.
I am curious, you talk about Medvedev both as being a puppet but as being perceived as a reformer. Has Medvedev actually had an effect as a reformer, or is he merely perceived as one? Has he actually changed the Russian system at all, or has he just been spouting empty rhetoric?
ReplyDeleteAlso, going off of your comment about American foreign policy in support of democracy, I think it is important to note certain inconsistencies in this policy. Where America supported autocracies during the Cold War, these were many times in countries where the people wanted demcracies and had been moving in that direction before American intervened. This is seen in Iran, Guatemala, El Salvador, and other countries. I agree that America should not force demcracy upon countries that don't want it; if the Russian people do not want democracy we should not pressure them towards it. It is just ironic to note that in the past, America has taken democracy from countries that wanted it and pushed it onto countries that maybe were not ready for it.
Sarah,
ReplyDeleteI thought your paper was really interesting as well! You made your point very clearly, but question is this: does security justify corruption? How would you respond to individuals who think that the very idea that there are fixed elections, and democracy is being compromised, lends to a need for some sort of pressure or intervention? Yes, a push for liberalism would seem hypocritical in Russia's case, because the people are content and don't need it right now. But is the (perhaps temporary) confidence of the people enough to justify an idea that has been spun as so fundamentally wrong? Or is the idea of "anything other than democracy is wrong" just a product of our own norms, ones that we need to accept as not universal?