Anatol Lieven, the author of the above-titled article in the January/February issue of Foreign Policy, suggests that Russia's best hope for the future may be the continued semiauthoritarian rule of Putin. I think he offers some interesting explanations for Russia's slow progress towards a western-style democracy.
--We may have concerns about Putin's authoritarian ways, but there is no one waiting in the wings that would speed reform. Any replacement would probably be more nationalistic and anti-Western than less-so.
--We should expect Russia's transition to be slower, given its size and huge ethnic diversity.
--The 1990s brought economic decline, social and moral chaos, and corruption. As a result, many Russians question the goals of economic and political reform. Consequently, it has been difficult for a reform political party to establish itself.
--Most Russians are not willing to subject themselves to the additional sacrifices that economic reform would bring. They feel that they have suffered enough. (The New York Times posted an article today about widespread protests in Russia against a new law abolishing many social benefits for pensioners, veterans, and those with disabilities.)
--The 1990s also brought the domination of Russia by oligarchs who exert a strong influence over the mass media, judiciary, and parliament. There is a concern that the appearance of democracy could be used to plunder the state.
--So....to what extent should we push Russia on reform issues? What are the diplomatic implications for the United States and Russia?
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
"We shall not cease from exploration, and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time." T.S. Eliot
