What does a confrontation between autocratic rule and popular self-organization entail?

GV 100: Introduction to Politics

14th of March, 2012

Before forming any assessment regarding the presence of liberal democracy in contemporary Russia it is vital to investigate how conditions that either favour or harm the emergence of liberal democracy are fulfilled on an economic, social and political level. Using Robert Dahl's criteria of an “idealdemocracy” (p. 33, Dahl, 1998) as a theoretical frameworkwill serve us to contextualize Russia's current development to the notion of an ideal democracy. After balancing out the insights we gain throughout our investigation of the underlying features of the Russian system and the principles it relies on, we can then proceed to develop hypotheses with regard to the question of whether Russia is likely to become a liberal democracy in the short and long run.In what will follow, I shall argue that despite the considerable economic growth in its market economy, Russia's highly centralised government with a super-presidency combined with a still largely depoliticized society, which lacks indispensable underpinnings in terms of self-organization and belief in democratic values,imply that a transformation of societyis a necessary antecedent to Russia becoming a genuine liberal democracy.

Let us begin our investigation by identifying the different conditions that eitherstrengthen or undermine liberal democracy. One remarkably significant condition is of economic nature and this is the presence of a functioning market economy with an emphasis on privatization and competitive behaviourbetween non-state actors (cf. Dahl, 1998). Ideally, long-term economic growth results in anindependent, educated and powerful middle class, which values self-determination and selfgovernance. On the political dimension, we may ask how pluralistic a country is regardinga variety of ideas, formulas and opinions. Moreover, political pluralismis a major driving force for “effective participation and people's control over the agenda” (p.37-38 Dahl, 1998).The success of political pluralism in turn depends on the character of the institutions and their responsiveness to the citizens. At the same time, we need to scrutinize the vibrancy and success of the civil society as a link between private and public sphere as well as its roleto provide citizens the organizational, ideological and interpersonal skills that are importantfor a thriving democracy in the way that they further political and moral equality among the citizens. Elaborating on the social dimension we will then proceed to lookat the relationships between the citizens, qualify the social capital and assess feelings of nationalidentity that are likewise crucial for the appearance of polyarchy. The final theoretical underpinningof this work is the public's internalisation of the Enlightenment values and their concomitant implicationsfor the legitimacy of the current regime. This aspect is of utmost importance for the achievement of “enlightened understanding” (p.37, Dahl, 1998)by the citizenry since it empowers people to form rational and informed decisions.The presented necessary conditions for the emergence of a liberal democracy will serve us as a theoretical foundation from which we can profoundly assess Russia's peculiar process of democratization.

First of all, we should reveal major characteristics of Russian capitalism that further liberal democracy and that make it more likely for Russia to follow this path in the future. As a consequence of economicliberalisation within the framework of a privatized market economy in the late 1990s as well as a number of other factors, perhaps most notably the extreme rise in oil prices, the Russian economy yielded an average,annual growth of more than 7 percent between 1999 and 2008. The long-term economic growth in the stated time frame produced some undeniably positive trends, such as decreases in the unemployment rate from12.9 % to 6.3% and in the poverty rate from 29% to 13% accompanied by a tripling of real wages (p.12, Åslund, 2010).Thus, private entities accumulated wealth that is independent from the state and this process furthered adecentralisation of power as it became more difficult for the government to assert power over its population asit was common practice during the Soviet Era in which a powerless citizenry inevitably succumbed toa centralised, omnipotent state apparatus. By contrast, large-scale privatisation of the economy became evidentby the predominance of the private sector contributing 65 % of GDP in 2006. For our enterprise it is crucialto emphasize the formation of a propertied middle class which constitutes "about 25 percent of the population" (p.224, Wegren, 2010). With respect to what could constitute a driving force of Russian democracy, we have to ascertain that political centralisationand planned accommodation from the top conflicted and eventually disrupted such a scenario as the citizenry was conditioned to be depoliticized.Nevertheless, the fact that a considerable part of the society escaped poverty implies that there is a greater potential for civic engagement in the political sphere as well as associational autonomyon the part of civil society for the reason that people can organize their life beyond the quest of mere survival.Correspondingly, the emancipation of an autonomous middle class strengthens the citizens' entitlement to "effectiveparticipation" (p.37, Dahl, 1998) as they obtain time and economic freedom to engage actively in the political sphere.As we have now gained an insight in terms of economic features that foster liberal democracy in Russia it followslogically to accentuate a possible negative impact of its market capitalism.

Irrespective of the long-term economic growth in Russia that was only interruptedby the global financial crisis in 2008/09, the country's main issue remains the dependence onthe abundant raw materials whose striking benefits undermined democratisation by fuelling corruption andpromoting economic statism. Privatisation was performed in an unorganised and illegitimate way by individualacquirement of former state property which resulted in the emergence of a tiny group of oligarchs.At the same time, this transitory failure to a free market economy lead to huge inequalities and preventedthe appearance of a far greater entrepreneurial class that could challenge state authority and promote liberty.An apparently inconsistent measurement with the EBCD data of more than 50% state share (cf. Sutela, 2012) sheds light on an indirect form of interference of the state in the economy by deliberately allocating representatives to major positions in privately owned companies. However, the most inhibiting factor to a free market economyand its concomitant implications for liberal democracy is the overregulated, administrative environment entrepreneursare facing in this country. On this note it is helpful to consider the recent data presented by "Doing Business 2012" (D.B. 2012) whichrates Russia overall 120 out of 183 economies with especially poor results in trading across borders and dealing withconstruction permits. Within such an institutional environment of "incomplete, unclear but plentiful legislation" (p.22,Sutela, 2012)violations of the rule of law were performed by both bureaucrats and entrepreneurs culminating in ashadow economy that brought about its own lawless mechanisms and schemes. One major effect of this is an increasedmonopolisation of the economy indicated by a decreasing number of companies to account for 10% and 30% of GDP (p.24,Sutela, 2012)mainly due to stronger state control and lack of competition for the dominating corporations. But perhaps most strikinglythe power of the state over the economy is enhanced rather than reduced by a "renationalisation" (p.234, Åslund, 2007) of firms and deinstitutionalisation making governance more centralised and static. This trend toward "state capitalism" (p.234, Åslund, 2007) clearly undermines democracy as it weakens the power of non-state actors and thus inhibits groups or classesof citizens to assert control over the ruling elite. The danger lies in the fact that the process of economic liberalisationbecomes reversed, thus undermining democracy and potentially leading to authoritarianism. In addition,corruption is a severe challenge to the functioning of the Russian economy and its system as whole.The huge extent is exposed by the fact that Russia ranks 143 of 182 according the Corruption Perceptions Index 2011.Corruption transcends all areas of public services and entails a general distrust of the population in any federal organization which interestingly leads to a greater interpersonal trust between citizens.As we have highlighted the ambiguity behind Russia's economic development to our notion of liberal democracy, this allowsus to concentrate on the political sphere, namely the matter of pluralism and its implications for our overall assessment.

[...]