Formal Democracy in Russia - Essay Example

formal democracy in Russia Student’s Name: Course Code: Tutor’s Name: Date of Submission Introduction Democracy is the recognition of the dignity as well as value of each and every individual in a country (Colton and McFaul 2003). It is the respect for equality of human beings or all individuals in a state or a country. Having faith in majority rule as well as insisting on minority rights (Evans 2011). Vladimir Putin, the president of Russia has initiated some political reforms to control public politics and democracy in general. He was elected the president of Russia on March 26, 2000 and was inaugurated on 7th may the same year (Whitefield 2005). He was reelected in 2004 for the second term (Whitefield 2005). His managed democracy has been remaining unchanged. His governance has been associated with reduced transparency, nepotism, cronyism as well as corruption. On the other hand the country has experienced economic liberalism and economic growth. According to the country’s constitution, Russia is a democratic state. However it is ruled by an authoritarian leader making it somehow adopt authoritarian democracy (Colton and McFaul 2003). This essay will critically analyze the conceptual principle of formal democracy as espoused by President Vladimir Putin in Russia. According to Colton and McFaul (2003) despite some scholars arguing that Russia is democratic, from 2000, formal democracy in Russia has been eroding under the leadership of Vladimir. The reasons for democracy erosion in Russia can be attributed to a number of factors though some enhance democracy in one way or the other (Evans 2011). Legislations These include the laws as well as acts passed by the parliament in Russia. The Russian parliament has passed some legislation that limits the rights and freedoms of its citizens. This has shown a considerable contradiction with the constitution (Colton and McFaul 2003). The law on demonstrations is a good example of these contradictions. Whitefield (2005) argue that it limits the freedom of expression since it provides for strict penalties on all individuals who may in one way or the other hold demonstrations for whichever reasons. This was after continuous picketing by the Russian citizens due to what they felt was lack of their democratic rights. This has demotivated the functions of human rights activists as well as investigative journalists. It has contributed significantly to rise of Russians who live abroad protests against president Putin in countries where they live such as London, Budapest and other cities in Europe (Whitefield 2005). The awakening of the Russian civil society against “Putinization’ means democracy in Russia is limited or the rule of law has not been followed. In September 2012 for example, some singers from the band of punk were arrested after performing in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior (Xiangmei 2013). This act attracted debate among human rights activists as it was seen as political move to prevent individuals from expressing their views. Authority Russia’s authorities have been ruthless on individuals who try to go against Putin’s authority. This has forced many individuals to move out of the country resulting to brain drain.in 2012 for example, the government of Russia adopted laws that restricted volunteering (Xiangmei 2013). This was a result of benign civil society that used the internet to attract volunteers who would help people in Krymsk after the severe floods that were experienced in the area. The freedom of the media and journalists in general has been limited in Russia under the leadership of president Putin. Non-governmental organizations as well as nonprofit organizations’ activities have been limited in all regions for the president to be in a position to manage democracy (Xiangmei 2013). This has been made because of the fact that Putin makes use of his close allies to do away with every ideology against his own. Electoral fallacy Russia under Putin has been experiencing technical democracy. The citizens have the rights to elect their leaders in all elective posts ranging from the president to the members of parliament (Egupova 2012). However, this democracy has been flawed since the elections are accompanied by thorough rigging as well as stifling of the opposition. After some time in office, the president put some restrictions on political opposition (Evans 2011). There were changes in the electoral laws that made it difficult for the opposition to win elections as well as representation (Egupova 2012). He abolished the single member seat that was famous of filling half the state of Duma. He raised the minimum representation’s threshold from five to seven per cent for party list representation. In 2004, he abolished elections for regional governors (Evans 2011). This was a step to limit federalism together with imposition of legislative uniformity in all the regions of Russia. According to the law that took effect on 1st April 2012, registered political parties increased significantly (Egupova 2012). Russian citizens above the age of 30 years have the right to seek for an elective post or be nominated by their political parties. However the president has the powers to sack governors for conflict of interest or even corruption (Evans 2011). This contradicts democracy since the president has more powers over leaders who have been elected by the citizens. Putin ideologies Putin ideologies are also known as putinism. Evans (2011) says that the international countries as well as Russia have described the political system in Russia as sovereign democracy. In 2005, Putin made a state speech and in the speech he said that Russia is a sovereign country and will always determine for itself the conditions as well as the time frame of what it does and how independently (Xiangmei 2013). This has made Putin’s governance to be criticized by the international community. Putinism Personal dictatorship is not evident in Russia under the leadership of president Putin; there are always some institutions in the government who have the responsibility of checking the powers of the president (Egupova 2012). The president has also faced some opposition within the bureaucracy state. However the president has been adamant in his struggle to make Russia a dominant societal institution for modernity and progress (Whitefield 2005). This makes it hard for citizens in the country as well as outside to make out the democracy level of the country. Contrary to other countries of the world such as America, the rule of law has not been the unifying factor of citizens in Russia. In the Putin’s formal democracy, respect of law has been absent (Evans 2011). When used in the western media, Putinism has been used to refer to the Russian government and it is usually associated with negativity. The silovik or Russian military or security services have a larger control of the financial as well as political power. The personnel in siloviki in the Putin government are his close allies or friends who have worked with him and they are used to support his ideologies in governance matters (Xiangmei 2013). Russian media have always been manipulated to praise the achievements of Putin despite the failures. Economical perspective Putin has always advocated for some policies in the economy to favor the citizens of Russia. In the year 2000, he introduced the flat tax rate of thirteen percent (Xiangmei 2013). There was also a reduction in corporate rate of tax from 35 per cent to 24 per cent. Colton and McFaul (2003) say that companies also have a choice between paying 6 per cent tax on their revenue or 15 per cent tax on their profits. This makes the tax burden in Russia less that the same in most countries in Europe. The economic policies and terms have been good despite the criticism from the international community but politically democracy has not been realized in the country. Colton and McFaul (2003) argue that the good economic policies came about as a result of centralizing the economy by president Putin. Other political scientists in Russia also argue that before Putin rose to power there was decentralization of the economy. They argue that Putin has restored the power hierarchy where oligarchs had robbed the country. Bureaucracy in Russia Some commentators and politicians in Russia have argued that Putin’s governance has been a system of one party despite the presence of multiparty system (Colton and McFaul 2003). The parliament has also been described as a puppet one that promotes bureaucracy under the leadership of Putin (Egupova 2012). The judiciary’s independence has been tampered with as well as decentralization of finances as well as power. This has been seen to contribute significantly to the few or no signs of the middle class showing up in the political activism making them apathetic as well as apolitical (Whitefield 2005). The ultimate strength that Putin exercises has been seen as the power of bureaucratic oligarchy which is characterized by dictatorship that is right wing together with the state monopoly capital that is in the economy (Egupova 2012). Corruption and cronyism Evans (2011) says that in Russia, during the time of Putin as the president, politicians, business men as well as bureaucrats tend to be the same. In this era, there have been high levels of privatization of the wealth belonging to the country. They are the same people who are controlling the financial flows of the country. Scholars such as Karen Dawisha have established that one hundred and ten individuals only have the sole control of 35 per cent of the country’s wealth (Egupova 2012). These people have been established to be Putin’s close allies and cronies. This provides the evidence of how corruption has led to misappropriation of public funds and wealth at the same time therefore undermining the rights of the low class individuals to own property. It’s also a fact that corruption and cronyism is deeply rooted in the Putin’s governance and this can also be a root cause of the undermined democracy in the country (Whitefield 2005). Conclusion The concept of formal democracy has had different meanings among scholars in Russia and all over the world. There are those who think that since the inauguration of president Putin, the country has been exercising democracy towards its citizens. There are others who think that president Putin has eroded the concept of democracy in the country. Through legislations, there are scholars who tend to think that the laws in the country can make democracy not to be enjoyed. These include the acts passed by parliament in favor of the president and not the citizens at large. The authorities have also been ruthless to individuals who try to air their voice through demonstrations and picketing. There has also been some electoral fallacy in the country where elections are associated with thorough rigging in favor of candidates who show their loyalty to Putin. Putin ideologies as well as putism have also down played democracy in the country. There has also been some bureaucracy as well as corruption and cronyism in the country meaning the democracy has been down played. Economic perspectives have also played a significant role in shaping democracy in the country. In conclusion the concept of democracy as espoused by Vladimir Putin has not shown real democracy or enhancement of the rule of law. References Colton, T. J. and McFaul, M., 2003, Russian democracy under Putin, problems of post communism journal, Vol. 50, No. 4, P. 12-21. Egupova, M. September 2012, Russia: the vanguard of Authoritarian Democracy Retrieved on 29th April 2017 from https://futurechallenges.org/local/russia-the-vanguard-of-author Evans, A. B. 2011, The failure of democratization in Russia: a comparative perspective, Journal of Eurasian studies, Vol. 2, No.1, P. 40-51. Whitefield, S., 2005, Putin's Popularity and Its Implications for Democracy in Russia Stephen Whitefield. Leading Russia: Putin in Perspective, P. 139-160. Xiangmei, X., June 2013, Putin imposes own brand of democracy, retrieved on 29th April 2017, from http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/754046.shtml Read More