Literature

    In his famous thesis, The End of History, Francis Fukuyama states that there are numerous social and economic forces shaping the pattern of the worlds history and propelling every nation, in which the terminal point is the domination of western style democracy and economic liberalism. This is in direct contrast to the Soviet s view which, though it believes in the same natural progression in history, argues that the terminal point is not a democratic and capitalist society but rather a socialist and a classless society. However, as Fukuyama concludes in his famous thesis, the West has succeeded. Hence, it is very interesting to learn how Russians today view the western style of leadership and structure, which had been regarded as the archenemy of the former Soviet Union. In the past, Russian society in general perceived western democracy and economic liberalism as the epitome of evil. However, the wave had shifted after the fall of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s, with democracy and capitalism now perceived as the savior of a degrading society of the Russians.

    The dynamics today of Russia and the West can be compared to classic stories in various literatures, wherein a former antagonist (in the character of the West) becomes the greatest ally or friend of the protagonist (in the character of the Russians). After numerous decades of strife, conflict, arms race, technological race, side wars, and nuclear threats, the latter now view the West as the only cure to a growing cancer in the Russian society brought and made possible by the system that they worshiped before. Problems today of the Russian society include suppressed individual and press freedom, rampant organized crime syndicates, the rise of oligarchs, corruption in different sectors of society, and government. All of these problems are rooted in a former state oriented system in the Soviet society. With the rise of former communist countries like the Czech Republic that shifted to a western oriented structure of government, the pressure is building on former communist countries, especially Russia, to be able to catch up to decades of development that were lost.

    In this paper, we are going to examine three articles that tackle the observations and recommendations of three writers on how the modern Russia views the western democracy and its market system. From their writings, we are going to contextualize, analyze, and synthesize their views, observations and opinions to be able to arrive to our topic that will discover how the Russians today views the western style of government structure and economic system.

    From these three articles, it can be said that the Russians see the Western democracy and economic liberalism as the cure to the ills of their nation brought by the failure of the Soviet Union. However, for the Western democracy and economic liberalism to succeed in Russia, the Russian populace must undergo a gradual but revolutionary changes that will enable democracy and liberalism to prosper in this former communist state.

Summary and analysis Russia must become a Western Democracy
    In Lucian Kims article Russia must become a Western Democracy, it can be inferred here that Russia appears to be dependent on western democracy for its needs, particularly in the area of political development and reforms. Russia sees western democracy as the  cure  for the ills their nation is facing following the collapse of the Soviet Union (Kim).

    During the Soviet era of the Cold War, Russia viewed western democracy as an anathema to their ideology born from the spirit of the Russian Revolution that overthrew the Tsarist regime in 1917.  Upon its establishment in power, the early Soviet leaders, beginning with Lenin, worked to create a  dictatorship of the proletariat  by eliminating all vestiges of capitalism through nationalization of the economy and collectivization (Kim).  However, the direction of the socialist state took a different turn under Stalins regime as he turned the Soviet Union into a totalitarian government where repression was the instrument to stamp down any attempts to change the system and  bring back capitalism  (Kim).  The problem here was following the death of Stalin, the Soviet regime had lost its sense of direction it no longer kept to the path Lenin had set in creating a true communist state which is a  classless society  (Kim). While the revolution removed the ruling elites of Russia, the leading member of the Communist party became the new elites.  Once ensconced in the Kremlin, they  inherited the trappings of power that surrounded the place and apparently forgot the ideals they had fought for.  Becoming new elites, they enjoyed the privileges that came with the power they wielded, while those who wanted to partake in this privilege must become a member of the Communist Party or have connections to be able to rise up the career ladder.

    The hostility of Soviet Union towards the West also led to a massive buildup of its armed forces supposed to deter  imperialist aggression  (Kim).  The result was most of its resources was devoted to increasing its arsenal from automatic weapons to intercontinental ballistic missiles to outmatch the west.  This build up had adverse consequences to its economy and further made life harder for its people as the socialist system enforced rationing of goods.  It is no wonder why a lot of people had defected to the West to escape the worsening conditions behind the iron curtain.
   
    When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, thanks in part to Mikhail Gorbachevs perestroika and glasnost, democracy rushed in like a tsunami which had somewhat engulfed most of Russia.  Everyone thought that democracy would quickly take root in Russia following the demise of the Soviet Union.  Looking back, it appears as though the Russians may have overthrown communism but appeared to not know how to make use of their new-found freedom, let alone make democracy work for them.  Several problems that emerged in the post-Soviet era would be graft and corruption, organized crime, and some of the remaining vestiges of Soviet totalitarian rule such as the abolition of direct election of governors during the presidency of Vladimir Putin who was a former head of the dreaded State Security Bureau, known as the KGB, later renamed FSB or Federal Security Service.

    It can be inferred here that democracy in Russia is something rather new to the Russian people. It appears that democracy is something they are not unaccustomed to after centuries of repressive autocratic rule by the Tsars followed by the equally repressive totalitarian regime of the Soviets.  Their apparent naivety of democratic principles created some chaos which allowed unsavory elements to come into the picture, mostly those from the old Soviet regime.  The fall of the Soviet regime also meant the loss of the privileges they enjoyed as members of the communist party.  As a result of this, those currently in government service resort to graft and corruption to maintain their lifestyle.  Former state-owned firms ended up in the hands of a new set of oligarchs who are politically connected.  What makes it a lot worse is that the government tends to interfere too much with the economy.  In a report presented by a think tank group headed by Russias president Dmitri Medvedev, the government should distance itself from the economy and not interfere and allow for free enterprise.  However, this does not mean they are totally hands off rather, they only intervene to act as an arbiter or mediator  for business disputes (Kim).  Furthermore, graft and corruption needs to be eliminated in order to restore the trust in the government, not only by the citizens but also foreign governments and businesses that wish to do business or invest in Russia.

    Others who were disenfranchised turned to organized crime, especially former KGB officers who used their training and skills to become leaders of these syndicates. There are still other vestiges of Soviet influence in some of the institutions in Russia.  The result of this is an unequal distribution of wealth, which is why most of Russia is still struggling financially. It is also for this reason why they could not join the European Union as it requires every prospective member to be economically stable so as not to be a burden to the Union and to allow for the Euro.  Similar to graft and corruption issues, this also needs to be addressed to make Russia relatively safe for foreign investors to do business in the country to help bring about economic development and growth.

    The enforcement agencies still follow Soviet-style tactics which have very little or no regard for human rights, and there is an apparent lack of due process that gives an accused the right to be heard to be proven of innocence. This leaves Russias human rights record a lot to be desired, and it makes other nations reluctant or hesitant to provide Russia further assistance so long as this issue is not addressed, especially when the West is considering making Russia a strategic partner in just about every aspect, from financial matters to transnational crimes and terrorism.  In military matters, Russias armed forces, particularly its army, are still conscript-based. According to analysts, the quality of Russias forces is not up to par or up to standard with that of the forces of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

    The proposed solution of Medvedevs think tank group is the disbandment of the existing agencies and the creation of a new set of institutions with the assistance of western agencies like the American Federal Bureau of Investigation and Britains Scotland Yard to train Russias fresh crop of law enforcers not only on law enforcement tactics but also on human rights (Kim).  As for the military, there is a need to  retool  Russias military by converting it into an all-volunteer force, thereby professionalizing it and making it equally competent with the NATO forces to allow for proper interfacing which would eventually lead to Russias membership in the alliance.  This would enable Russia to get out of its old image and come off with a new one which would demonstrate that it can also be a friend to the world and it is no longer what it used to be during the Cold War.  Such a move would also shift the balance of power in the world. By joining NATO, Russia would virtually be considered a partner of the United States and would pit these two partner states against other states that would present a clear and present danger to world peace or perhaps compete with them to being a great power, notably China.

    Furthermore, the agency also suggests that Russia adopt a competitive two-party electoral system which would encourage pluralism.  The two major parties are to have a national base, yet despite this system, Russia would allow the existence of other  minor  political parties that could participate from local elections up to the federal assemblies.  Russia had been long accustomed to the one-party system of the Soviet Union. During that time, they only had one choice and lacked empowerment to choose the ideal leader who could introduce and implement alternative programs that would benefit the country.  They are hoping for a similar system of checks and balances as the Soviet-era government under the communist party tended to monopolize that power.  The think tank is hoping to follow the American model given the immense size of Russia and believe this system is appropriate for its size if it were to make democracy work.

    In conclusion, if one were to rely solely on the findings of President Medvedevs think tank group, Russia regards western democracy as the cure for its political, economic, and social ills. One reason for arriving at this conclusion is that from their experience under Tsarist autocracy and Soviet totalitarianism, it proved to be counterproductive for Russia as it failed to make the two systems work, especially the latter which brought  equality under poverty.   Despite the apparent imperfection and flaws of a democratic system, the Russians are trying their hand in making democracy work for them, although it showed that following the demise of the Soviet Union, they were rather awkward or nave on how to make use of their new-found freedom.

    It can be further inferred that the early stages will not be easy.  It would be a time of instability and  turbulence,  but they are confident that in time, once the needed institutions are reformed or are in place, Russia will be able to emerge strong by the middle of the 21st century.  They are confident that if the Americans have been able to make democracy work for over 200 years, they believe they can do it too and are confident they will be  getting there.   When that happens, they can confidently say Russia is no longer the  sick man of Europe  or even a menace to the world but a friend and a partner.
Summary and analysis Russias Phony Capitalism

    In his article Russias Phony Capitalism, Grigory Yavlinsky states that Russia faces a decision of whether it will become quasi-democratic oligarchy with criminal, corporatist characteristics or a normal, western-style democracy with market economy. In line with these, communism is no longer an option since this issue was already settled during the 1996 presidential election.

    Yavlinsky also emphasizes that Russia  should not be underestimated by other countries and that it will be an important country in the future due to the following reasons (1) Russias strategic location between east and west, (2) its natural resources, (3) possession of weapons of mass destruction, and (4) potential as a consumer market.

    The article also explains the difference between corporatist and western-style democracy (Yavlinsky). Corporatist, according to Yavlinsky, is (1) marked by high-level criminality but bearing the trappings of democracy (2) driven by oligarchs with goals of increasing personal wealths (3) characterized by suppressed freedom of press and other civil liberties (4) where laws are suspended or ignored, constitutions obeyed only when convenient and (5) where corruption is widespread. On the other hand, in western democracy, (1) markets are driven by consumer (2)  government economic policies are intended to serve nation, not the people with power (3) citizens can succeed through hard work (4)  freedom is respected such as rights to express opinions (5) constitutions and laws are respected by both government and citizens and (6) corruption is minimal and its spread is always checked (Yavlinsky).

    Although Russia already showed a move towards western-style democracy, the country also shifted to a criminal, corporatist-style capitalism. Yavlinsky highlights several success stories of Russia towards a normalized western market economy, such as (1) newly established and privatized corporations with international ambitions that are making their way to the top, (2) certain companies with successful international bonds, and (3) the move of Russia toward a market economy with lower inflation and stabilized currency.   

    However, there were also indications that Russia is moving towards a corporatist, in which corruption is abundant. Some economic aspects that suggest this include (1) the rise of oligarchs who created a type of  Robber-Baron  capitalism (2) consolidation of semi-criminal oligarchy and (3) the control of business tycoons over the seven largest banks in Russia that control almost half of Russias economy (Yavlinsky).

    The main point of Yavlinsky in this article is that Russia must move and adapt to a Western-style democracy because of its advantages, but in order to do this, the country must also eradicate its gradual shift towards a corporatist-style capitalism.
Western-style democracy as viewed by Grigory Yavlinsky

    It is clear Yavlinsky views western democracy as positive and it can greatly contribute to the economic growth of Russia. The move to Western-style democracy will benefit all Russian citizens since the rise of oligarchs, along with insider deals and political connection, inhibits the growth of an open economy. The advantages of western-style democracy, as discussed in the article, must not interfere with the current status of Russia wherein corruption, otherwise known as Robber-Baron type of capitalism, in the country is widespread.

    Yavlinsky emphasizes that there is less corruption in the Western-style, and unlike in Russia, Western businessmen do not often engage in a Robber-Baron type of mentality. This type of mentality can be further proven during the auction of the Svyazinvest telecommunication giants, where many Russian tycoons bid against each other rather than deciding and helping each other on who would get the company. Accordingly, Westerns have an established middle class and a government that are free or Robber-barons, and most western tycoons are investing in their own country. In contrast, Russian robber barons are stifling the countrys economic wealth to invest abroad and they have no emerging middle class. Also, the oligarchy is deeply involved with the government, to which they can alter some policies for their own personal benefit (Yavlinsky).

    As for the Russian economy, these issues have created many power-hungry, wealthy individuals as the rest of the countrys economic debts struggle on its own. Therefore, Western-style democracy should really be put in place since its advantages will greatly benefit the economic market of Russia.
The roots of Russias economic problem

     The economic problems of Russia have been in place since the collapse of the Soviet era. Since the economic transition in Russia began, half of the countrys economic growth has stagnated. In line with this, real incomes as well as the living standards have fallen in most regions of the country. The attempts of the government to curb the inflation only resulted in pension and wage arrears. The government was also not able to pay the bills for the services and goods that they consumed. These were all associated with the restructuring of the country since the dissolution of the Soviet Union (Yavlinsky).

    In an attempt to cope with such economic issue, the total payment for the goods and services consumed only has led to a disarray, wherein 75 percent of the goods and services are paid either in kind or promissory notes (Yavlinsky). Therefore, payments cannot be cashed out. In addition, tax receipts have also decreased to about 20 percent of Russias GDP, while external debt has surprisingly increased, and the domestic debt has reached more than 15 percent of the GDP (Yavlinsky). As stated by Yavlinsky, these debts have taken less than 25 percent of the total government expenditures as the Russian Robber-barons continue to increase their wealth.

    Russias economic problem is always associated with corruption, a problem which has already conspired since the 1970s and 1980s (Yavlinsky). The article has mentioned that Russia has been ranked by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development as one of the most corrupt major economies in the world. As Yavlinsky states, graft and corruption permeates Russia from small street crimes to the rigged bids in exchange for privatized companies. In a survey conducted by the Public Opinion Foundation, results reveal that many Russians believe that through contacts and corruption, economic problems can be minimized, while only 39 percent said that hard work is the key to success (Yavlinsky). It can be said that the Soviet era had also influenced many Russians tycoons to develop such kind of mentality, which could suppress the economic development and growth of the country.

    Yavlinsky adds that most of the countrys citizens do not think that a crime-ridden market cannot be effective and provide any progress to the economy. Despite the fact that there are several good news and success stories about the Russian economy, it is clear that the countrys market is still veered towards a criminal, corrupt, corporatist and oligarchic path. On the light side, the so-called Russian robber-barons cannot be blamed for who they are or what they had become. This is because the roots of the countrys economic problem had already dated back since the regime of the Soviet Union (Yavlinsky).

Russias move towards democracy
    Since the collapse of the Soviet era, Russia has never attained such independence. Citizens quickly gained accustoms to liberties, and as the years passed, Russia became a more normalized country as compared to their situation way back during the Soviet era. One highlight of the countrys democracy is the Russian election, which is now a part of the Russian way of living. However, though democracy has been applied, Yavlinsky states that Robber-barons might interfere with Russian politics in the future and attempt to turn the whole election into another oligarchic rule, a situation which many Russians had already experienced in the Soviet era.

    In sum, a Russian government with a western-style of democracy will be an advantage for the country to overcome its forthcoming problems. It will bring about economic growth and development. It is true that Russia has adopted a system that has democratic traits, as evidenced by the implementation of election and other examples of democracy, although they still have a long way to go. Compared to the West, this democracy can only be considered as minimal and can still be developed without the countrys imperfection such as the rise of oligarchy and robber-barons. However, if Russia and the West can work together, they can maintain and tackle serious issues such as global war on terrorism  to control over weapons of mass destruction and to govern business relations that will benefit the country as a whole. In contrast, a corporatist, oligarchic type of Russian government is much challenging and less stable as compared to the western-style democracy.
How to achieve a western-style democracy

    In the article, Yavlinsky states that Russia must work for its citizens and play a constructive role in world politics. For this to be achieved, Russia must develop a new set of rules, and one of the most important rules is that business must be separated from political power. Therefore, it is a good way to fight the further spread of corruption. The legacy of the Soviet era must also be emphasized, wherein administrative power is above the law, especially its destructive outcomes to the growth of the economy.

    A legislation should regulate individual businesses, not the government officials or local robber-barons. Also, Russia must also curtail the power of gas and oil tycoons since they are the ones who earn huge profits from Russias natural resources. Yavlinsky even claims that  Russia must reform the current economic management system because many large enterprises are operated by  insiders  who often disregard the owners rights. Such type of management is similar to the management style during the Soviet era. Therefore, the government must eliminate and replace this with a responsible type of management that will ensure and protect the owners rights. In addition, Russia should achieve a western-style of democracy in a gradual and systematic manner to benefit all of the citizens as well as for the growth and development of the economy.

Summary and analysis Russias Revolution
    According to Leon Arons Russias Revolution, democratization is the key means of Western countries such as the United States in fighting a global war on terrorism. United States is viewed as a democratic and free world, in which liberty is triumphant, and their war on terrorism is an ideological struggle between freedom and tyranny. The major theme of US foreign policy includes human rights crusade and victory of freedom against totalitarian tyranny.

    Aron contrasts the events that happened in the US with the events in Russia after the Soviet era. Accordingly, the events such as economy, business and politics, are associated with and paid for by the oligarchs and others who are considered as robber-barons. Aron explains that it is a wrong principle that is harmful to the growth and development of Russia. Therefore, Russia must address the situation by (1) establishing a new and unchallenged preponderance of the executive branch over the judiciary and legislature, (2) restoring the authority of Moscow to the former self-governing provinces, (3) re-developing the countrys economy, and (4) bringing the print media and television under state ownership or control (Aron).

    However, those who are still in favor of the perspectives of the former Soviet Union think that Russias integration into the Western-style of democracy is a move that is hard to achieve. In contrast to the Soviet Unions principles, Russias current goal is very pragmatic. The country aims to develop the greatest possible freedom of action that will benefit all its citizens, not only those who are in  position and power.  In addition, Aron emphasizes that entering into a Western-democracy does not necessarily mean that Russia will have to make  alliances,  but rather to work hand-in-hand with other nations to bring about the countrys growth and development.

    Arons article also discusses the relationship between Russia and the United States. Accordingly, an  alliance  started to unravel between Russia and the US since 2003. Following the tragedy of the September 11, 2001, the US became aware that another terrorist attack might happen anytime, and they were obviously looking for allies. The US foreign policy at that time was promoting liberty and democracy to ensure the security of their state. It was during that time when Russias president, Putin called to Bush for the permission of Russian airspace and NATO planes to fly all the way to Afghanistan, as well as the permission of Moscow to effectively accept US Base in the former Soviet Central Asia territory (Aron).

    In this regard, Aron states in his article that creating an alliance can also be needed to improve and make a gradual move to a Western-style democracy. However, it is not necessary since the main goal of Russia is to have a democracy that will benefit and focus on the country and its citizens. For some Russian tycoons and oligarchs heavily influenced by the Soviet legacy, pro-western regimes can be considered as anti-Russian (Aron).
   
    As a result, the difference in values and beliefs, as well as the impacts of the Soviet Union can make Russia lose its tie with other Western countries, particularly the US. For the US, Russia is a country that is crucial to the war on terrorism, the worlds energy security, and nuclear proliferation. On the other hand, Russia considers US as an ally. Due to such differences, Aron claims that US must show an  understanding  on how Russia changed its perspectives after the Soviet era. In addition, Russia hopes that the US will assist their country so that they could be integrated into the world economy (Aron).

    To conclude, esteem, equality and self-respect are the key to achieve a democratic Russia. From Leon Arons article, it is clearly obvious that the relationship between Russia and the US has shifted from a closely-related path to a more diverge one. The relationship might even continue  to change depending on how the two countries view their own goals and interests.

    The difficulty of the current Russian society today in adopting and mimicking the Western style of governance and economic system lies in the difference on the foundation of today s Russia compared to the West on almost all aspects of life and history. Russias orientation and culture on what the government should be and what the government should not be are the strongest factors that limit them in achieving the Western style of democracy. Viewing the individuals in office as possessing a mandate rather than viewing them as their representative is a very strong element on the non-democratic behaviors of Russian citizens. The elitist structure of the former communist rule is also the root of the elitist type of democracy and corporatist structure of Russian society today.
   
    With this players playing in the field, it will be difficult to impose an instant cure to the problems of Russian society, such as corruption and the impacts of the Soviet era. The problems are rooted in the last three generations of Russians which make it difficult to erase in a snap. A hasty approach will never be effective and possible because the entrenched problem is not the Russian constitution or laws but rather the mindset, orientation and culture of the Russians themselves.

    From here, it would be better if we start the reforms in Russia not with hasty structural reforms but rather with a change in approach in educating the Russian population. With an awareness and knowledge of what the Western is and how the Western system will help to save the Russian society, the shift will be easier and smoother. This approach is slow and gradual.  However, it is less painful due to our acknowledgement that revolution will not happen overnight. It will be a slow and gradual process that will shift the orientation of the Russians and will revolutionize their mindset to a framework that is more compatible to the western style of democracy and market economy. As these mindset and orientation sink in the heart and mind of every Russian, we can expect a more democratic and capitalist Russia in the future.