Rob Wilkinson takes a critical look at the current regime in Russia, while Denis Shatokhin argues that Western impartiality is necessary for Russian democracy to survive and flourish
In recent years, the European and American press have written very little that is positive about Russia. One has difficulty recalling the last time something impartial was written about the Russian economy or political system, not to mention the Russian government or politicians themselves. This Russia-bashing is particularly overt in the German and British press. Whether the subject covered is Russia’s relationship with Georgia or the dispute over the American anti-missile shield, Western newspapers strive to out-do one another in terms of negativity.
A distinctive feature of many of the articles is the tendency, not to lie, but to tell half truths. A common method of doing this is to conceal facts which could help explain controversial Russian actions. This renders the articles biased by creating an “us and them” mentality in the West’s attitude to Russia. Ideologically, it seems that the Cold War continues: Russia is still presented as a major enemy.
So the first question arising from this is: ‘Why is every article about Russia in our press negative?’ The lazy answer would be that Russia is becoming increasingly totalitarian, and that Vladimir Putin is not quite the “flawless democrat” he was claimed to be by former German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder. Let us instead look at this issue from a Russian perspective.
The Western concept of democracy is totally different from that of Russia or, indeed, many other countries. For instance, the disastrous American-led crusades for democracy have proved that their version cannot be spread simply by force. Rather than acknowledging this, however, the West continues to expect other governments to function as it does, and thus totally disregards the unique political cultures of other countries. Russia, we must not forget, is a young democracy, only seventeen years of age. By expecting Russia to emulate it, the West overlooks both this inexperience and the collapse of the Russian economy after the dissolution of the Soviet Union.
With the emergence of Vladimir Putin on Russia’s political scene, the economic situation of the country and the lives of many Russians have dramatically improved. Putin has put Russia back on its feet, increasing people’s incomes as well as attracting huge amounts of foreign investment. In the Discovery Institute’s ‘The Real Russia Project’ ten Western media stereotypes about Russia were analysed for their validity. One important fact about Russia highlighted by this study is that Putin has an approval rating of seventy to eighty percent amongst the Russian population, with many even expecting him to stay on for a third term. This is a much higher level of domestic popularity than leaders such as George W Bush or Gordon Brown enjoy. Despite allegations that the Russian parliamentary elections of 2007 had significant irregularities, Putin’s party, United Russia, would still have won the elections with an absolute majority. Let us also not be too hasty to judge the electoral ambiguities. We all remember the controversy surrounding Bush’s presidential election result in Florida in 2000 and the postal vote discrepancies with British local elections in 2004.
Some of Putin’s reforms are regarded by the western press to be a setback for democracy, especially the reform of the Federation Council of Russia, the upper house of parliament. The elections of these governors have been replaced by presidential appointment, not too dissimilar to the appointment of peers by the Prime Minister in Britain. At a glance, this may appear as a setback for democracy. It is not so widely known, however, that it was common practice for criminals to get themselves “elected” as governors or deputies often for dubious reasons such as immunity from prosecution. This important fact has been concealed or simply ignored by the western media.
Putin’s decision to nominate Dmitry Medvedev as his preferred candidate for the presidential post, rather than being authoritarian, demonstrates his belief in a more liberal policy. His choice puts a stop to the growth in influence of the security services on the government. Had he chosen Sergei Ivanov, the former Minister of Defence, the opposite would have happened. This should silence critics who believe that Russia is on the way to becoming a police state once more. It’s all too easy for the Western media to simply treat Russia as the bad guys. Often, when they do so, it is in a distinctively hypocritical vein, forgetting their own failings and shortcomings when it comes to upholding their one-size-fits-all democratic principles.In seventeen years Russia has come a long way, but still there lies a long road ahead. Russia needs the active help of the West in this journey. What better way to begin than with the press writing more impartially about Russia?
B ack in the 1940s, the General Secretary of the USSR, Josef Stalin, drily said of elections that “those who cast the votes decide nothing, those who count them decide everything”. Now, sixty years on, Uncle Joe’s maxim seems worryingly relevant even in the current climate of the supposedly democratised Russia. There is an ever-mounting pile of evidence of a putrid core of corruption at the heart of Putin’s Kremlin. This highlights not only the cracks in the country’s fragile democracy, but also a worrying slide back towards an authoritarian state. Something is clearly rotten in the state of Russia.
It is often remarked that the Russian people tend to favour strong leaders over democratic ones and this is to some extent understandable. After all, Yeltsin’s “shock tactic” attempt to liberalise the economy was a disaster. It caused recession and a plummet in the standard of living. Furthermore, the selling of the country’s assets to the so-called “oligarchs” such as Abramovich and Berezovsky has created an economic divide not seen since the Tsarist days. These problems, as well as the instability of the surrounding states and the terrorist threat from the Chechen separatists, have created a climate in which a strong leader is required. From this, Putin was able to seize and consolidate his power with popular backing.
However, with this has come a worrying move towards a one party state, in which Putin’s party, United Russia, holds all the power. The disturbing growth in centralised executive power under the current regime can be seen in many areas. Though some state actions, such as the re-nationalisation of many former Soviet industries, are not objectionable, those related to the security services are of great concern. Russia is once again beginning to exhibit the apparatus of a police state. Many former KGB officials, including the President himself, have gained political offices. And its successor, the Federal Security Service, (FSB), has regained much of its former power. Frighteningly it now has forty percent more officers per citizen than it did in the days of Beria. In other words, Russia now has a larger secret police force than it did under Stalin.
The FSB has also allegedly been heavily involved in the assassinations of vocal critics of President Putin such as the journalist Anna Politkovskaya and the former agent Alexander Litvinenko. Interestingly, Andrei Lugovoi, the man suspected of assassinating Litvinenko, is currently standing for election to the Duma (parliament), underlining the aforementioned link between government, FSB and parliament.
Putin has also strengthened his position by amending the constitution to slowly reduce the separation of powers and democratic safeguards. This is on top of strenghtening the criteria for setting up an opposition party to a level where only pre-existing, ineffective parties remain in opposition to United Russia. The actions of the FSB in stifling free speech and democracy are no less shocking, with meetings of opposition parties often broken up by armed officers. During elections, votebuying and blackmail are often used by local authorities to secure a pro-Putin mandate, with voters threatened with the sack if they vote the wrong way. The state media refuses to allow them a platform on which to speak, instead saturating the airwaves with pro-government propaganda.
The re-evaluation of the Soviet era and the increasing popularity of Stalin within the country are further signs that there is something in the Russian zeitgeist heading towards a return to the old authoritarian style. Despite its rhetoric, United Russia is not a friend of democracy and the sooner the Russian electorate and the international community wake up to the fact and demand reform, the better. Have Russia’s security services returned to their Cold War strength and activities?
