In the United States we tend to believe that democracy is the only way that a government can credibly and legitimately serve the people: that through the decentralization of power and the voluntary surrender of power at the Executive, a government can be good. We tend to believe the same ideals and procedures that work for the United States will work invariably to great success in the rest of the world. Too bad this isn't the truth, and too bad this isn't even close to the truth.
The United States' history focuses on a republic, on the ability of the electorate to elect representatives who are accountable through the ballot box; an executive who is not a King but instead works very closely with the officials of his Cabinet; a press that independently reports on the actions of the government.
Russia under Vladimir Putin is antithetical to these notions. I sometimes slip into that American way of thinking, that because Vladimir Putin does not fall under the specific requirements of an effective government in our eyes, then he is less than optimal. Whenever I fall into this trap, I always remember what some of my best friends, who are from the Russian Federation, some even remembering the Soviet Union, say about Prime Minister Putin. The Russian people have always had a high premium on order and security: Prime Minister Putin embodies that. The Russian electorate appreciate strength in their leaders: Prime Minister Putin exemplifies that. More than anything, just as in any other nation, the Russian people want, rather they need, a pride in their national heritage, a legitimate reason for their patriotism. Russia has a unique and deep history that extends from politics to literature to philosophy, and a national pride that has all the right to be not only existent but thriving: Prime Minister Putin enables that.
I am not trying to make a new case for national character, which was dismantled in earlier readings during the year as a race-oriented theory that doesn't have much legitimacy anymore. However, the events of last night in the United States have once again proved to us that national pride not only matters, but may make the difference. Even the events of this morning in CPS class, when Professor King muttered quietly as a throw away line, "Yes We Can," the room went wild and the energy didn't diminish during the entire class...well, it at least geared up again whenever the results from last night were brought up. Confidence in leaders, leaders who are confident: pride in the President and the President who brings pride to his people.
President-Elect Obama is a welcome change from the last eight dismal years of President Bush. President Putin was a welcome change from the eight dismal years of President Yeltsin. I am not comparing Obama and Putin directly: you can't. However, before we condemn Prime Minister Putin, let us consider that for many Russians he means something similar to what President-Elect Obama means to the American people: a reason to believe in the nation, a reason to believe, a reason to hope. Perhaps this is the secret.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I agree with this sentiment, mainly because, as we are in a comparative politics class, the most simplified definition of how we should go about perceiving these "comparative" politics is to situate ourselves in the mindset of other peoples living under other regimes.
You mention Russia's rich history, and this is a point I would like to emphasize. As we all know, all countries have different histories and for precisely that reason, different histories embodying different values of different ages, do we categorize the current politics of the nation in question. In this case, your emphasis on political stability and restoring the damaged pride of the Russian people is valid and I agree. I would also venture to say that for the very reasons that the United States did not experience the kind of economic and political conditions which gave rise to communism and all the "terrors" associated with it, we cannot judge Putin's character and actions as representative of the state Russia is in. As you mentioned, Russia embraces Putin for the fact that returned to Russia a sense of place in the global community.
If a man can do that, then perhaps we ought not to judge how one goes about doing it, but whether or not it is effective in the results.
This also brings me back to the post-communist world and our discussion of the variety of transitions faced by governments "transitioning" to democracy. As our articles mentioned this week, Russia and East Germany were peculiar cases; both ended communist regimes, but there paths have been significantly different. Yet, can we actually say it has not been effective (in recent years)? Now, E. Germany, reunified with the West, embodies one of the strongest economies in Europe and Russia, while not considered democratic, has reasserted itself and a power to contend with.
What about other nations? Singapore, China, lots of other nations that we've talked about so far have done this as well. The economy and population satisfaction in this day and age MEASURES the virtue of any given kind of regime.
So, before we brand one nation authoritarian, dictatorial, etc and then place on it all the negative connotations associated with authoritarian, dictatorial, etc, we now have a NEW standard we need to examine--the satisfaction standard. If it's effective, and it works for the people, then how can we (even if we're inclined to) complain?
This is the general pattern that I believe the world is experiencing; emerging democracies are "experimenting" and so we can see that perhaps, for once, stuck in the "gray" zone is the ends for the nation in question; that is, Democracy is NOT necessarily the end goal.
Derek sums it up nicely in his very long comment :)
I don't think it matters either. A person can assume a position and become the "beacon of hope" that people need. Obama symbolizes that and undoubtedly Putin does as well, especially after Yeltsin.
I think there is no clear bright line between countries, their transitions,and their regime type. It's sort of a you know it when you see it kind of deal. For example, the Philippines may have elections and is considered a democracy, but many Filipino citizens are discontent over the arbitrary arrests and inadequate response to citizens needs. Does that make the Philippines a democracy? It doesn't in thought but on paper it is.
Governments are subjective and their status as "good or evil" rests on its ability to be compared to others. Hence, Putin may seem like a dictator, but to the Russian people he symbolizes more than that, and that is something the the west has to simply accept.
Post a Comment