Submission Statement: “The Russian leader has shaped his country, but outsiders still find him baffling.” Edward Lucas reviews Vladimir Putin’s 25-year rule in Russia, reflecting on how he was initially viewed positively in the West as an improvement over Yeltsin but ultimately rejected reforms and doubled down on authoritarianism. Lucas correctly warned about Putin’s KGB background from the earliest days and regrets many trusted him, arguing Russia still has not atoned for its Soviet past that Putin exemplifies.
dizzyhitman_007 on
Firstly, I think it’s necessary to dispel one widespread myth about Russia’s democratic journey. Putin did not reverse the democratic experiment; he only quickened the pace of the authoritarian revival. The reversal started before his own time in office: Yeltsin was in fact initially celebrated in the West as the leader of the great democratic change. Looking at it critically, the apex of Russia’s democratization effort was probably in the latter yearest of the USSR.
Secondly, it can be stated that Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev brought ‘real politics’ into Russia when he deprived the Communist Party of its exclusive rights to operate politically. He ended censorship for all practical purposes. He introduced competitive elections. To this day, the elections of the late Soviet period—for the Soviet Congress of People’s Deputies in 1989, for the Russian Congress of People’s Deputies in 1990, and for the Russian presidency in 1991—are the freest and the fairest that Russia has ever seen. They are also the ones that generated the most excitement, as Russians sought to establish which could form a government that would be loyal to the people. Gorbachev’s reforms, however, led to the collapse of the country, largely because he could not master the political forces of reaction and radicalism he had unleashed.
Thirdly, Yeltsin did not pick up where Gorbachev left off and do him one better, as the contemporary Western narrative claimed. Rather, he presided over the [crumbling of the central state apparatus,](https://carnegieendowment.org/1999/06/09/world-without-russia-pub-285) as a bitter struggle erupted over the division of power and property in a country suddenly freed from the political and economic shackles of the Soviet totalitarian system. During the process, vast segments of the government were privatized for personal gain. Yeltsin defeated the legislature in a power struggle and then instituted a constitutional reform that created a powerful presidency that Putin would subsequently exploit to hasten Russia down the autocratic path.
In short, the chaos of the Yeltsin period created a simulacrum of freedom but precluded laying the foundation of a well-ordered democratic polity. Putin restored order but in an antidemocratic fashion.
2 Comments
Submission Statement: “The Russian leader has shaped his country, but outsiders still find him baffling.” Edward Lucas reviews Vladimir Putin’s 25-year rule in Russia, reflecting on how he was initially viewed positively in the West as an improvement over Yeltsin but ultimately rejected reforms and doubled down on authoritarianism. Lucas correctly warned about Putin’s KGB background from the earliest days and regrets many trusted him, arguing Russia still has not atoned for its Soviet past that Putin exemplifies.
Firstly, I think it’s necessary to dispel one widespread myth about Russia’s democratic journey. Putin did not reverse the democratic experiment; he only quickened the pace of the authoritarian revival. The reversal started before his own time in office: Yeltsin was in fact initially celebrated in the West as the leader of the great democratic change. Looking at it critically, the apex of Russia’s democratization effort was probably in the latter yearest of the USSR.
Secondly, it can be stated that Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev brought ‘real politics’ into Russia when he deprived the Communist Party of its exclusive rights to operate politically. He ended censorship for all practical purposes. He introduced competitive elections. To this day, the elections of the late Soviet period—for the Soviet Congress of People’s Deputies in 1989, for the Russian Congress of People’s Deputies in 1990, and for the Russian presidency in 1991—are the freest and the fairest that Russia has ever seen. They are also the ones that generated the most excitement, as Russians sought to establish which could form a government that would be loyal to the people. Gorbachev’s reforms, however, led to the collapse of the country, largely because he could not master the political forces of reaction and radicalism he had unleashed.
Thirdly, Yeltsin did not pick up where Gorbachev left off and do him one better, as the contemporary Western narrative claimed. Rather, he presided over the [crumbling of the central state apparatus,](https://carnegieendowment.org/1999/06/09/world-without-russia-pub-285) as a bitter struggle erupted over the division of power and property in a country suddenly freed from the political and economic shackles of the Soviet totalitarian system. During the process, vast segments of the government were privatized for personal gain. Yeltsin defeated the legislature in a power struggle and then instituted a constitutional reform that created a powerful presidency that Putin would subsequently exploit to hasten Russia down the autocratic path.
In short, the chaos of the Yeltsin period created a simulacrum of freedom but precluded laying the foundation of a well-ordered democratic polity. Putin restored order but in an antidemocratic fashion.