Ph.D., Associate Professor, School of International Relations,

St Peterbsurg State University, zaslavsk@mail.sir.edu

During the last two decades Russia has gone through serious political reforms, including constitutional changes, transformation of major political institutions and decision-making process. Though Russia was a legal successor of the Soviet Union, it managed to create political system significantly different from the Soviet system based on democratic principles.

In the Soviet Union the Communist party had monopolized state authority. In theory people had an opportunity to express their opinion by electing the Supreme Soviet. However, in practice importance of this representative body was rather limited. Electoral procedures prevented people from possibility to demonstrate their political preferences as the voters had no real choice: all candidates represented only one political power existing in the country – the Communist party. Moreover, the Soviet Constitution provided the Communist party with the special role in decision-making. Traditional to democratic society division of powers was ignored in the Soviet political system. In addition to state legislative, executive and judicial institutions there existed Communist party institutions. They controlled political process on different levels – from local to federal, and had major influence on all political decisions. The head of the Communist party – General Secretary of the Political bureau of the Central Committee of the CPSU, was the leader of the state, even though this position was not integrated into the state institutional system. Only at the very end of the Soviet Union position of the President was introduced; the Soviet President was elected by the Supreme Soviet not by the people.

Political system of todays Russia is completely different. Political transformation started already within the Soviet Union partly due to Gorbachev’s political reforms, partly due to activities of the leaders of the Russian Soviet Federal Socialist Republic (RSFSR), which was one of 15 republics of the Soviet Union. The Russian republic was very active in promoting democratic reforms and attracting public support. The Russian authorities enabled the people to elect the President of the republic, thus strengthening legitimacy of the Russian leadership in contrast to the Soviet leadership. In 1993 Russia adopted a new Constitution, which determined major principles of the new political system, including direct universal elections on different levels, division of powers, multiparty system, etc. Procedures introduced in the Constitution provided the voters with a real opportunity to make a choice, demonstrate political preferences and influence decision-making process. New political system was based on the democratic political institutions and procedures.

This article is devoted to democratization process in Russia, transformation of political system and reinforcement of democratic practices. First, I will analyze state of democracy in Russia, then I will evaluate development of political system and major challenges to democracy; finally I will describe the current situation.

Major democratic changes in Russia were introduced with the Constitution of 1993, which was adopted almost after two years since the collapse of the Soviet Union and Russia’s sovereignty de juro. The 1993 Russian Constitution declared Russia a democratic state responsible for respect of human rights in the country. Preamble confirmed respect for human rights and democratic nature of the Russian state. The main text of the Constitution several times referred to democratic principles. Article 1 called Russia “democratic federal rule-of-law state”, article 2 recognized high value of human rights and freedoms and the state’s responsibility for protection of human rights. The 2^nd Chapter defined the human rights largely in accordance with international law, e.g., European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The Constitution determined democratic principles as the basis for the Russian governance system. It recognized the people of Russia as the source of legitimacy in the country, who directly and indirectly participate in the process of decision-making[1]. It confirmed division of competences principle[2], determined procedures to elect the President[3] and representative institutions[4]  and established multiparty system[5]. Therefore, already since early 90s Russian political system has been based on democratic principles. The Constitution was adopted as a result of public referendum meaning that the Russian voters expressed their concern about democratic values, particularly respect of human rights, democratic institutions and procedures.

Russia demonstrated its intention to continue democratic reforms by taking international commitments for respect of human rights as a member of the OSCE and later when it joined the Council of Europe. Russia became a party of the European Convention for Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and enabled its citizens to apply to the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

Democratic reforms targeted at consolidation of democracy in Russia were undertaken with the support of various international actors, including the European Union. The major financial instruments to provide assistance to Russia were Tacis and Tempus programmes. Since 1994 Tacis have become one of the programmes responsible for financing the EU’s Democracy and Human Rights programme (EIDHR), which was planned to “promote democratic societies” and to “consolidate democracies that have emerged in the countries of central and eastern Europe and the New Independent States and Mongolia”. Another special Tacis programme, which was supposed to support NGOs was “Link into European NGOs” (LIEN), which was meant to provide help to NGOs. However, limited financial resources minimized influence of these programmes. EIDHR had an annual budget around 10 mln ECU for the whole CIS region. Financial resources of LIEN were even smaller then resources of the Democracy programme,  in 1994 the programme’s budget was around 4 million ECU. Though these programmes demonstrate EU’s intention to support democratic reforms in the post-Soviet area and particularly in Russia, it was difficult to expect substantial impact from them[6].

Yet efficiency of democratic reforms was highly dependent of the policy of the Russian authorities and domestic situation in the country. Presidents Yeltsin, Putin and Medvedev many times confirmed their determination to enhance democratic foundations of the Russian state. For example, Putin did it during the US-Russian summit in Bratislava in February, 2005.[7]  However, the new Russian democracy faced serious challenges.

While major democratic institutions and procedures were introduced into political system of Russia, it was still important to ensure that they were running smoothly and efficiently and that democratic principles were truly respected in Russia. The first important challenge to the Russian democracy emerged in October 1993. It was caused by political confrontation between the Russian Parliament’s leaders (e.g., Ruslan Khazbulatov) and the Russian President Boris Yeltsin, when political conflict eventually led to military conflict and multiple casualties in Moscow. It was a clear indication that the existing regulations did not guarantee protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Another challenge to the Russian democracy came from Chechnya, a separatist region in the south of Russia. In mid 90s the Russian authorities decided to restore the state’s sovereignty over Chechnya using military resources. However, behavior of the Russian militaries in Chechnya, multiple casualties among the civilian population, lack of information about situation in the region, restrictions to media, non-governmental organizations and human rights activists raised new concerns about democratic problems in Russia. This situation was deteriorated with the beginning of new military campaign in Chechnya in 1999 and new human rights violations. Growing pressure on mass-media, non-governmental organizations and human rights activists was perceived as another indication of problems with democracy in the country.  

In the 2000s the Russian political system was further transformed. This transformation was targeted at improvement of system’s efficiency, concentration of power in the center, establishment of so called ‘power vertical’, meaning hierarchy of power with the top in Kremlin. The most important element of this reform was abolishment of regional governors’ elections and introduction of appointment procedure, according to which appointments of governors were made directly by the President. As a result people’s influence over regional officials was minimized, but the President gain more power as he got new instrument to put pressure on the regional authorities and prevent separatist movements in the regions. It also became an important mechanism of supporting politicians loyal to the President and punish his opponent as it was in case of Moscow’s Mayor Luzhkov in 2010 and after electoral scandals during parliamentary elections in 2011. 

Another challenge that emerged in the 2000s was connected with growing pressure of state authorities on mass-media making it difficult to express alternative opinion about political events. This pressure could be seen on different levels: federal, regional and local, when authorities were trying to get control over media. For example, on the federal level the independent TV Channel NTV which was famous for its support of Kremlin’s political opposition and critical remarks about Putin eventually got under control of Gazprom and then changed its political position. For individual journalists it became difficult and risky to run journalist investigations and search for new information. The non-governmental organizations also faced problems, mainly caused by transformation of taxation system and new taxation principles.

While growing concerns about state of democracy in Russia were raised, the Russian officials claimed that the country satisfied the major democratic criteria meaning democratic institutions. It provided its citizens with opportunities to elect their representatives to the state institutions and this way indirectly to participate in the decision-making process, its Constitution guaranteed protection of human rights, etc. They claimed that criticism was mainly coming from abroad and was initiated by international actors who did not take into account specific nature of democracy in Russia. The Russian officials referred to high public support of President Putin and President Medvedev and their reforms. This support was demonstrated during presidential elections in 2000, 2004 and 2008. Opinion polls also indicated that a relatively high share of the Russian population was satisfied with the state of democracy in Russia, so according to the opinion poll arranged by the Russian centre of public opinion (WSIOM) around 29% of Russians were partly satisfied with democracy in the country, 32% of Russians were not entirely satisfied and only 21% were not satisfied with it[8]. The same centre arranged another opinion poll and asked about the major democratic institutions. Then more then 43% named equal legal rights, 33% mentioned universal elections of the president, only 11% argued in favour of political opposition and 10% supported independent mass-media and it was the 10^th popular answer[9]. These results of opinion polls should explain the reasons of Putin’s support in the country while his policy and policy of his successor were so criticized abroad.

Almost for a decade Putin and Medvedev faced limited opposition and criticism inside the country. In fact, the people in Russia demonstrated low political and social activities. Only few problems managed to get significant public attention and resulted in some form of collective actions or creation of non-profit organizations. For example, collective actions were organized in 2001 to express support of NTV television channel, in 2005 to express protests against social reforms, in 2005-2006 to demonstrate support of Oleg Shcherbinsky and negative attitude to Evdokimov’s case ruling, in 2005-2006 to express concerns about oil pipeline close to lake Baikal, etc. Few political and social activities led to creation of some organizational structures like environmental groups (e.g., Baltic Nature Foundation), anti-military groups (e.g., Soldiers’ Mothers). Opinion polls and low turn-out during elections demonstrated little public concern about political transformation of the country.

In order to reply to external criticism concerning situation with democracy, the Russian officials suggested two concepts explaining special nature of democracy in the country: (1) liberal empire and (2) sovereign democracy. ‘Liberal empire’ was suggested by Chubais, one of the active leaders of democratic reforms in the 90s and then the head of the Russian electricity monopoly, in 2003, it is a concept about policy towards the neighboring countries though liberal economic instruments, e.g., growing business activities in these countries, without threatening of their borders and territorial integrity[10]. ‘Sovereign democracy’ was suggested by Surkov, one of top officials of presidential administration, in 2005, it is about a democratic country that is not influenced by external powers, keeps its full sovereignty[11].

Overall political situation radically change in autumn 2011 when the Russian people demonstrated their growing interest in political affairs. The major event that raised concerns of the public was parliamentary elections held in December, 2011. Even though the turn-out was still rather low (about 60%), people became more interested in the election procedures and organization of elections. Apparently, there was high level of protest voting when even traditional right voters decided to support left parties, e.g., the Communist party and Spravedlivaya Rossiya (Fair Russia). Voters’ dissatisfaction with the electoral process and violations during this process first affected internet, which was used to distribute information, express opinion and exchange views, and then flew outside and led to public demonstrations and manifestations. It was for the first time since early 90s that dozens thousands of people were ready for collective political actions and it was for the first time that internet was used to arrange such actions in Russia. It became obvious that new media have gained substantial power, and they can compete with traditional mass media in terms of influence over political life in the country.

Demonstrations of late 2011/early 2012 meant new internal challenge to the Russian political system; they required new measures to reinforce democracy in the country. Putin, who was then in the middle of his presidential campaign, tried to take into account this requirement. He ignored criticism of his personality and his intention to run for the third term of Presidency, but emphasized his support of democracy and necessity to strengthen democracy. He agreed with an idea to restore the governors’ elections and simplify process of political parties’ formation. He also stressed importance of greater public activities and necessity to use new technologies, including internet, to provide people with an opportunity to influence political process.[12] It means that he decided to restore those procedures that he abolished before.  He also was trying to make use of internet, which demonstrated its political potential.

In conclusion, political system of Russia today is based on democratic principles; they are described in the Russian Constitution and other legislative acts, and they correspond to the international commitments of Russia. As a result important democratic institutions were created and democratic procedures were introduced. However, implementation of democratic principles faced serious challenges, including human rights violations, restrictions to mass-media and non-governmental organizations. For a while these problems did not provoke public activities and massive political protests. Parliamentary elections in December 2011 became a turning point, when the people demonstrated their concern about political affairs, political institutions and democratic procedures, demanded reform of the political system and consolidation of democracy in the country.

N Korea:Witness to Transformation
Int'l Coalition Humanity N Korea