Politics of Russia

"The October 1993 events and the December 1993 elections raise a question about prospects for liberal democracy in Russia. Many liberal politicians in Russia maintained that liberal democracy gained decisive victory as a result of the October 1993 events. One can argue that fundamental changes in the value orientations of the main actors have not occurred. Authoritarian values presented by such organizations as the Russian Communist Workers Party, the Communist Party of the Russian Federation and the Liberal Democratic Party have remained strong. In the case of free elections, the authoritarian parties would receive significant weight in parliament. This happened in the December 1993 elections. The success of the Liberal Democratic Party led by an extreme antiliberal, Zhirinovsky, has confirmed the influence of authoritarianism. The Communist Party of the Russian Federation and its ally, the Agrarian Party, also have received a significant share of votes. Liberal democrats from Russia's Choice have suffered a significant defeat.

Charismatic leaders currently play a significant role in Russia. The success of the Liberal Democratic Party is to a great extent due to a charismatic figure, Vladimir Zhirinovsky. He has widely used political demagogy and appeal to emotions instead of rational arguments. Presently, liberal democrats in Russia are dependent on Yeltsin's presidential status and personal charisma. Yeltsin's charisma has begun to weaken as his actions, especially in the economic sphere, have failed to bring the results which he promised. The strong dependency on personality of Yeltsin can endanger Russian liberal-democratic reforms. Liberal politicians lack charisma, and their organizations are too weak to become dominant in Russian politics in the near future.

Many liberal politicians, both in Russia and in the West, continue to orient their actions toward president Yeltsin believing that democracy in Russia could be secured by a strong presidential power. However, such power can be used to destroy democracy. The 1996 presidential elections can bring a challenge to liberal reforms and democracy from authoritarian and charismatic politicians. Presently, Russian democracy rests on the balance of power between liberal democrats on the one hand and authoritarian nationalists and communists on the other. The latter can use both democratic and undemocratic means in their political struggle. In such a situation, liberal democrats face the dilemma of choosing between democratic or authoritarian reform paths.

Lack of legitimacy is another problem of Russian democracy. Copying Western liberal and democratic constitutions and other laws alone could not establish the rule of law when people do not consider them as legitimate. The political conflict between the president, parliament and vice-president -- which was resolved by anti-constitutional means in October 1993 -- is an example of the weak legitimacy of the rule of law and the democratic form of government. The prospects for stable liberal and democratic order in Russia depend on liberalization and rationalization of values. In present Russia, authoritarian values are strong, and charismatic leaders are influential. The rule of law lacks legitimacy. Liberal democrats are divided and dependent on Yeltsin’s status and favor."

Резкая и подчас презрительная риторика в адрес Украины усиливает антироссийские политические движения в этой стране. «Мягкая сила» Москвы еще больше пострадает, если после вильнюсского саммита начнется торговая война против одной или более стран «Восточного партнерства».

The paper is based on a vide range of evidence collected by a group of researchers headed by the author in 2006–2010. The nature and scope of the collected evidence allow arriving at veritable conclusions on the specifics of Russia’s image in Africans countries, particularly, on the positive and negative aspects of the influence of the image of the USSR on it. The research shows that, on the one hand, an independent image of post-Soviet Russia in Africa has not formed yet, first of all because of Russia’s very weak information, economic, and political presence on the continent, what is a prerequisite for the formation of its image as non-positive by itself. However, on the other hand, post-Soviet Russia has partially inherited the image of the USSR, up to now associated for many Africans first and foremost with the support of their struggle against colonialism, neocolonialism, apartheid, and economic backwardness. An independent image of present-day Russia in Africa is rather absent than negative, and it has objective opportunities for constructing its image as positive by making African policy more active, mutually beneficial, and taking into account the specific features of African culture, including political and business. In the meantime, it is important to remember that these opportunities are diminishing as the generations of people who remember the Soviet Unionin leave the public scene.

"An apparent lack of interest by Russia in Sub-Saharan Africa over recent years masks persistent key strategic drivers for Moscow to reestablish lost influence in the region. A preoccupation with more immediate foreign policy concerns has temporarily interrupted a process of Russia’s reclaiming relationships, well-developed in the Soviet period, to secure access to mineral and energy resources that are crucial both to Russia’s economic and industrial interests and to its existing and new markets for military arms contracts.


Russian policy priorities in Africa provide both challenges and opportunities for the U.S. in fields such as nuclear non-proliferation, as well as energy security for the United States and its European allies. These priorities indicate that Russian development of key resources in southern Africa should be observed closely. Russian trade with the region is significantly underdeveloped, with the exception of the arms trade, which Russia can be expected to defend vigorously if its markets are challenged, including by the prospect of regime change or international sanctions.

At the same time, Russia and the United States have a shared interest in restricting the freedom of movement of terrorist organizations in ungoverned or lightly governed spaces in Africa, which opens potential for cooperation between U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) initiatives and Russian presence in the region.

Overall, Russian diplomatic and economic activity in southern Africa should receive continuing attention from U.S. policymakers due to its direct relevance to a number of U.S. strategic concerns.
"

The article examines trends in participation and engagement in the post-Soviet sphere, treating participation as one element of a wider examination of the |[lsquo]|quality|[rsquo]| of democracy. Through analysis of trends in political interest, trust and traditional and non-traditional forms of participation since 1989, and taking into account elements of social and political capital, it concludes that the citizens in post-communist European states display fewer signs of political engagement than their Western counterparts, and that such tendencies are particularly notable in the post-Soviet |[lsquo]|outsider|[rsquo]| states of Russia, Ukraine and, to a lesser extent, Belarus. Examination of the causes of disengagement suggests that it is partly accounted for by low levels of political efficacy and lack of interest in civic affairs.