Why Democracies Die (specifically Russia) Summary

Name:
Professor's Name:
Course:
Due Date:
Why Democracies Die
Introduction
The simplest way to understand the term democracy is to think of a system that gives every person a voice or a chance to have a say. Today, many countries that consider themselves democracies happen to fall short of the statement above. For example, in the U.S., a significant number of people do not get to project their voice, especially during the election period. However, this paper's focus is not on the version of democracy that the U.S. or any other country practices but on why democracies fail. In many countries around the world, democratization has failed to take place. Mild to strict authoritarian rule happens to be the order of the day, with the masses controlled by an empowered military or police unit. The media is gagged, elections are rigged, and the masses cannot speak truth to power. One would be tempted to ask why revolutions have not happened as well: are people unwilling to fight for what they believe is right, or is the central government's hold on power strong enough to resist any attempts to revolt? However, one crucial point to note is that revolutions have happened, but these do not necessarily help a country transition to democracy. But why is this the case? Provided herein is a discussion that sheds light on the political elite and their quest to stifle the transition to democracy. The paper will also address how economic issues and inefficiencies in a country can serve as an impediment to a country transitioning to democracy. Finally, the paper will address how the lack of a transition plan could stifle a country's quest to transition to a democracy.
Review of Theory and Literature
Change can be divisive, and it can be a catalyst to nationalistic reforms in a country. However, for some countries like Russia, the latter bit of the statement above has not been the case. All over the world, leaders have turned to authoritarian rule to help ensure that their hold on power is maintained. Putin, for example, has worked to ensure that Russia remains under his hold. However, as Aslund notes, he has been doing this strategically, unlike Gorbachev and Yeltsin (288). Putin made "the Russians feel good and proud of not only themselves but also Russia and its history again" (288). By working on his image, and that of the country, he was able to restore his hold on power and made the people buy into his ideology. Schraeder (72) appears to agree with Aslund as he describes the same events in Africa where the democratization of many countries in the content was made impossible because of the political elite and their tactics. Like Putin, African leaders turned to authoritarian measures to ensure that they hold onto power longer. They worked to centralize power at the expense of other elite groups in the society like civil society organizations and the masses. Putin employed the same measures as he sought to centralize power and have himself as the de facto leader with unimaginable power. For the elite, the confidence in maintaining and holding onto power is the main reason why they entertain the idea of democracy. The elite can indeed be an impediment but not in the excruciating or cruel ways they are often shown to be taking and accumulating power. As it has been indicated, Putin used nationalistic principles to get the citizens to trust him and his endeavors. However, he used the said trust to build a cocoon of power by eliminating some powers and also de-institutionalizing others. As Frum (n.p.) indicates, the elite are known to use outright repression against democratic ideals, and for the case of Russia, this has been evident. From regional powers to the media and the elections, Putin has made sure that the country continues to fall deeper into the authoritarian abyss.
Aside from the above, Aslund speaks to the economic issues that plagued the Russian economy, further contributing to the country's failure to transition into a democracy. Aslund (283) notes that after Yeltsin assumed power, he worked diligently to change the country's economy. He notes that "the liberal revolutionaries built new market economic institutions and started redistributing property from the state to the new elite" (283). However, as Aslund notes, the economic crisis was "too deep to allow quick results" (283). Yeltsin was trying to change the country's fortunes with quick reforms that gave power and control to a few elite. Aslund aptly notes that even though Yeltsin knew what to do during the revolutionary period, he was not quite sure what to do after the revolution (282). The above is indeed accurately capture because Yeltsin was poor in his decision making which was erratic, to say the least. He gave power back to the elite, who could only work to ensure that their position is secured. The statement above is aptly captured by Frum (np), who notes that "if few possess power and wealth, they may respond to this prospect by resisting democracy before it arrives – or sabotage it afterward." In doing what he did, Yeltsin paved the way for the country's elite to strengthen their hold on power.
H1 – The political elite can become an impediment or barrier to a country's democratic development.
H2 – The economic issues and inefficiencies in a country can serve as an impediment to the transition to democracy.
H3 – The lack of a transition plan could prevent a country's adoption of democratic values and tendencies.
Evidence
The Economy
Democracies are largely dependent on the economy of the country. There is strong evidence to show that democracies thrive where economic performance is satisfactory. This is the reason why many economies in the late 20th century performed well because most economies around the world had their best economic performances. When economic hardships hit a country reeling with governance issues, they exacerbate the problems. This is what happened in Russia. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the incoming g...