Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why haven’t Russian citizens fought for Russia to become a democracy?
I understand that Boris Yeltsin is considered to be a disaster and that Putin is popular and improved life for Russians.
But freedom, democracy and the rule of law will protect and help people most over the long run.
Unlike other countries in Europe, even Orthodox/Slavic ones, why don’t Russians want democracy?
You may have missed the posts about all the protests across the country when Putin returned to the Presidency after Medvedev, and subsequent protests. People can protest all they want, in whatever numbers, it doesn't matter. Nothing happens. IMO the problem in the first place was that Yeltsin chose Putin as his successor. I wonder what was going through his mind when he did that. It doesn't say good things about Yeltsin.
You may have missed the posts about all the protests across the country when Putin returned to the Presidency after Medvedev, and subsequent protests. People can protest all they want, in whatever numbers, it doesn't matter. Nothing happens. IMO the problem in the first place was that Yeltsin chose Putin as his successor. I wonder what was going through his mind when he did that. It doesn't say good things about Yeltsin.
Thanks for your post. Yes, Russians protest every now and then. But they haven’t taken the same steps that Americans since 1776, the French since 1789, Britons in the 1800s, Eastern Europeans in 1989, etc. took: they haven’t strenuously pushed for democracy.
When US presidents try to become autocrats, half of the country pushes back and they don’t get re-elected. Look at Brazil now: a wannabe dictator is about to lose his re-election. But Putin kept getting re-elected over and over as he built a dictatorship; Russians generally supported him and still support him despite his being a dictator.
If Russians revolted, Putin wouldn’t last. Even if Russians hadn’t re-elected him, he wouldn’t have lasted. All it initially took to stop Putin was voting against him, and Russians didn’t even do that. But what can we expect from a population that largely admires Joseph Stalin?
Thanks for your post. Yes, Russians protest every now and then. But they haven’t taken the same steps that Americans since 1776, the French since 1789, Britons in the 1800s, Eastern Europeans in 1989, etc. took: they haven’t strenuously pushed for democracy.
When US presidents try to become autocrats, half of the country pushes back and they don’t get re-elected. Look at Brazil now: a wannabe dictator is about to lose his re-election. But Putin kept getting re-elected over and over as he built a dictatorship; Russians generally supported him and still support him despite his being a dictator.
If Russians revolted, Putin wouldn’t last. Even if Russians hadn’t re-elected him, he wouldn’t have lasted. All it initially took to stop Putin was voting against him, and Russians didn’t even do that. But what can we expect from a population that largely admires Joseph Stalin?
We have no idea how "real" any of P's elections were. And the population does not "largely" admire Stalin. Fringe movements and elders who viewed that period in positive terms during the turmoil of the 90's, are tiny constituencies that get exaggerated in the Western imagination. And those elders are nearly all gone now. Some report comes out about a pro-Stalin group, and Western readers think it's a significant movement, when in reality, it's an anomaly.
People had some hope when Medvedev became President. Even though to some, it was clearly a set-up by P., others were cautiously optimistic. A few--kind of excited. When that wave crashed and burned, and P returned to the Presidency, other than controlling the media and getting rid of his opposition, there were still some positive developments. After Ukraine was invaded, some intellectuals confessed in interviews, that they had thought the country was moving in a good direction. They thought they were part of a generation that was building something positive, building a new nation after the fallout from the 90's economic troubles. That may sound naive, but that's how some people felt. I'm explaining why there wasn't mass resistance to the President-For-Life. These people were astounded by the "special operation" in Ukraine, and felt their efforts in their respective fields had been for nought, suddenly meaningless. They were in shock from disillusionment.
Anyway, those people are now even more of a minority than before the war. Many of the people with more liberal ideas have fled the country. That first wave of media people who left as soon as the law was passed prohibiting the use of the term "war" to describe events in Ukraine, and other restrictions, had been liberal forces, who managed to present alternative points of view to the official line, and survive professionally somehow. (Having the right connections helped.) Now those elements are gone, or have hunkered down, if they're still in the country. So the population has lost some of the people who had a liberalizing vision for their country. The kind you're talking about, who would have been among the driving forces of a major movement.
A similar thing happened after the 1917 revolution. People left the country in droves. "Droves" doesn't begin to describe it, actually. And many of them were highly skilled, highly intelligent and creative people. And later generations haven't forgotten; even in the 90's and later, some people spoke of that period as a "brain drain". And now it has happened again.
Very sad. Really, you might say that the most patriotic people are in exile. The people who want to see Russia grow, thrive, liberalize, and be something closer to a modern democracy. Some have even raised generations in exile. But Russia's president defines "patriotism" differently. It's a "my way or the highway" type of patriotism.
Last edited by Ruth4Truth; 10-02-2022 at 11:39 AM..
Today’s autocrats remain in power because they have (or at some point had) widespread popular support. Putin, Orban, etc. The early elections that those types won were somewhat free, and they won in part because they had genuine popular support.
Americans, the French, Britons, etc. all sacrificed their lives for freedom and have fought for freedom. Russians haven’t, even though they have been given multiple opportunities to become free. Instead, they vote for tyrants and don’t revolt when democracy is dismantled. They get the leaders that they want and deserve.
In retrospect, Putin would have been better off if he had made himself a largely ceremonial Czar a few years ago, making Russia a monarchy again. Now his future may be limited, and Russia hasn’t been kind to its own failed autocrats.
Yes I suppose doing so may very well have endeared him to a certain segment of the Russian population , though I also imagine that plenty would have seen such a charade for its true essence , that is yet another lackluster attempt at introducing the form of tradition without its substance .
All in all I don't see how the rise of Putin can be seen as anything but the logical conclusion of attempting to introduce democracy in a country where it's totally alien .
As an aside , if all the claims about his actions enjoying majority support are true , then the case could also be made that Russia is actually a proper democracy that merely happens to be rather " authoritarian " concerning certain matters ( like respecting the freedom to publicly protest ) , much like many EU states are very much " authoritarian " concerning the uttering of so called hate speech in public .
It's no accident after all that the subject of authoritarian or ( more specifically ) totalitarian democracy has been extensively written about by such magnificent scholars as J.L. Talmon .
the case could also be made that Russia is actually a proper democracy that merely happens to be rather " authoritarian " concerning certain matters ( like respecting the freedom to publicly protest ) , much like many EU states are very much " authoritarian " concerning the uttering of so called hate speech in public .
If someone in an EU member state speaks up against the president, does he or she run the risk of being murdered?
That’s the difference between Russia and the EU. Basic human rights and the rule of law are respected in the EU. Not in Russia.
I wonder what was going through his mind when he did that. It doesn't say good things about Yeltsin.
"A lot of KGB agents, like Putin, had left the organisation, realising it was discredited. The fact that he was ex-KGB meant nothing. Putin had shown himself to be a liberal and a democrat, who wanted to continue market reforms."
Today’s autocrats remain in power because they have (or at some point had) widespread popular support. Putin, Orban, etc. The early elections that those types won were somewhat free, and they won in part because they had genuine popular support.
Americans, the French, Britons, etc. all sacrificed their lives for freedom and have fought for freedom. Russians haven’t, even though they have been given multiple opportunities to become free. Instead, they vote for tyrants and don’t revolt when democracy is dismantled. They get the leaders that they want and deserve.
I sure do hope that I'm not inadvertently steering this thread off course , much less coming off as being snarky , but you do realize that Hungarians have participated in a total of at least 9 rather bloody mass revolutions against their own government throughout history ?
In fact the Golden Bull of 1222 extended the right of revolution not just to members of the nobility , but also to a significant swathe of commoners ( aka royal servants ) , a right which I don't believe has ever been enjoyed by any amount of commoners in any Anglo or Western European country .
Compare that to Americans who have , unless you count the Civil War , revolted in a mass bloody way against the federal government a total of zero times in spite of such talk being part and parcel of American political discourse to this very day .
I won't even expound on the factor of the rule of the man you've mentioned in tandem with Putin , since I'm honestly quite loathe to continually have to face the baseless accusation of defending him , but I must say that this whole implicit narrative about Hungarians being a servile people based on merely the political events of the past 12 years is completely unwarranted .
And as much as I admire the Britons as a people , they happen to reside in one of the most intense nanny states ever conceived , in fact one of the main reasons as to why I don't live in the UK is precisely that .
Also I sure do hope that you're not referring to the French Revolution as being a fight for freedom , since it gave birth to the first example of truly horrific modern age tyranny .
All in all this whole latent narrative about non Anglosphere/Western European people having a cultural tendency towards servility is completely wrong and stems from an incomplete reading of history , but I will most definitely digress having typed this .
If someone in an EU member state speaks up against the president, does he or she run the risk of being murdered?
That’s the difference between Russia and the EU. Basic human rights and the rule of law are respected in the EU. Not in Russia.
No I'm not aware of any EU state presidents being implicated in the murder of political opponents like Putin has been , but does that really deserve to be the sole measuring rod of a free society ?
I mean are societies where you can receive a prison sentence for publicly denying the Holocaust or get fined for carrying a pocket knife without good reason truly free ones ?
Are these societies genuinely respectful of '' human rights '' or are they merely just less bad versions of their arguably much more brutal counterparts which also don't value individual freedom ?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
