Russia Life In A Weak Democracy Analysis

Politkovskaya’s Russia; Life in a Weak Democracy with Authoritarian Features
Evan J. Emenegger
University of Washington
Political Science 445
March 18, 2013
In Response to Question II

The tumultuous democratic experiment the Russian Federation embarked on upon the collapse of the Soviet Union has produced a system of governance difficult to define. The system is characterized by a strong central government with democratic elections (albeit, not “free and fair” elections), a massive and corrupt bureaucracy, a dominant single party (Yedinaya Rossiya – United Russia), and a judiciary subservient to the interests of the state and criminal organizations. Authoritarianism and democracy are generally conceived as antithetical
Politkovskaya understands this as another inhibition of democratic consolidation, elucidating that “certain habits [of the state] from the past remain untouched. Foremost among them is a pathological lack of respect for people, especially those who, in spite of everything, work devotedly and selflessly, who love the cause they are serving” (171). Her chronicles of the Nord-Ost hostage crisis, where state security apparatuses gassed the theater hall where thousands of hostages were being held, illustrates a government more concerned with proving to itself and the world that Russia will triumph over “the forces of international terror”. The misguided and irresponsible actions taken by the state during the Nord-Ost hostage crisis left numerous innocent hostages dead as a result of the gassing and the security apparatuses decision to bus the hostages to an understaffed and cordoned off hospital. The attempts by victims’ families to find justice were inhibited by a judicial system, which chose to follow the state’s trope of a victory over international terror, rather than allow the grieved to be compensated for their horrific losses. These families were antagonized by the media and the judicial system, which took precedence to “the interests of the state, which take priority over personal needs,” and as Politkovskaya claims, this is
But the essay has only supported a consolidated authoritarian system!” Interestingly enough, you are right. It is obvious that Politkovskaya was concerned with the authoritarian characteristics she documented throughout her time writing Putin’s Russia. Yet, Politkovskaya seems to have a tiny shred of optimism in her analysis of Russian politics. Her optimism does not lie in the future of Russia, but in her belief that Russia is not yet a full blown authoritarian system. Although Politkovskaya would not argue that Russia is a consolidated democracy, as evident by the subtitle of her novel Putin’s Russia: Life in a Failing Democracy, her writing does not point to a consolidated authoritarian system in Russia. Her use of present participles indicates a process not yet completed, not yet consolidated. This is evident in her choice to subtitle her book as “Life in a Failing Democracy” which elucidates her conviction that Russia has democracy, but is in the process of “failing.” Note it is not “Life in a Failed Democracy,” so the structures and procedures of democracy were present, but do not produce the substantive goals of democracy. Further, in her last chapter she claims, “we don’t want the West suspecting that we have a one-party system, that we lack pluralism and are relapsing into