World Savvy Monitor

Even though independent monitoring bodies have certified Russia to be a sham democracy, it works because it is largely accepted by the people.  They have little choice but, as noted above, the government is actually quite popular.  Carnegie Russia expert Lila Shevtsova describes the situation in her book Russia: Lost in Transition.  For the sake of order and stability, and to avenge the lost greatness of the Russian empire, she writes that the Russian people have essentially helped Putin to “put on their own chains and gags and locked themselves in their cages.”  It is critical to note that there is nothing in Russia’s political traditions and history that would create precedent, or generate expectations for the public that their lives would be any other way.  Putin’s style has been called neo-patrimonial, meaning he simply builds on past experience. Russian dissident Sergei Kovalev writes of the people’s lack of drive to reform the electoral process:

“They do not know why they need this instrument or even how to make use of it.  Eleven hundred years of history have taught us only two possible relationships to authority:  submission and revolt.  The idea of peacefully replacing our leader through a legal process is still a wild, alien thought for us.”

Authoritarian, even totalitarian, leadership seems natural to many Russians.  This time, the resulting stability has also produced some measure of prosperity (see Economy section).  Michael Specter quotes Aleksei Venediktov, a journalist with one of Russia’s last independent radio stations, the Echo of Moscow: “People choose wealth.  They do not understand that freedom is a necessary conduit for preserving that wealth and the security they have come to value.”  He goes on to say of investigative reporting into state excesses, “People don’t want it, they don’t ask for it, and they really don’t understand that they need it.”  Edward Lucas, a long-time Russian expert for The Economist concurs, saying, “though they lack the freedom to choose their elected representatives, to organize publicly, to influence their government or to change their political systems, never in Russian history have so many Russians lived so well and so freely.”

Polling by the independent Russia-based Levada Center bears this out.  A 2007 study Voices from Russia: Society, Democracy, and Europe shows that:

• 65% of Russians find it hard to describe what democracy means.

• Just over one quarter of respondents consider democracy to be a fair governance system.

• 94% feel they have little or no influence over what happens in Russia.

• 82% feel little or no responsibility for what goes on in their country.

• Nearly two-thirds think that the authorities and state officials are above the law.

Similar findings have been presented by WorldPublicOpinion.org.  But how long can Putin count on the political apathy of the Russian people?  Or as Boris Nemtsov has asked, how long will people honor the “invisible contract” that they have made to “tolerate corruption, mismanagement, crime, and the constraints on the mass media as long as they have buying power and continue to live better than they did in the Yeltsin era?”  Most believe it may be for quite a while.  In an article for Time which featured Putin as 2007’s Man of the Year, Nathan Thornburgh describes the phenomenon as one of “grass roots autocracy,” whereby submission is “voluntary,” “enthusiastic,” and “increasingly seen as not only tolerable but also intrinsically, uniquely, gloriously Russian.”  Michael McFaul and Kathryn Stoner-Weiss wrote recently in Foreign Affairs that social and political freedoms are widely seen as “necessary sacrifices on the altar of stability and growth.”  

Next:  Inside Moder Russia:  The Russian System of Government:  Vladimir Putin