Russia’s political system has frequently been criticised by Western politicians and commentators, with some observers drawing parallels between the rule of Vladimir Putin and the old Soviet regime during the communist-era. But how accurate are these criticisms? Andrei P. Tsygankov writes that a particular narrative which views Russia as a ‘neo-Soviet autocracy’ has built up in western media sources. He argues that this narrative ignores the reality of Putin’s regime and serves simply to legitimise the identity of the United States and the American-led ‘free world’ relative to that of an ‘oppressive’ Russia.
Advocates of Western-style democracy frequently assert that Russia has built a neo-Soviet ‘autocratic’ political system with elements of totalitarianism. Struggling to understand the country’s transition from the USSR, Western media commonly describe Russia in terms of its fitting with the old pattern. Contemporary Russian politics is assessed not on the scale of how far it has gotten away from the Soviet Union, but, rather, how much Russia became a Soviet-like ‘one-party state’ driven by a ‘KGB mentality’ and dependent on the use of propaganda, ‘Cold War rhetoric’, and repressions against internal opposition in order to consolidate state power.
Surveying editorials in leading American newspapers, it is easy to be struck by the power of the neo-Soviet autocracy narrative. Violations, irregularities, and improvisations in Russia’s political life are now typically attributed by the U.S. media to the Kremlin’s fear of opposition and the overly centralised, non-accountable system of governance.
Such consistency is accomplished by the presence of a coherent narrative of Russia. In particular, the U.S. media sustains and promotes the binary narrative that juxtaposes and contrasts the vision of a morally inferior neo-Soviet Russia with that of a superior American system. For example, while explaining the Kremlin’s growing mistrust in the United States, the Washington Post advanced the following interpretation:
With former KGB officer Vladimir Putin in charge, Russia has become increasingly closed in many ways. Historical archives that after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 welcomed scholars from all nations have re-shut their doors. Television has fallen back under government control. International organizations have been pushed out of Russia, and independent nonprofit groups in Russia have been squeezed, harassed and threatened. Russia is essentially a one-party state, as it was 20 years ago.
The United States by contrast is wide open. Unlike American organizations in Russia, the Russian government is welcome to hire public relations firms here, put Russian programming on cable television and distribute its message as it sees fit. Its diplomats are welcome to attend think-tank seminars in Washington, and the give-and-take of American politics is an open book for them.
Key references here include characterisations of Russia as “closed”, associated with the KGB, the Soviet Union, and “government control” as well as presentation of the United States as “by contrast” “wide open” including to influences by the Russian government.
Overall, while promising not ‘to ignore the dark side’ of Russia’s political system with its corruption, selective use of law, and low tolerance for opposition, the American press has ignored all other sides of Russia by making the ‘dark side’ central to its coverage. By exploiting misleading historical analogies, it has offered one-sided interpretations of complex processes, and ignored areas of political development that do not fit the narrative. In particular, the U.S. media has failed to notice political areas not controlled by the government, sources of support for Putin not related to the Kremlin’s ‘relentless propaganda’, and actions by the Russian state that do not fit the description of ‘dictatorial power’.
Parallels to Soviet (totalitarian) practices are misleading not only because they make no distinction between Stalin and post-Stalin developments, but also because they present the Soviet experience as the only significant one for understanding Russia’s historical trajectory. If, however, the contemporary Russian system does not fit expectations of a Western-style democracy, this does not yet make this system a Soviet or neo-Soviet one.
Instead, Russia reaches back to its centuries-long political experience before communism. After the stifling decades of communism, historical thinking is being revived inside the country. Rather than making references to the Soviet past, Russian analysts more commonly resort to analogies of the Times of Trouble (smuta), Dual Power (dvoyevlastiye), In-Between-Tsardom (mezhdutsarstviye), or other historically meaningful terms. Although the U.S. media makes occasional references to ‘czarist’ practices, it is much more comfortable with the Soviet parallels – arguably, because it knows too little of Russia’s pre-Soviet history and its differences from the Soviet period.
The strong state system Russia is aiming to revive is not what the editors of the New York Times or Washington Post have in mind when they discuss Russia’s ‘autocracy’. The strong state is not to be confused with totalitarianism or unlimited control over private and public life. Even tsarist autocracy (samoderzhaviye) was largely respectful of established social and political boundaries, as the Church, nationality, and the self-governing institutions served as informal constraints on the Tsar’s power.
The post-Soviet state also does not seek to eliminate competition in economic and political life, as the Soviet regime did. Instead, the Kremlin wants to shape and influence such competition. State shares in economic corporations, the designation of Dmitry Medvedev as Putin’s successor, attempts to influence institutions of civil society by creating the Public Chamber from above, providing grants to Russian NGOs though a competitive process, and initiating changes in the legislature to limit foreign influences in Russian politics are all examples of such state efforts to influence competition.
As Graeme Robertson writes, under such a hybrid regime, “competition is less something that authoritarians have failed to eliminate, but rather something that they consciously allow and try to control”. Despite additional limitations placed by the state on political competition in the country following the Ukraine crisis, areas of freedom in Russia are significant, especially when compared to the Soviet period. Alternative news coverage remains available, as the internet, newspapers, and some radio and television channels are largely free of state control.
The U.S. media is also incorrect to assume that high levels of public support for Putin predominantly results from the Kremlin’s ‘relentless propaganda’ and that ‘when given a real democratic choice, millions of Russians will reject Putinism’. Perceiving a strong state rule as illegitimate and backed up primarily by propaganda and force has been a common Western error in judging bases of political stability in Russia. In practice, many Russians historically supported a strong state and did not view it as internally oppressive.
They justified such a system by the needs of internal development and security from outside threats. Russia’s vast size, geopolitical vulnerability, and economic underdevelopment dictated that the ruled ones would have considerable support for a highly centralised system. Of course, Russian rulers differed. Some of them neglected the need for internal development and engaged in risky international adventures, while others used their time wisely by formulating long-term objectives and mobilising the required resources. Public support for rulers varied too, but it has been largely supportive of a ‘good’ or ‘bad’ strong state, rather than a Western-style democracy.
Finally, it is misleading to view Putin as a ruler with dictatorial power responsible for all the achievements and flaws of Russia’s political system. Comparisons between Putin and Stalin are common in the U.S. media, yet there is little appreciation of Putin’s administrative weakness and inability to deliver on his own promises. The Russian state is frequently ineffective in dealing with serious problems: from mobilising economic resources to solving crimes. The U.S. media occasionally alludes to this, but it is more typical to assign Putin responsibility for the murders of journalists or opposition politicians, terrorist acts, and other grave developments in Russian politics.
In cultural and political terms, the neo-Soviet autocracy narrative serves to legitimise the identity of the United States and the American-led ‘free world’ relative to that of the ‘oppressive’ Russia. To American elites, Russia makes an important public enemy because, arguably, no other country has challenged U.S. values and interests as vigorously and persistently as Russia. The U.S. media reflects fear of the strong state system by presenting it as a mirror image of the American system and grossly simplifying Russia’s complex transformation. The narrative assists the media in engaging with the U.S. public in part because old Cold War views have not entirely disappeared from the public mind and have not been replaced by a different understanding of new realities. As the media has not presented an alternative Russian narrative, American society remains receptive to the dominant perspective.
Please read our comments policy before commenting.
Note: This article gives the views of the author, and not the position of EUROPP – European Politics and Policy, nor of the London School of Economics.
Shortened URL for this post: http://bit.ly/1LgfZng
_________________________________
Andrei P. Tsygankov – San Francisco State University
Andrei P. Tsygankov is Professor in the Departments of Political Science and International Relations at San Francisco State University. He is the author of The Strong State in Russia (OUP, 2015).
Excellent article, it is nice to see a well thought out, evidenced and articulate article on the subject of Russia.
A refreshing change from the typical media coverage where simplistic phrases like ‘putin is a dictator’ ‘russian agression’ or others are taken as fact without evidence or any background understanding of how the geopolitical situation as it is came to be.
Care to explain why you think this?
How the weather today in St Petersburg Russia at 55 Savushkina Street. Putinbot ?
“refreshing change” thanks for the laugh
The article appears defensive of the current Russian regime. Yet it usefully prompts us at least to consider whether many of the views often expressed in the western media are unhealthily over-concerted. I found it a helpful reset for my thinking on Russia.
I think the key point with Russia is that a state not being like the US model of democracy doesn’t necessarily make it an immoral state system. If you try to impose democracy top down then it can have disastrous consequences. In Iraq we tried to import US/European style democracy and ended up alienating the Sunni section of society while undermining the state’s authority to govern. The end result was chaos and ISIS.
Political systems are mainly justified by their consequences. The Russian political system is not perfect and there are many many problems with how people are represented, but the answer isn’t simply to copy America.
Where do you get this idea that the views expressed by the western media on the Putinist regime is “over-concerted”?
Sorry for slow response. Over quite a range of western media reports, I was struck by the monotonously similar negative views on Putin’s behaviour, almost as if in concert and mostly accompanied by unreasonable amounts of ‘mind-reading’. A few articles emphasised probably relevant aspects of Russian history but none seemed to leap the apologist barrier. Somehow this article reaches me, helped by its level tone and maybe even the author’s Russian-sounding name.
Funny you should dismiss the mass of western media reports that you’ve read as monotonous and negative when it comes to its views on Putin but then treat this single article which you admit as appearing to be defensive of Putin as divine revelation in helping you reset your thinking on Russia. While your answer to my question certainly doesn’t would not support the argument that the western media’s reportage on Putin is in any way “concerted,” perhaps a better question to ask is why you have such wildly divergent standards when it comes to evaluating the utility of media publications in facilitating a better understanding of Putin and Russia.
As someone who has friends in Russia, I completely agree with your assessment. I know those who support Putin (for various reasons), those who dislike him (for various reasons, none of which allude to him being any sort of dictator or czar), and those who honestly don’t care either way. Russia has a multi-party system. It just happens that the current party is the most popular among voters. I by no means agree with Putin’s actions but I fully try to understand them as best I can. The conclusion I came to was not the cold war narrative being pushed by the western media.
Putin grew up in the Soviet Union and I believe his motivations are to make Russia into a superpower again, not return it to a soviet system. He uses methods he believes are useful to achieve this. And in a sense, he uses the methods used by the US historically (invasion, backing rebel troops, and occupation). I believe the stand-off between the West and Russia results from a misunderstanding from both sides about the other (both their intentions and motivations).
“he conclusion I came to was not the cold war narrative being pushed by the western media.”
The word Putinist isn’t spelled as western.
I notice at least one commentator here uses the word “democracy” as if it were a concrete noun. That’s part of the problem. Better to consider what different polities go under the name “democracy”? How easy is it for the people to change the real government, not just the face in the shop window? Is “democracy” an end in itself or is it a means to an end? And similar (difficult) questions rather than assume “democracy” is as real, concrete and easy to define and describe as, well, concrete itself.
Russia is quite an old country and certainly has its own way of doing things. Measuring it by some (imaginary, if you look at the realities of the USA, UK, Canada, France, whatever) standard (that, looking at those countries isn’t actually very “standard”) is a waste of time. It’s also hypocritical and dangerous.
PS Americans didn’t actually invent it.
It’s a fine line between influencing political competition and eliminating it, a line you see but one I fear Putin’s people do not. Too many instances of electoral manipulation and outright fraud to be considered mere influence. Moreover, you speak of Putin’s administrative weakness as though it makes impossible the idea that he is ultimately behind the suppression of journalists and political opposition. Just because he can’t get the trains to run on time doesn’t mean he can’t get some thugs to do his bidding. Blaming the American media for repeating the simplistic political and “expert” analyses of Russia is only half right, or maybe even less. The Kremlin and the environment it fosters are also responsible for Russia’s poor image. It’s just that the American press has always done a better job of reporting simplistic-but-true negatives than complex positives on any topic.
It’s interesting how the author explains the revival of the “strong state system” in terms of the preferences of Russian society, but when it comes to U.S. values and interests it’s suddenly about the political-media complex…but then again that kind of intellectual dishonesty is unsurprising given the laughable essentialisms like “Western-style democracy” that Tsygankov employs.
As someone who lived through and quite vividly remembers the lies and horrors of the Cold War, (I was 13 during the Cuban Missile Crises—old enough to be very frightened)I believe the most dominant reason for the mindless Putin-bashing that goes on here in USA lies in the simple fact that the propaganda of the era has left everyone with severe brain damage. After all, since we were making expensive preparations to nuke USSR, it hardly mattered if the “experts” on USSR got the culture, history, and accomplishments wrong. There were a lot of professional liars—my least favorite was Marshal Goldman who was a frequent guest on PBS. With a voice dripping with contempt, he would describe USSR as this place where folks needed better instructions on how to pick their noses. I remember at one point, I screamed at my TV, Goldman, you idiot, you are describing a society where they put chess matches on TV and get viewers.
What is so disgusting about the Putin / Russia bashing this time around is they haven’t even bothered to change the lies. And why should they? They invested a lot of money in them and for 40 years, they worked. So now they just get updated. Of course the solution would be if public officials would learn a little history before they open their yaps—but that would require an expensive effort that would so disorient most people, it would be like telling them their God died. Just remember, the overwhelming majority of Americans do not even know that USSR fought the Germans in World War II. Expecting such cretins to understand the nuances of Tsarist Russia or the Orthodox Church would be like expecting your dog to learn C++.
“The following was written by someone who has a firm grasp on the various nuances of Russian history. He points out the errors in fact and logic of the new Russia bashers. On one hand, I want to congratulate him for pointing out the obvious flaws in the current narrative about Russia. On the other, I want to tell him, “Don’t you get it? Getting Russia all wrong is a feature, not a bug!”
Your elision of the above paragraph is unsurprising as it would’ve shown that the Putinist apologia which you’ve tried to pass off as your own on this website is outright plagiarism.
The reason the western scribes push for their so called liberal democracy is that their masters in the corporate financial oligarchy may infiltrate such sham democracies easily by purchasing politicians and media.
Further the article omits that Russia is under serious pressure from the aggressive Usa. Every measure taken by the Russians to protect themselves is not necessarily dependent on past times but may have been taken out of necessity. Presumably a reference to the past still makes sense and might also be easier to convey to a western audience ignorant about the pressure exerted on Rusdia.
If liberal democracies are such shams political systems, they why do they monopolize the top positions of every HDI that’s been published?
HDI, I dont know the meaning of that abbreviation.
The reason all liberal democracies are sham is the real power, the financial and corporate elites control both sides.
Thats the idea. Example from the 20th century: The same elite simultaneously as they controlled their lying puppets at home also backed all fascist regimes elsewhere to make sure the marxists, also backed by them, wouldnt take over. The falsehood of those I call puppets here may be studied in Hidden History The Secret Origins of WWI by Docherty & MacGregor. As well as the continuation at firstworldwarhiddenhistory.wordpress.com. You will be surprised when you realize the extent of the lies in official historiography and of the sham democracy. The prime Campbell Bannerman didnt know war had been in the planning for a decade and that his closest associates were involved.
A similar falsehood repeats itself in connection with WWII.
In 1991 operation Rockingham was deviced to deliberately produce false evidence of WMD and eventually the puppet Tony Blair used it to attack Iraq. At the present time the falsehood of western liberal democracies is so striking that they need cognitive infiltrators (like you?) to battle the embarassing truth. The so called Putin trolls (if there are any) only need to tell the truth.
The purpose of the Trotskyists (Trotsky was an agent for the ‘liberal democracies’ sponsored by the pupeteers) after WWI was to create chaos in Germany both to weaken Germany and to motivate the whole west to conquer the USSR.
If you are confused about Trotsky being a western agent, wait till you find out about the Fabian Society – created by liberals to control everything of a so called progressive nature. David Rockefeller was a Fabian Socialist.
It was preferred that the USSR start such a war but since the angloamericans failed to have their favourite Trotsky take over in the USSR the second best option was Hitler. He had been coached long before and apparently constituted plan B.
H S Chamberlain inspired Hitlers treatment of the jews. Another Chamberlain saved Hitler in power before WWII against the prussian generals. He also tried to fool Stalin to be left without allies by delaying negotians after Stalins repeated wish for an alliance with Britain. Stalin had no alternative but to make a deal with the germans. The devious British ‘liberal democracy’ did everything to cause the war and to see germans and russians bleed each other to death.
Then a change of guards took place and the next actor, the devious W Churchill took over. Chamberlain had fulfilled his part and now the false impression of heroic fight against evil was to be produced.
After the British had managed to build up Hitler they offered peace if he conquered the USSR and then made sure R Hess would never be free to reveal the truth and Churchill sprung forth and lied about it. For the record.
HDI = human development index.
Now that you know what the abbreviation means, please answer the question: if liberal democracies are such sham political systems, they why do they monopolize the top positions of every HDI that’s been published?
Real democracy without foreignimposed corrupting influence is what people want when they understand whats going on. Such democratic leaders are murdered or removed by themed revolutions. Read what John Perkins wrote about his role as an economical hitman. Either they took his bribes or others would send the ‘Jackals’. He saw it happen to those who wouldnt take the bribes. These days the honest people in several countries who in good faith join democratic uprisings not realizing it is part of a plot by the western oligarchy to rob those countries, are often forced to immigrate to the west by the plotters thus removing the much needed cadres. If they had a chance to go back in time they would have opted to cling to what they had instead of being fooled to help the foreign looters. This kind of realization has grown in the east despite the previously existing nontrivial relations between former eastern block countries.
Why isnt every country allowed to have democracy without meddling of the bankster agents corrupting everything they touch on behalf of the angloamerican hegemons?
So called Liberal democracies are the easiest to control by the financial elites. So they dont need to subject them to sanctions or coups if complacent puppets are in place as is the case in the west. But also the liberal democracies have only been allowed to exist largely within the same racial context. If the world consisted of only liberal democracies(without regime change ops by the hegemons) there would be more competition for the anglo-american hegemons. They want arrested development everywhere else so they can get the natural resources cheap and there will be no competitive economy rising. The Us parliamentarians were asking about the Us sponsoring of the bolsheviks and got the explanation that it would make Russia less competitive.
When there are some kind of strong leadership who care for the people and not just for a rich minority the banksters agents may fail to bribe and put their puppets in power. The actual criminal operation(criminal not just morally but even with respect to actual law since banks do not lend money but debt) of banking is never challenged in the liberal democracies. The courts dont dare fearing the economy will collapse. The fed= reason war could be made a bonanza for the banksters, was brought about through the corrupt nature of actual liberal democracy. You should take a look at the link I gave you to find out more about the fraudulent and evil nature of your ‘ideal’ system. One may add that marxism as well as all other forms of socialism was created under the auspices of British liberals. Of course the grassroots mostly never knew about that connection but the dicotomy of left and right is therefore another dimension of this sham liberal democracy. Those believed to be the opposite of left, like David Rockefeller, has been a Fabian socialist since nearly eighty years. Marx praising his favorable treatment in Britain in close cooperation with the british elites fomented class war between the proletariat and the middle class leaving the financial eites untouched. Had Russia been allowed peace instead of war and foreignsponsored revolution they would have been a competitor also in banking. The banksters need to create a worldwide cartel to get away with their scam. The freemasons acting on behalf of the banksters, decided to punish Russia for being independent in 1917. Today the british elite think tanks associated with RIIA, Chatham House, have stated that Russia must be coerced to accept globalization and plans for EUs enlargement eastward have been presented. The liberal democracy of Us/Uk is nothing but a fake cover for tyrannical imperialism.
^
Instead of copy and pasting, yet again, irrelevant material from an unknown tin-foil website, please answer the question:
If liberal democracies are such sham political systems, why do they monopolize the top positions of every HDI that’s been published?
Short answer There are no liberal democracies. In particular the Us and Uk are sham to a high degree. My former answer which contains true historical facts, and it was all picked out of my memory from reading trustworthy sources, mostly not available on the web so no pasting took place. That longer answer gave you the necessary perspective and if you go back and reread it you may better appreciate what is meant by the short answer. Then presumably in an ideal world when there really were genuine liberal genuine democracy, yes then people would probably want that. While waiting for that to be allowed they turn to leaders and regimes who care for the people and dont allow ruthless foreigners to loot their countries. Moreover, while it may seem shocking to you, I suggest Russias TV debates are more liberal than anything going on in the big western media where a pathetic political correctness rules and only specimens belonging to a controlled opposition are given space. This strange condition is upheld because the hegemon has the power to economically hurt many western countries where speculative bubbles exist. And this can only happen because there is too much power in the hands of financiers. If money creation worldwide was taken from private bankers and was in the hands of representative democrats there would be no incentive to allow irresponsible speculation and deliberate financial crashes. For genuine liberal democracies to emerge that would be a minimum condition in my view.
Tsygankov should read this
https://blogstest.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2014/03/11/vladimir-putins-justification-for-russian-action-in-crimea-undermines-his-previous-arguments-over-syria-libya-and-iraq/
And this
https://blogstest.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2014/03/31/putins-intervention-in-crimea-has-effectively-marginalised-his-domestic-opposition-in-russia/
So when will tsygankov publish his next article explaining the role that the russian media plays in fomenting russian nationalism by perpetuating the myth of western hegemony?