[A Moscow writer and historian] notes that in the US, a president gains legitimacy through elections. In Russia, it’s the president’s top-down control that validates the election result. He says many view Putin’s ability to hold onto power for 17 years through essentially faux elections as a power to respect. “Americans think other people are just like themselves,” he says. “We are not Latin Americans, or Eastern Europeans. We are Russians.”
Indeed, Russians have suffered through multiple devastating wars, revolutions (Bolshevik and the breakup of Soviet Union), and most recently, an economic downturn driven by the crash in commodity prices. Moreover, the aging population means many experienced the turmoil first-hand (or know somebody who did), and the people are sick and tired of unstable politics. Ultimately they turn to iron-fists to lead the way.
The nostalgia factor also comes into play, Russians long for the good old days when their country was respected as one of the global superpowers. From the perspective of the average citizen, although the end of the Soviet Union heralded the end of the Cold War tensions, for many, it was the start of years of political and economic uncertainty, as well as a diminished place for the Russian people on the world stage. Perhaps they wish that somebody, a modern-day Josef Stalin(???), would Make Russia Great Again.
Finally, there is also complacency. This is particularly acute not in Russia but in many developed western democracies. From Stephen M. Walt:
The historical evidence, however, is stacked against authoritarian leaders. From Steven A. Cook:
The reason dictatorships tend to fail, is because their goal is ultimately to stay in power. They particularly understand they are likely to go to prison *or worse* once they are out of office. So just keep the power center all to yourself. Everything else -- political reform, rights and freedom, economic growth, and institution-building -- becomes secondary. In the end, although with great power comes great responsibility, it's still true that absolute power corrupts absolutely.
The nostalgia factor also comes into play, Russians long for the good old days when their country was respected as one of the global superpowers. From the perspective of the average citizen, although the end of the Soviet Union heralded the end of the Cold War tensions, for many, it was the start of years of political and economic uncertainty, as well as a diminished place for the Russian people on the world stage. Perhaps they wish that somebody, a modern-day Josef Stalin(???), would Make Russia Great Again.
Finally, there is also complacency. This is particularly acute not in Russia but in many developed western democracies. From Stephen M. Walt:
[...] entrusting one’s fate to a Great Leader is tempting because it spares us the burden of thinking for ourselves. For democracy to work, citizens have to pay a some amount of attention, be reasonably well informed about key issues, and be willing to hold politicians genuinely accountable for success and failure. By contrast, pinning our hopes on a Great Leader allows us to check our own judgment at the door: all we have to do is trust in the Leader’s alleged wisdom and all will be well. Given the repeated shipwrecks that democratic systems have produced in recent years (the financial crisis, Iraq War, Eurozone debacle, growing inequality, etc.) is it any wonder that [some people] are willing to turn the helm over to someone who conveys an image of independence, resolution, and confidence?
The historical evidence, however, is stacked against authoritarian leaders. From Steven A. Cook:
There are, of course, outliers. The governments of Singapore, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar have strong track records of development, security, and global prestige. They claim legitimacy because nondemocratic, but also mostly nonrapacious, governments have created wealth and with it superior infrastructure, longer and healthier lives, and opportunities for their citizens. Of course, these governments are not always [benevolent], but there is no denying Singaporean, Emirati, and Qatari success. These accomplishments are, however, specific to these places with small populations, unique locations, vast wealth, and particularly charismatic leaders. In other settings, strongman states have more often than not become predatory. In large, complex societies, reform requires a degree of consensus and some devolution of authority, neither of which your typical strongman — even a reformist-minded one — can countenance. The result is the instability of authoritarian politics and the pathologies they produce including violence, corruption, and radicalization.
The reason dictatorships tend to fail, is because their goal is ultimately to stay in power. They particularly understand they are likely to go to prison *or worse* once they are out of office. So just keep the power center all to yourself. Everything else -- political reform, rights and freedom, economic growth, and institution-building -- becomes secondary. In the end, although with great power comes great responsibility, it's still true that absolute power corrupts absolutely.
No comments:
Post a Comment