Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
five pillars of russian autocracy
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: five pillars of russian autocracy
In Authoritarianism Russia, Vladimir Gel’man discusses how he views government in two simple forms: democracies and non democracies (authoritarianism fitting into the category “nondemocratic”). Vladimir Putin runs a model of electoral authoritarianism using a facade of democracy. Putin manipulates political elites and the masses to achieve maximum power. Gel’man gives readers insight on the ways Putin’s model is both helping him gain power, and hurting him from gaining power. Putin uses electoral authoritarianism to strengthen his power through a facade of democracy by running unfair elections, and by controlling the media. This is allowing him to control the outcome and provide legitimacy of democracy. It is also allowing him to control what the citizens know, altering their view on his government. Within his facade of democracy his power is also being weakened from the limitations put on his power of oppression, the obligation to follow the constitution, dependency on the economy, and his requirement to comply with the elites demands. This is damaging to him because it allows riots and oppositions to form requires him to step down from office and risk his popularity on uncontrollable factors. With
At the end of his second term, he had the ability to change the constitution to grant himself more terms. However, using this ability would come across in a negative light from a democratic view-point. Which resulted in a “temporary job swap between Putin and Dmitry Medvedev…” directly taking away Putin’s power and handing it over to Medvedev. This weakness is the most crippling because it takes Putin’s presidential power away from him. This was a huge weakness in his model of electoral authoritarianism because it risks the chance that Medvedev, or future presidents, could gain elites support, keeping him out of
...oved to be singularly influential and daunting. This is, perhaps, the greatest obstacles to achieving true democracy in Russia—the authoritarian and repressive traditions that refuse to die out with the passage of time.
It lacked legitimate power to justify its actions. There was no tradition of Russia being ruled by a government such as this, indeed, many people were opposed to it. It was self-appointed and therefore many people questioned its authority. The lack of an able and charismatic leader simply compounded the problem. This was their chance to seize charismatic legitimacy and gain the support of the people.
Q8. After a hard loss during the Crimean War, the previous Czar Nicholas I position was taken over by his son Alexander II. This brought new change and hope to the people of Russia. Russians were hoping for change at the time, and that is exactly what the driven new Czar had brought to the table. Alexander II came along with the idea of modernization and social change for Russia. In order to do this, Alexander II created his reforms which he thought would be Russia's best interest in order to compete with other nations powers.
Historically, Russia’s relationship with the West has been shaky at best. From the Crimean War in the 1850’s to alienation following the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution all the way up to the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia has been “under attack.” This has forced them to adopt a mentality that is based in self sufficiency and autarky. As Western nations attempt to strengthen democracy in Russia in the 21st century, Russia has responded negatively to these perceived “intrusions.” Therefore it is important to ask what role the West should play in Russia’s development and what is hindering this from happening? In her book Russia: Lost in Transition, Lilia Shevtsova outlines two different ways the West can approach development with Russia: let them figure it out themselves or patiently create an international environment that the Russians feel comfortable in. Shevtsova clearly favors the latter. The West’s involvement is hindered however by double standards, ideological differences, and negative perceptions of the West’s motives by the Russian people. These must first be analyzed before showing how a cautious, assertive approach is the best way for the West to assist in Russian development.
The political system installed in Russia under the Tsar was long overdue for reform. Russia was a vast empire rather than a single country, and as the Tsar believed in ‘divine right’ he was its supreme ruler, which even with a great, strong charactered ruler, is still a huge task. Nicholas believed in absolute autocracy, and by doing this he did not manage the country well. He could appoint or sack ministers or make any other decisions without consulting anyone else. Unlike most other countries that had at least given them some freedom to say how their country was run, the Tsar was dedicated with the idea of autocracy, and seemed to be obsessed with the great past of his family.
becoming the Russian leader. They found him arrogant, which stemmed.
The mis-rule of Russia by the Rominov's had been going on for many, many years, coming to a head with the Russian Revolution of 1917. The Rominovs especially Nicholas 2nd believed that they were appointed by G-d to rule the country, and that whatever they thought, must be right. This led them to rule the country for their own interests and for the interests of the rich and important, not for the interests of most of the population, the peasants. The Tsar didn't listen to the peasants or most of his ministers, appointing and firing them at will. The Tsar, by not listening to his people or caring about their needs, helped Russia to stay very economically backwards when compared to the rest of the world. This helps to link into the cause of social and economic hardships, another important cause.
In a seminal work, Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson, and Sanford (1950) coined the term authoritarian personality and stated that it was characterised by strong adherence to externally imposed conventional norms, as well as submission or obedience to the authorities that promote those norms. According to Adorno and colleagues, these behaviours are attempts to deal with various personal insecurities. Specifically, authoritar- ian individuals displace their own anxieties onto weak minority groups in their culture (e.g., ethnic and/or religious minorities) or onto people who deviate from social norms (e.g., homosexuals). Displacement is often accompanied by associated beliefs that are highly evaluative and rigid. Other characteristics of the authoritarian personality include a cynical view of mankind, cognitive and emotional inflexibility. A belief in the need for power and toughness, the tendency to act harshly towards nonconformists, opposition to subjective or imaginative tendencies, and an exaggerated concern with promiscuity. Adler (1965) re-examined the personality char- acteristics described by Adorno and colleagues and noted that the central trait of the authoritarian personality is the ‘‘will to power over others’’, which results in aggressive overcompensation for feelings of inferiority and insignificance. Contemporary research continues to rely on many of the conceptualisations and measures originated by Adorno and colleagues (Martin, 2001; Stone, Lederer, & Christie, 1993).
In 1513, an Italian politician by the name of Niccolo Machiavelli distributed, though privately, a political treatise called The Prince. This treatise was, essentially, a guide on how to effectively rule one's country. It's important beforehand to define exactly what a Machiavellian is, before describing one. A Machiavellian is a leader who, through his power and influence, works toward the common good of his people. This can be done through fear, through deceit, even through manipulation. It is important to understand the main principle of a Machiavellian; the end justifies the means. The end being the common good of his people. Vladimir Putin is a Machiavellian in the ways he retains power, institutes reform, and executes economic recovery domestically; and also in the ways he manages international affairs, such as the issues with Syria, Snowden, and the 2014 Winter Olympics.
Rule of Lenin vs the Tsar The beginning of the 20th century saw a great change in the political structure of the Russia. A country once led under an autocracy leadership. was suddenly changed into a communist state overnight. Dictatorship and communism are at separate ends of the political spectrum. This study so clearly shows both involve the oppression of society and a strict regime in which people are unable to voice their opinions.
The land on which the peasants worked, was not shared out they began to up rise and kill the nobles and aristocrats, he could not give concessions, he wasn’t listening to the Duma he was self centred and ignorant. The people of Russia were beginning to see that other countries without monarchs were much further ahead in modern times, and they were becoming a third world country. The USA and France were undergoing huge economic development and industrial revolutions, and they were under a Republic rule, which as every mess caused by the Tsar, a republic became more and more desirable. Eventually the Tsar was no longer affective, all respect towards him was lost, and the people were loosing patience, the Russian armies were suffering huge losses in the war and worst of all, the Tsar had decided to take all control of his forces so he became responsible for all defeats and every mans death. And things were becoming desperate; food supplies were not getting to the frontline or to the people in
Causes of Dictatorship in Russia Around the 20th century, the end of the First World War cleared the way for the formation of democratic regimes. Why they had not been successful, why the people didn't use the opportunity to establish a democratic political system and why did the dictatorships appear, is still unclear, but it is a very discussable subject. The decisive role in these processes is the human being. It was the object of the cause, but on the other hand he was also the subject executor of all the problems as well.
"From Autocracy to Oligarchy." The Structure of Soviet History: Essays and Documents. Ed. Ronald Grigor. Suny. New York: Oxford UP, 2003. 340-50. Print.
democracy is failing in Russia, and one of democracy's flaws. Democracy is also a very slow
Navalny, Alexey A. 2014. How to Punish Putin. NY : The New York Times, 2014.