Opinion Focus: Rejecting Russian Democracy?

Russia's effort to overhaul Yukos Oil has flagged a reluctant commitment towards economic reform. The climate for international business is in question, and many in the international community are now wondering if political turmoil will be a consequence of shaky economics.

Sarah Mendelson, senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, questions the strength of Russian democracy. Is democracy what Russians truly want? Is the current Russian democracy sustainable? Is there an alternative? Or is there a means to improve the existing system?

Sarah Mendelson was live online at 2 ET on Tuesday, August 24, to discuss the outlook for Russian democracy.

Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.

_____________

Princeton, N.J.: In your op-ed, you do not explain what terms like "democracy" and "authoritarian government" are understood to mean to the Russians you polled. For them, is "democracy" simply a matter of holding an election, or does it also imply other personal freedoms or features of civil society? Likewise, is "authoritarianism" understood to mean that Russians don't want elections, or rather that they want a government that is more effective in guaranteeing law and order, even at the expense of certain individual liberties?

: Hi Princeton, N.J. and thanks for the question. As you probably know well, in an 800 word OPED there is certainly much that is left out. So let me respond briefly. First, the question about democracy versus authoritarian government comes from a survey that is asked around the world. For that reason it is useful; we can compare our findings with respondents to other surveys asked on the Afrobaromter for example or surveys in Asia. Second, you are correct that there are other survey questions as well as other forms of research, such as focus groups, that are necessary for "unpacking" how Russians understand this concept. But again, I think the message of a split population holds. What we have also found is that those who support authoritarian forms of government have more crystallized world views. For example, there is a strong correlation of those who would vote for Stalin with support for government control of media, increased use of force in Chechnya and support for authoritarian forms of government. Those who support democracy in the abstract do not have quite such a well defined world view. One last thing to add: we often read that Russians do not support human rights. Our extensive data on how Russians view particular human rights reveal very strong support for freedom from torture (80%) and from illegal arrest (67%). Support for civil liberties is weaker; nonetheless, 39% say protecting freedom of expression should be a top priority of the government, 28% say the same for protecting freedom of religion, and 26% for freedom of association. On all these questions, a considerable number of respondents -- from 15% to 40% --choose "don't know," suggesting many have not made up their minds about democracy. Look for more of our research on this question: we are especially interested in this question of "law and order." Thanks.

_______________________

Harrisburg, Pa.: Isn't a major problem that the Russian people have had little historical exposure to true democracy? May their attitudes towards democracy improve over time as they observe democracies that work and if their government moves closer towards a democracy that is more open to public expression?

: Hi Harrisburg! Historical legacy is an issue for every country including our own. We think that an important issue that affects the development of democracy in Russia today is in fact what George Orwell called "memory holes." How do people understand the past? There has never been a full accounting of what happened under Stalin. When we hear educated Russians speak in focus groups about "the order" that was under Stalin, we realize they cannot possibly be speaking about the random terror of having the KGB knock on your door or your neighbor's door and haul you off to jail. So it is not only that current problems are lack of exposure but a process of reconciliation with the past that has not gone on but which we observe as very important in places like Germany. In closing, to be clear, we do not believe that any country or society is bound to its history. So yes, their attitudes toward democracy can improve with exposure and with practice.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: It's peculiar that the Bush administration thinks we can export democracy rather quickly to countries such as Afghanistan and Iraq when countries much more amenable to democracy are dismantling their system. Should the United States stop worrying that every country in the world does not operate just like we do and learn to accept different forms of government?

Sarah Mendelson: Hi Arlington. The lessons from Russia and other parts of Eurasia do not seem to be playing a large role in the Bush Administration's thinking on democracy promotion. I worry most that the USG is not engaging in a coherent, strategic assessment of how much such support for democracy and human rights actually costs. In many places around the world, including Russia, sometimes it feels like whatever is left on the cutting room floor at the end of the budget process is then devoted to democracy work. For years, this work has been underfunded. On the second part of your question, this work is not about having countries "operate just like we do." It is about supporting in many ways the various rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: freedom from torture; freedom from arbitrary arrest. People everywhere should have the freedom to worship how they choose, or to engage in free and fair elections. So, while people often think of democracy promotion as promoting the US form of government, this is inaccurate. Happily, the US is not the only government engaged in supporting democracy and human rights: many European governments do as well. And let's not forget important foundations, such as Ford, MacArthur, Soros, the Mott Foundation, that also work on these issues. Thanks.

_______________________

Indianapolis, In.: Does the Yukos problem really tell you anything about Russian democracy. After all, Russians are upset that their mineral and natural resource wealth were "given" to these Oligarchs. Legally, yes, but ethically? What can Putin do now?

Would it not be best for the Russian people to become communist again and start the democracy thing all over again? But right this time? As we'll find out in Iraq, democracies are not such easy things to make. It's better to have a plan than just a hope.

Sarah Mendelson: Hi Indianapolis! I think the "Yukos problem" does tell us something: it confirms for many in the investment community what many of us working in human rights have seen for many years. Sometimes the harassment from authorities is quite subtle. Sometimes it turns violent. We have seen countless individuals (in many cases, colleagues) investigated, intimidated, interrogated, sometimes jailed, accused of treason, some beaten by federal and local authorities, and in a few cases, killed. In addition to business leaders, this has happened to journalists, to environmentalists, to human rights and labor activists, to political party activists, to students and to scholars — Russians as well as Americans and Europeans. Visas have been revoked or denied. Tax police have dropped by unannounced. Registration papers have somehow been lost. So Yukos has in many ways focused the world's attention on the fact this sort of "rule of man" environment thrives in Russia. Much has changed since the collapse of the Soviet Union and going back is not anyone's idea of progress. What I am concerned with is the steadily shrinking public political space which makes it increasingly difficult to have opinions that are in any way different from those held in the Kremlin. My colleagues in Russia would like to see basic institutions, such as an independent media, supported and not squashed. To have NGOs function without interference. We know what the institutions are that are needed. We just hope the authorities stop getting in the way.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Do you think that, based on the government's (indirect and direct) control of the media (which would create difficulty in implementing a large scale "public awareness" campaign), corruption within the Russian legal system, anti-democratic sentiment related to the income inequality created by western influenced economic policies, and the simple fact that nearly two-thirds of the country is either hostile or indifferent towards democracy, that it is not enough to pump money into NGOs in the hopes that these will create enough democratic feelings so that a "civil society" will become established? Do you feel that grassroots democratic action must be combined with diplomatic actions such as the threat of Russia's expulsion from the G8 or threatened economic sanctions in order to prevent a backlash against these NGOs once the status quo is disturbed?

Sarah Mendelson: Hi DC: I know that my colleagues in Moscow often feel very isolated when the US government, and European governments look the other way as the Putin administration erodes democracy and human rights at home. That has damage, and we think it actually emboldens the FSB (the successor to the KGB). So yes, there are diplomatic actions that should be explored and ways for governments outside Russia to support those inside Russia who care about democracy and human rights. I am not sure the expulsion is the answer but I would like to see a serious accounting of the OSCE, the Council of Europe and the UN on, for example, the issue of Chechnya. Where have they been? Why have they been relatively silent? Thanks.

_______________________

Katonah, N.Y.: Extraordinary sums of money were spent by foreign governments and NGOs in Russian during the 1990s, ostensibly for the purpose of supporting the development of civil society and "democracy building." George Soros' Open Society Institute alone spent over $1 billion. In hindsight, however, it's debatable how much of an impact they actually had - or thought they had, at the time. What lessons can we learn from the mistakes of the 1990s to make future foreign democracy aid to Russia more effective?

Sarah Mendelson: Good afternoon Katonah! People often make this argument that so much money has been spent. I am not sure what you mean by extraordinary sums of money. The USG has spent about $18 million on democracy assistance in a country with about 145 million people per year in the last several years. We spent billions and billions during the Cold War on defense. Russia's political trajectory is important to us and having Russia as a democratic partner is important to us - seems worth the cost. But yes there are lessons to be learned, of course, from what was done in the early 1990s. (I edited a book called The Power and Limits of NGOs that addresses this topic.) Today in the Washington Post we write about one such lesson: listen to the Russian population and shape programs around the public opinion data. What do Russians care about? Also very important, the Russian activists need support in shaping messages and reaching the public. Social marketing is new in Russia. If NGOs in Russia are working on issues of importance to the Russian population, such as ending police abuse, or ending hazing and other abuses in the army, then it is good for Russia and support will have a larger impact.

_______________________

DC Metro: I think many observers would agree that it is an understatement to say the current trends in Russia are anti-democratic. However, they are hardly a surprise. They are more in keeping with long-standing political traditions in Russia than anything else. Nevertheless, I believe that the U.S. has failed Russia by squandering the unique opportunity to support the fulfillment of democracy there over the past decade. Despite cursory overtures such as bipartisan commissions and the like, the U.S. has done little to influence positive trends in democratic development, preferring to let Putin have his way as of late. Since September 11th, the current administration's zeal for the war on terrorism, and its concurrent need for allies in the region, has led it to "look the other way" as Russia cracked down on critics of Putin, in much the same way that we have enabled authoritarianism in the Middle East that has led to some of the current malaise. How would you characterize U.S. policy toward Russia today, and do you see opportunities for productive reform in the next few years? What are the chances that our current lack of attention for Russia will yield major problems down the line and potentially create a North Korea-type of mindset toward the U.S. there as promises go unfullfilled? Thanks.

Sarah Mendelson: DC Metro: I see a policy on Russia adrift. I see little engagement. I see a real need for a new US policy toward Russia. A new policy toward Russia would encourage consistency rather than engage in selective preoccupation in democratic transition and human rights abuses in some states while ignoring them in others. This change would go far beyond Russia, but it could begin with Russia. We need to walk more like we talk so that Russians understand more precisely what the United States values. As is, the United States' commitment to democracy appears hollow. This leaves us vulnerable where we should be powerful. I am not sure what you mean by "major problems down the line." I see a dangerous sort of nationalism grow stronger every day in Russia. I see those who do not want Russia to be part of the Euro-Atlantic community gaining in strength today. Thanks.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: "Edinaya Rossiya," the pro-Kremlin political party of President Putin, seems to wield almost as much power as the CPSU did in Soviet times. Is there anything that the opposition parties and their leaders can do to increase their influence in Russian politics again? Or, does the fact that the Russian public is more comfortable with near one-party rule and having a strong executive make the likelihood of this happening rather small?

Sarah Mendelson: Hi Arlington: I am pessimistic about the state of parties right now. The Russian public has very, very little trust in political parties - all of them. They have more trust in NGOs which they seem to see as responding to their needs more. If I were a Russian party activist, I would start looking at what Russians really care about and trying to support people. Instead, it often looks as if party leaders make deals with the Kremlin and have forgotten about the population. But even if parties were strong in Russia, Russia needs (as does every country) a good system of election monitoring. Again, for that, Russia needs non-partisan, nongovernmental groups looking out for citizens. Russians would like real choices just like everyone. They have not had that of late. Thanks.

_______________________

Munich, Germany: During a vacation to Botswana, I had a chance to meet and have discussions with a few Zimbabwean expatriates, and hear their stories of the corrupt and authoritarian regime of Robert Mugabe. Upon returning home, I began to discuss some of these topics with my colleagues from Africa (Nigeria, Ghana and Togo), and I was surprised to find out that many of them believed that most of Africa is not ready for democracy: A functional democracy is something that takes a few generations to achieve.

By the same token, I'd like to ask you if you believe that Russia is capable of having a functioning democracy. Russia has a somewhat corrupt culture, and a fully functioning Mafia. Does democracy stand a chance in this type of environment?

Sarah Mendelson: Hi Munich! I think the data say it all: I think there are Russians who support democracy and many who do not know what they want. I think the real task for those of us who want to see democracy and human rights take hold in Russia is to persuade those who are "up for grabs" that a better future lies in the democratic path - rule of law, critical media, serious choice in elections, lively nongovernmental organizations. Just like I don't believe Germany's historical legacy dooms Germany, I don't believe Russia's does either. I have seen Russians in small towns that are as likely to be democrats as anyone: people all over want their rights to be respected. They want their kids to get good education. They want the laws of the country to be followed. I have faith ultimately that people are smart about these things. What I worry about is the authorities who may want to keep these rights from the people. I think this will all take a long time - it is not an overnight process. But I also do not think there is something that excludes Russians (or Nigerians, or Ghanians, or Germans for that matter) from democracy. Thanks.

_______________________

Washington, DC: Sorry about the pessimism, but if dismantling one of the most successful, transparent companies in Russia has not given Mr. Putin any pause whatsoever, what hope do you see for the fragmented, underfinanced NGO sector in Russia, other than the belief of the government that the NGOs are too inconsequential to bother shutting down?

Sarah Mendelson: Hi DC: I see Putin as having a tragic flaw in his leadership style. His need for control seems to have ruined this (YUKOS) company. How does he then expect the GDP to double by 2010 as he has often said he wants? On NGOs, I see the NGO sector as very pressured right now. They are the last real part of civil society standing and they need to be supported. I know there are good young people who are Russia's future because I get to work with them. I don't think there is a choice but to support them. Thanks.

_______________________